Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/August 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:Bienenwabe mit Eiern und Brut 5.jpg, featured
Info: created and uploaded by Waugsberg - nominated by Adam Cuerden --Adam Cuerden 06:29, 22 July 2007 (UTC)- Info: Honeycomb of the western honey bee with eggs and 3 or 4 days old larvae --wau >
Support I love this wonderfully informative image. We don't have enough insect pictures that show the non-imago phases. --Adam Cuerden 06:29, 22 July 2007 (UTC)- Support--Mbz1 18:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- Support --Karelj 21:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support Basik07 12:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support -- J-Luc 11:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support -- Ram-Man 19:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support Very interesting and informative. --alexscho 12:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 07:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] image:Vein_skeleton_of_a_leaf__(de-ghosted).jpg Edit1, de-ghosted (by Lycaon), featured
.jpg)
- Info: The picture was taken by Mbz1 and corrected by Lycaon
- Support--Mbz1 16:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- Support --MichaelMaggs 17:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support I should have supported even with the ghost, but it's better without it. Vassil 20:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Christoph Michels 16:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support -- despite the cropped stalk... ;) Lycaon 21:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Pour Romary 14:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support - Keta 15:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 06:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Colonies of the second French colonial empire.jpg, not featured
- Info: created by M. G. Scott (1891) - uploaded by RedCoat - nominated by RedCoat (NB Descriptions of the depicted localities can be seen in the image summary.) --RedCoat 18:11, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support --RedCoat 18:11, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
- 2
Question: s Why is this one in colour? And why is the crop so tight (left and bottom)? Lycaon 19:48, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
-
- Info: The engraving is as it was scanned; the hue/slight colour is the same as how it appears in the newsmagazine. And the original engraving is not perfectly rectangular, hence it may appear as though the crop is too tight. However, you may perhaps prefer the second version; black and white with a wider crop. :) RedCoat 21:02, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Oppose Moire pattern in hills of the top image; the scan needs more resolution. There's dots instead of lines in a couple of the others. Is this from the original print, or a reproduction? Because that's a common reproduction error for engravings. Adam Cuerden 11:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
-
Comment Oops, I hadn't noticed that; the moire pattern can really be detrimental. The thin lines cause it in this case don't they? And it's an original engraving though. RedCoat 15:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Yeah, Moire's a problem with engravings. I don't mind if it shows Moire when shrunk by wikipedia - hell, one of my uploaded engravings does that - but it shouldn't have it at full, and this one does. Still, if you have the original, it shouldn't be too hard to scan it at a somewhat higher resolution, in which case I'll definitely support. Forgive the questioning about the dots in those grey skies - it's not a common engraving technique, so it's better to double check it's not an artefact of reproduction. (But I'm happy to believe you that it's not) Adam Cuerden 11:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support Excellent technical condition, good value.--Beyond silence 20:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Oryx gazella (Okevi).jpg, featured
.jpg)
- Info: An early morning breakfast by a Gemsbok (Oryx gazella) in Etosha, Namibia
- Info: created, uploaded and nominated by Lycaon -- Lycaon 11:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Lycaon 11:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support more African pictures, more equity. Dantadd✉ 12:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
-
- I like this picture. It's nice and clear and sharp, with enough light where it needs to be and a good composition, IMHO. But should I oppose to cancel out your vote? I have put up many of my own pictures for FP candidates, and so far, I have not succeeded. Is it because people don't like me? I don't think so. I think it is because they don't like my photos, as you say, they keep finding problems with them. So I listen, and I learn, and I think I am getting better at taking photos with less problems. People here want good pictures. It doesn't matter where they come from. Support. Ben Aveling 10:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
- I like this picture. It's nice and clear and sharp, with enough light where it needs to be and a good composition, IMHO. But should I oppose to cancel out your vote? I have put up many of my own pictures for FP candidates, and so far, I have not succeeded. Is it because people don't like me? I don't think so. I think it is because they don't like my photos, as you say, they keep finding problems with them. So I listen, and I learn, and I think I am getting better at taking photos with less problems. People here want good pictures. It doesn't matter where they come from.
- Dantadd, the red dragonfly is also fro Africa :)
-
- Support Not because it is from Africa, but because it is sharp, has great composition, and alot of wow factor. --Digon3 talk 13:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support--Mbz1 13:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- Support good quality and nice composition --AngMoKio 13:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support His position is a little unusual, but I like it. It's dynamic, and shows everything we need to see. Plus everything's wonderfully sharp and focused. Great work! Adam Cuerden 14:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose lighting is quite unfortunate (harsh, half of the body is in shadow) -- Gorgo 00:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support Basik07 21:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Agree with Gorgo. Plus composition - too much empty space, image does not focus on the main subject. --Derbeth talk 09:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
-
- I think Lycaon followed one of the most important rules of composition - don't place the main subject in the centre. ...I think it worked well. --AngMoKio 09:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
-
- Well, I was trying anyway ;-) -- Lycaon 09:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support I think it's ok. -- Ram-Man 19:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Simonizer 08:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
result: 10 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 07:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Edit 1, not featured
_edit.jpg)
- Comment I think the image is a bit oversaturated now. Gemsbok tend to be rather greyish than brown. Of course the rich morning light would slightly alter that impression... Lycaon 12:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support I don't know enough about them to decide which is more accurate. I'll let others decide, but one version should definitely be promoted. Adam Cuerden 14:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support I prefer this version, even if I've never seen a Gemsbock I believe there's no unreal colors. - Keta 18:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support Very nice. --Karelj 21:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose lighting is quite unfortunate (harsh, half of the body is in shadow) -- Gorgo 00:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose I find the colors a bit dull -- Tos 11:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support Basik07 21:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Agree with Gorgo. --Derbeth talk 09:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Nothing especial. Hugo.arg 11:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support I think it's ok. -- Ram-Man 19:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support Excellent technical condition, good value. --Beyond silence 20:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Simonizer 08:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
result: 6 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Dornstetten Kübelbachviadukt02crop2 2006-10-17.jpg, not featured
- Info: created, uploaded, and nominated by Klaus with K --Klaus with K 17:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Klaus with K 17:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment This is difficult. Technically quite good, and it has wow too. I'm not to sure about the cylindrical projection though, I have problems visualizing the bridge in real life. So I won't vote as yet. Lycaon 17:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Karelj 21:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support Tos 11:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose too many European FP pictures. Dantadd✉ 13:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Question: Please elaborate on this. --norro 14:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- See previous FP nominations. Dantadd✉ 15:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- What kind of argument is this?? Are you angry?--Christoph Michels 16:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Just a little bit, but don't worry, I'll survive. Dantadd✉ 16:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- I do not think it is a valid argument for opposing the picture. Would have you supported the same picture, if it was taken by a South American tourist? --Mbz1 16:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- We need more FP of Latin American subjects. It doesn't matter who takes the picture. Dantadd✉ 16:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- I agry we need more high value pictures from all over the world including Latin American subjects. Yet I'm not sure how opposing of that European picture could help to introduce the pictures from Latin America? There's no limit in the pictures that could get FP status.--Mbz1 16:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- Well' you're right, but until we have a more fair distribution I'll oppose all European and North American picture. That's my personal opinion. Dantadd✉ 16:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Everybody could have their own opinion and, if I were you, I would have tried to find some interesting Latin America pictures, which are in public domain, upload them to Wikipedia and nominate them on FP simply because opposing all European and North American pictures will not help your couse while nominating more Latin America pictures could help.--Mbz1 17:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- I'm gonna do it. In fact, I already did it with this beautiful historical picture (Image:Revolução de 1930.jpg), but, as always, the same users have found a hundred of unforgivable flaws in it. Dantadd✉ 18:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Everybody could have their own opinion and, if I were you, I would have tried to find some interesting Latin America pictures, which are in public domain, upload them to Wikipedia and nominate them on FP simply because opposing all European and North American pictures will not help your couse while nominating more Latin America pictures could help.--Mbz1 17:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- I think it would be a pity if this forum became a place for fighting over national or continental representation. So far I thought this was about good pics, but I just learned that you can't hide from politics :-) --Christoph Michels 20:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- I think that we must have to things in mind: good pictures and fair representation. If the election is just a matter of quality we already have the Quality Picture nomination. Please, take a look on the FP category: it's not fair what we see there. It's not a matter of politics, but everybody wants to feel represented. Dantadd✉ 22:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- How can it be a matter of representation without being a matter of politics? And how can you then demand one sort of politics (continentalism?)only? If we start this debate here we should also take into consideration all issues of fair representation, e.g. gender, nations, continents, species, humans/non-humans, classes, ethnic groups, religions, political parties (you could extend this list endlessly depending what kind of politics you are interested in.)But I think this issue (for this forum) had been settled long time ago. And at least I understood that FP is about (a politics of) representing high quality images with an encyclopedic value. If you have the feeling that some pictures are discriminated due to their origin you are right in yelling out loud. But: From looking at the way people argue here I do not share your perception. And: I can't understand why you then start to discriminate others due to their origin. --Christoph Michels 09:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- I think that we must have to things in mind: good pictures and fair representation. If the election is just a matter of quality we already have the Quality Picture nomination. Please, take a look on the FP category: it's not fair what we see there. It's not a matter of politics, but everybody wants to feel represented. Dantadd✉ 22:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Well' you're right, but until we have a more fair distribution I'll oppose all European and North American picture. That's my personal opinion. Dantadd✉ 16:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- I do not think it is a valid argument for opposing the picture. Would have you supported the same picture, if it was taken by a South American tourist? --Mbz1 16:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- Just a little bit, but don't worry, I'll survive. Dantadd✉ 16:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- What kind of argument is this?? Are you angry?--Christoph Michels 16:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- See previous FP nominations. Dantadd✉ 15:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment I have never seen such a ridiculous argument on Commons. Perhaps Europe simply does have more interesting subjects to be photographed? More skilled photographs?
- I think this vote should be crossed out and not counted as Featured pictures is not about expressing personal political/ideological views, but selecting good quality pictures. What if somebody votes against a picture of a politican saying "I don't like him, he's a liar"? This vote is a dangerous precedent. --Derbeth talk 09:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- The dangerous precedent has already been set. Just look at the FP category. Ridiculous argument is "Perhaps Europe simply does have more interesting subjects to be photographed? More skilled photographs?" This is not a political or ideological view, it's just a matter of equity, but it seems that a lot of people is getting angry because somebody noticed that there's is a wrong systematic in play here. Dantadd✉ 12:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- You are really funny. Now YOU (Dantadd) are the only one who opposes a picture because of the country where it is coming from (what a disgusting reason). If we all start a behaviour like you are doing here, we will soon have a mess here. That you as a Commons Administrator give such statements here is quite shocking for me. Again the nationality is of no matter here...i don't care if we have many pictures from Europe here...i want that commons becomes a source for good pictures. If we give low quality pictures with no composition the FP-status, then the FP in general will lose its value and we can close it down all together. But you don't seem to understand that - FP-status is only for the best pictures. --AngMoKio 12:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, I'm really wrong. I tried, but you seem not to agree that there's an absurd and blatant inequity in the features pictures. I'm not here by myself. This problem was brought to me by two editors on pt.wiki. There's just a sentiment of impotence and impossibility of a even minor representation here. But, you won. Keep going and thinking that everything is perfect. This is not a matter of electing bad pictures, I'm not asking that. I'm asking to little techinal flaws to be forgiven in order to have more equity. Just that. If it's just a matter of quality, why have two parallel elections to decide it?. I don't understand. That's my final comment on this. Dantadd✉ 13:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- Dantadd, we have more FPs of mammals (even without counting pictures of humans) than of beetles, while there can be aroung 350,000 species of choleoptera in the world, but less than 5,000 species of mammals. If this was a matter of fair representation, we should oppose every nomination of pics of mammals, and forgive flaws on beetle pictures until we reached equity among subjects. But we don't. We apply the same criteria (not just quality but also interestingness, uniqueness and usefulness - differences between QIs and FPs can be read in the instructions) to images, regardless of taxonomic class, order, or continent. Opposing a picture just with the comment too many European FP pictures looks as strange as opposing a pic of an oryx commenting too many FP of mammals. It's true that we have a bigger want of images of Latin American beetles than of European mammals, but we should have more FP of both types. --Javier ME 22:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- What if we sought equity among cities instead of among continents? If I found a second excellent and informative image of Brasilia, should I abstain of featuring it until we featured at least one of all the other cities which currently have none? I think we should feature more images, even if they were from Segovia , a minor European city of which there is already one FP. The problem with Image:Revolução de 1930.jpg was neither its continent nor it had a hundred of unforgivable flaws. It was that its values were not enough to overcome the certain flaws it had. I agree with Dantadd, however, in that the first questioned reason of the amount of European FPs were not probable "Europe simply does have more interesting subjects to be photographed?". It's very difficult to say if Europe has more skilled photographers than America, but it's easy to guess that the proportion of people with good photographical equipment and affordable access to Internet is higher in Japan, Western Europe or North America than in parts of Latin America or Africa. I also understand that taking photos of humans is easier than taking photos of insects without the proper makro equipment and skills, but anyway I suspect there is specism here and some voters are more interested in images of humans than of beetles, so we'll hardly reach equity in this :P --Javier ME 22:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support I like it --norro 14:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support J-Luc 14:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support Very nice... --Christoph Michels 16:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support--Mbz1 16:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- Oppose I dislike this projection. For architecture such as this, one cannot truly appreciate what this looks like, which dramatically detracts from its value. It may have lots of detail, but what good is detail if you don't know what it really looks like to the human eye? I prefer the projection used in this version. Its technical quality is why it is a QI, but IMO it's not a FP. -- Ram-Man 17:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support Very unusual shape, high wow factor. --Derbeth talk 09:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose I have to agree with Ram-Man. Judging from some of the other votes, people don't realize what is depicted here. Quality and wow are high though. Lycaon 09:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose That is just too huge an angle of view to be projected usefully on a flat surface. Is there no possibility to go further away and shoot this with a more tele lens? --MichaD | Michael Apel 10:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- Info: Not really, short of a completely different view. I had the time to wander around. As Ram-Man has found here and here one can go slightly back, but bushes start blocking the view. Further back the village starts, and from the other side you get no sunlight onto the bridge. And this photo may help to explain effects of cylindrical projection. -- Klaus with K 11:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- Schade :( --MichaD | Michael Apel 15:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Ack Ram-Man. Is a equirectangular or rectilinear projection possible? --Digon3 talk 13:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
|
cylindrical projection, the FP candidate |
 equirectangular projection |
 rectilinear projection |
 the bridge seen from the opposite site looking South |
Here for comparison (big discussions here please). -- Klaus with K 18:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment What if we trimmed a bit off the sides of the rectilinear, to remove the heavily distorted trees, then nominated it? Adam Cuerden 18:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment It still leaves the distorted pillars on the rectilinear. I think I am finding out the hard way that a mere flat screen is inadequate to display a panorama. -- Klaus with K 12:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- Info: Acknowledging some private discussions I feel that these are justification enough for me to say that illustrating the railway viaduct from the gallery above the right photo is presumably the best choice (unless one prints the image on a semicircular screen) but imaging the viaduct with its dominant horizontal and vertical components and also some fine structure in the girders the left photo can well illustrate the properties of a cylindrical projection. Rectilinear and equirectangular projections to serve as comparisons are now available as well. -- Klaus with K 19:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Ack Ram-Man - so I normally would Oppose, but I marked my vote as neutral because there is one more Oppose listed here than it should be. Now the final calculation should be fair again. Andreas Tille 10:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
-
- You bring back a level playing field — Thank you. -- Klaus with K 11:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Distracting projection.--Beyond silence 20:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose It's l'art pour l'art, no information value, on the contrary. On the other hand, the argumentation of Dantadd is very dangerous and inacceptable. In football it is Latin America, which is overrepresented, but nobody in his healthy mind would consider to limit their participation.--Szilas 09:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
result: 8 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 08:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Devil's golfcourse.jpg
- Info: created by Hu Totya - uploaded by Hu Totya - nominated by Texaswebscout --Texaswebscout 22:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Texaswebscout 22:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 |
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because the image is too small. -- Lycaon 22:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)) | Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed. |
[edit] Image:Vaisgina001.JPG, not featured
- Info: created by Hugo.arg - uploaded by Hugo.arg - nominated by Hugo.arg
- Info: Ajuga reptans
- Support --Hugo.arg 08:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Zaliavos 09:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Very grainy and unfortunate exposure. Lycaon 09:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support Algirdas 10:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose As Lycaon. --Digon3 talk 13:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose I do not see any reason for nomination. I can make tens of such pictures on my garden every day. --Karelj 18:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Low quality - no focus, overexposed. --Derbeth talk 09:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose quality. -- Ram-Man 19:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose --Beyond silence 20:47, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
result: 3 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 08:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Abertura Jogos Panamericanos 1 13072007.jpg, not featured
File:Abertura Jogos Panamericanos 1 13072007 edit.jpg
- Info: created by Ricardo Stuckert/PR
- nominated by Mbz1 --Mbz1 17:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Mbz1 17:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support Nice snap --Karelj 18:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support Poromiami 0:40 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support Adam Cuerden 08:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Atrocious quality!! Look at it full res ppl. Coming from a EOS 1D II N and a high end 16-35 (presumably) someone must have really butchered this in PS. Massive haloing from I suspect unsharp filter of amount 60-100%, 40-60 radius and threshold around 1 --Fir0002 www 08:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose ack Fir0002, all details seem to be lost. Lycaon 09:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose After looking at full size. --Derbeth talk 09:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose What have they done to that shot?! --MichaD | Michael Apel 10:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment hehehe.... it did not take too long... Dantadd✉ 12:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Dantadd, if you want some high quality pictures to nominate from South America you should ask LucaG. --Digon3 talk 13:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Bad post-processing. -- Lerdsuwa 16:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Full res on this is a lot of pixels. We are allowed to promote something if it looks good enough at > 2M, even if it doesn't look so good at the full 8M.
Question: Is it just me, or is it tilted? Regards, Ben Aveling 16:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC) - Comment I've made a very quick downsize plus tilt and perspective correction. I'd say it's still pretty bad at just over 2MP --MichaD | Michael Apel 21:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support João Felipe C.S 18:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
result: 5 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 08:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Zamek w Rabsztynie4.jpg, not featured
- Info: created by Pimke - uploaded by Pimke - nominated by Pimke 08:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- Info: ruins of a medieval castle in Rabsztyn/southern Poland
- Support --Pimke 08:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose the ruins are kind of escaping from the view --che 11:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Noisy sky. JPEG artefacts, especially blocky appearance of the grass around the woman's feet. William Avery 15:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Yikes, artifacts are pretty bad. -- Ram-Man 23:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Per William Avery. --Digon3 talk 01:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 08:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Tockus erythrorhynchus 0008.jpg, not featured
- Info: created by Atamari - uploaded by Atamari - nominated by Atamari
- Oppose Colour fringes, overexposed, insufficient focus, centred subject, missing location information,... Lycaon 12:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Unsharp and as above --Karelj 20:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose per above. -- Ram-Man 23:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Lycaon and also lighting. --Digon3 talk 01:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
result: 0 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 08:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Ochlodes sylvanus crawling MichaD.jpg, not featured
- Info: created by MichaD | Michael Apel - uploaded by MichaD | Michael Apel - nominated by MichaD | Michael Apel --MichaD | Michael Apel 16:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support Another informal view of a butterfly --MichaD | Michael Apel 16:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Neutral It's not bad, but the DoF seems a little shallow without EXIF information to verify. I'd expect the wings to be out of focus, but not the abdomen. -- Ram-Man 23:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)- Oppose Weak composition, weak representation of subject.--Beyond silence 09:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Too much is out of focus, and the composition could be better with just a little crop off the left side. --Digon3 talk 01:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I think the other version in the description page is better Ianaré 03:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 08:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Agama agama 0006.jpg, not featured
- Info: created by Atamari - uploaded by Atamari - nominated by --Atamari 19:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- Neutral --Atamari 19:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose lighting and background, especially the distracting leaves. --Digon3 talk 01:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Subject too small.--Beyond silence 18:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
result: 0 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 08:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Napoleon III after Death - Illustrated London News Jan 25 1873-2.PNG, featured
- Info: created by R. and E. Taylor - uploaded and nominated by Adam Cuerden --Adam Cuerden 07:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Adam Cuerden 07:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Like a lot of engravings, the borders are a little off. I've partially straightened the captions, though there's a bit of a compromise in not making the unparallel bottom line look too tilted. I swear, how could Victorians be this good at engraving, but unable to make parallel lines in the frames for their exquisite art? Adam Cuerden 07:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support--Mbz1 14:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- Support-- I opposed the FPC nomination on English Wikipedia, but for reasons that are not germane here. Spikebrennan 21:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support Nice illustration. - Keta 15:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support Excellent technical condition, good value. --Beyond silence 20:47, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
result: 5 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 08:46, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Swifts creek region444.jpg,not featured
- Info: created by, uploaded by and nominated by --Benjamint 11:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Benjamint 11:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Lots of noise in the mountains that day ;-) -- Lycaon 12:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, it must have been breeding in the shadows :-) I've reduced it--Benjamint 12:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - nice picture, but terrible description "Panorama of the region". What region? Country? And more: no categorization and not "subst:" personal license. Dantadd✉ 12:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment The picture is now correctly described and categorized. - Keta 12:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Too much noise. --Digon3 talk 13:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support - Fantastic picture. I like it very much. It's also fantastic, because according to its data it is taken in the future (August 2007)--Szilas 14:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support - Beautiful, like a pastel drawing. File info needs fixed, though. Adam Cuerden 18:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support - Nice peaceful scenery. --Karelj 19:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Aside from the noise, it's not sharp/lacking in detail, especially since it's a (down sampled) panorama. Also am I the only one who sees a wierd glow along the ridges between the far mountains and the sky? And too be even more picky, you should remove the three (dust?) spots in the sky on top of the mountain near the RHS of the pano... --Fir0002 www 22:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support Basik07 22:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- I've fixed the file info benjamint
- Support --J-Luc 11:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support Nice view. Hugo.arg 11:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support The photo is very nice, I guess the info will be corrected soon. - Keta 15:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support The colours tones make it looks like a very good painting to me :) Benh 18:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- I have added it to the gallery Swifts Creek, Victoria and put a link to there in the description. And it is in the category:Victoria, Australia --benjamint
- Question: Is this a golf course, or does the landscape just look like that? Spikebrennan 13:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Doesn't anyone other than me look at this pictures full res? I hate to say this, particularly since I'm quite pro-Photoshop editing/cloning/whatever and Ben is a friend of mine, but I can't stand by and see this get FP status without bringing this up. As can be seen by the separation b/w mountains and sky (white fuzz) the sky is almost certainly courtesy of PS gradient tool - ie it is fake. Looks to me as though the sky was completely blown in the image, and a simply blue gradient has been used (and a rather poor cut out spoiling the image). Note: if it was well done (unlike it's current state!) so that you couldn't tell I wouldn't have any problem with this. --Fir0002 www 08:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose As per Fir0002, there is a definite glow around the hills on the far side. Please correct it so I can change my vote on this otherwise fine picture. --Nattfodd 00:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support--Beyond silence 20:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose As per Fir0002 and the fact that manipulations were undeclared. -- Ram-Man 22:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- I'll fix the glow and renominate --benjamint
- Support --Jeses 16:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support It looks beautiful, quite like a draw... Yuval Y § Chat § 23:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose ack with Fir0002 about the glow --Simonizer 13:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support Wonderful view of peaks --Archivaldo 12:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Faint horizontal structures/lines in the sky (I presume from horizontal blurring). Also not fully convinced about parts of the horizon line. Apart from that a fine view, I like the colours. -- Klaus with K 13:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
result: 13 support, 8 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 08:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Jacques-Louis David - Mars desarme par Venus.JPG, not featured
- Info: created by Szilas - uploaded by Szilas - nominated by Szilas --Szilas 13:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Szilas 13:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose colours are not correct and the picture suffers from excessive noise. -- Lycaon 13:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- Question: - How do you know, dear Lycaon, that the colours are not correct?--Szilas 14:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support--Mbz1 16:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- Oppose Lovely painting, but if you look at in in full resolution, everything's full of red, green and blue flecks, like a George Seurrat painting. I'd be extremely surprised if an early 19th-century painting really looked like that up close. Adam Cuerden 18:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose I love J L David, but colours of this reproduction fail. I have an illustration of this work on a book and colours look softer. --Javier ME 22:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Lot of chromatic noise. I thought that he EOS400D at 1600ISO was better than this (I have the 20D, older). -- J-Luc 11:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment Apparently, he used DPP to process a RAW file, and maybe noise are that visible because of the NR settings. Benh 18:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment The arch at the top is not straight-- is this per the original, or is the scan crooked or a bit bent? Spikebrennan 13:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
- It's the original. I improved a bit the colours in the Commons, but I didn't re-load the picture here. It is a more than 3 meter high painting, it is no use to get too close to it, not even when studying the full resolution...--Szilas 11:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment You can find the left upper part of the backrgound structure curved in printed versions of the picture, too. --Javier ME 16:10, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
- Info: I corrected the noise. --Ikiwaner 20:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Nice painting but a bad reproduction. I'd wish an accurate colour rendering in a reproduction like this. Sharpness is substandard too. --Ikiwaner 20:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 08:50, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Young Monk in Shalu Monastery Shigatse Tibet Luca Galuzzi 2006.jpg, not featured
- Info: created and uploaded by Luca Galuzzi - nominated by Lycaon --Lycaon 09:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support -- Lycaon 09:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support -- J-Luc 11:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - Nothing especial. Hugo.arg 11:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Portraits are always deeply subjective, but I don't think this picture of a monk captures any particularly strong human emotion, which is needed for a wow-factor. -- Ram-Man 19:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Too much noise. --Derbeth talk 06:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support good portraits are hard to get, noise and highlights are tolerable --Simonizer 08:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support nice composition--Mihael Simonic 10:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 08:51, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] image:castle shumakov.jpg, not featured
- Info: created by User:Archivaldo - uploaded by User:Archivaldo - nominated by User:Archivaldo --Archivaldo 08:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- Info:A paper castle.
- Contra Noise, tilt, unfortunate background (especially the other photographer), harsh light conditions caused by frontal flash light --Simonizer 11:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose As Simonizer. --Digon3 talk 15:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose I agree with Simonizer. Furthermore its cropped --norro 15:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose -- ianaré 03:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
result: 0 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 09:06, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:William-Adolphe Bouguereau (1825-1905) - The Shepherdess (1889).jpg, not featured
_-_The_Shepherdess_(1889).jpg)
- Info: created by William-Adolphe Bouguereau - uploaded by Thebrid - nominated by grendel|khan 16:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support --grendel|khan 16:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
- Question: Face and hands look good. But very white behind her head and arms - is that an accurate reproduction of the original? Ben Aveling 17:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
- Check the feet and the area around that. It appears to be the sort of cracking you get in lots of oil paintings, but I can't find any copy that's not from the ARC as well. It doesn't look like it was scanned from a book (the ARC scans from some books, and the results show artifacts); I think this is part of the actual painting. grendel|khan 23:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support Good value. --Beyond silence 20:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support Presuming noone finds some error in reproduction compared to the original, of course, but it looks like all oddities are just normal effects of age. Adam Cuerden 04:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
result: 3 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Newport beach.jpg, not featured
- Info: created by Geoking66 - uploaded by Geoking66 - nominated by Geoking66 --Geoking66 04:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Geoking66 04:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Tilted and not really wow enough in the composition to become FP, sorry. Lycaon 05:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose As above. --Digon3 talk 16:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Low value and sharpness to FP. sorry--Beyond silence 19:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Not outstanding enough. --Derbeth talk 16:50, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 07:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:ArburetumVolcjiPotok path.jpg, not featured
- Info: created, uploaded and nominated by Mihael Simonic
- Support nice gold crop and colors --Mihael Simonic 06:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose not sharp, unfortunate lighting, no wow factor. Lycaon 07:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose good composition but sharpness is weak --Simonizer 09:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose I like everything about this picture except for sharpness. --Digon3 talk 16:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Can you do it better whit this camera? Ok. I will try take it whit another camera. --Mihael Simonic 08:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I think you can, try using a bigger aperture, f/2.8 gives a too shallow DoF. Also try a faster shutter speed or a tripod, depending on the quantity of light. --Nattfodd 10:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment No man, camera is totally automatic, I can't manual config aperture. Now I have Nikon d40, and can do it better. :-) --Mihael Simonic 08:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Success with your new camera !! Lycaon 09:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Thx. --Mihael Simonic 10:16, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Sharpness and lack of a proper subject. --Nattfodd 10:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Dark, unsharp, not particularly interesting. --Derbeth talk 16:52, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 07:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Caballo de Román Díaz.jpg, not featured
- Info: created, uploaded, nominated by User:Archivaldo --Archivaldo 08:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- Info:A origami horse.
- Info:Was it allowed by the artist to make this photo? --Kolossos 14:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- Info:I am the artist who made this photo.The horse was created by Román Díaz.
- Oppose Lighting and I don't think the subject is FP material. --Digon3 talk 16:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Lighting --Javier ME 21:57, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
result: 0 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 07:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Equus quagga burchellii.jpg
- Info: Closeup of a Damara Zebra (Equus quagga burchellii) close to Kalkheuwel waterhole, Etosha, Namibia. The trees in the background are Mopane (Colophospermum mopane),
created, uploaded and nominated by Lycaon -- Lycaon 19:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC) - Oppose The unfocused bush in the lower left corner is very distracting for me. --Digon3 talk 16:03, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Neutral - The texture and colours of the animal's hair are beautifully rendered in the photograph. But the composition is not good enough mainly because of the distrating background. Maybe it could be artificialy blurred? - Alvesgaspar 17:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose the background is a bit distracting and i would prefer to see the zebra a bit more from the front...but sharpness of the zebra is great--AngMoKio 09:34, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination Lycaon 06:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I seem to have problems judging the suitability of my own pictures for FP. I guess I should leave that more to others :-)). Thanks for the critics.Lycaon 06:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
result: Nomination withdrawn => not featured. --Simonizer 09:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Surfacing great white.JPG
[edit] Original
- Info:A great white shark at Isla Guadalupe, Mexico. Please note, we did not try to catch a shark. We did try to bring sharks closer to the cages. No shark was hurt. The picture is a digital copy of my old film picture.
- Info: created, uploaded and nominated by Mbz1 --Mbz1 04:11, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Mbz1 04:11, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I know that one will be very hard for you to support. After all it is a digigat copy of my old film picture. I know that community will rather support a sharp and common flower, than that rare image. Still I'd like to remind everybody one criteria of Guidelines for nominators, which states: "A bad picture of a very difficult subject is a better picture than a good picture of an ordinary subject. A good picture of a difficult subject is an extraordinary photograph." The nominated picture is not a bad picture, yet it is a digital copy of an old film picture. --Mbz1 04:11, 4 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- Oppose Ok, it's a hard and extraordinary photo. But it worse that hard - not FP.--Beyond silence 04:36, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- No surprise here. Oh well,I guess you're right. It is not fp picture. Anyway it would have been out of place between sharp flowers and bugs, but I still believe that this image is much more encyclopedic, has much more value(which in my opinion is the most important thing) than many FP pictures both on Wikipedia and Commons do.--Mbz1 04:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- Comment I'd like to explain what I meant under digital copy. That image is a digital picture of my old film picture, in other words it is a picture of a picture (I have no scanner)--Mbz1 12:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- Question: Can you try to make a new scan of the neg, with a new lab or with the same but asking them to make no correction on it, in particular the contrast ? Because I'm sure that with a good lab, the photograph will be much, much better, the problem coming from the digitalization. Sting 13:35, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Remember it is not a scan at all. It is a picture of a picture. I'm not sure where to look for the lab that does neg scans and besides I'm too laizy to bother, but maybe I will for that picture. Thanks--Mbz1 16:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- Oppose both. Low quality image, and doesn't strike me as being very good compositionally either. It looks to me a pretty standard shot [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] from one of these diving trips. Would have liked to see one with a bit more action [7] [8] or at least minus the obviously unnatural rope line [9] --Fir0002 www 01:30, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- #3 is not bad, only too small. #7 and 8 are great.I like #9 too. I wonder, if the guy will agree to upload it to Wikipedia with a free licence and without a water mark. #1,2,4,5 and 6 also nice images, but in my opinion my image is much more interesing. Anyway you did your homework. Thanks and have a nice day.--Mbz1 02:10, 5 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- I withdraw my nomination not because it is not passing. I knew from the beginning it will not pass, not even because it gets opposed(you know I do like opposes almost as much as I like supports), but rather because the way it gets opposed especially by fir0002. Of course user made some progress and instead of commenting on my spelling, like he's done on other occasion, he tries to comment on the image. Well for some reason, his comments do not feel right. I would not mind any comments from one, who was in cage with sharks. I would not mind valid comments from everybody else.I do mind sarcastic and unfair comments from the one, whos very best wild life image is a supper quality and a supper no value (in my opinion) image of a head of giraffe taken in a nearby zoo.What was also rather surprising that all very nice samples, which fir0002 shared with us were taken not from Wikipedia. It is really strange to me because just few days ago fir0002 wrote to me: "Wikipedia doesn't want people to get the info from another site, it wants to give the people the information." Thanks to all, who wanted to oppose the image, but never did.
result: Nomination withdrawn => not featured. Simonizer 09:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Edit
Info: I think it's a very interesting picture.I propose an edit; I reduced it,I smoothed the sea and I sharpened the shark (some parts more than others).It isn't really sharp yet, but it's absolutely shark! Vassil 14:02, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
-
- Thank you, Vassil. You did a great work on it. --Mbz1 16:26, 4 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
[edit] Image:80486dx2-large.jpg
- Info: created by Uberpenguin - uploaded by Uberpenguin - nominated by Zedh --Zedh 06:18, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Info: Macro shot of an Intel 80486DX2 die in its packaging. The actual size of the die in the center is 12x6.75 mm.
- Support --Zedh 06:18, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
|
|
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because too small. -- Lycaon 06:40, 4 August 2007 (UTC) | Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed. |
- no way to take this photo again. Size will remain 1.34Mpixel .. --Zedh 07:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:ArtistPaintingAtLouvre.jpg
- Info: created by SatyakamK - uploaded by SatyakamK - nominated by SatyakamK --Satyakam Khadilkar 13:50, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Info: This is kind of unique image as it is a 'photograph' of an artist making a copy of a 'painting' which depicts an artist 'drawing' an image of a 'sculpture'
- Support --Satyakam Khadilkar 13:50, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
|
|
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because too small. -- Lycaon 13:56, 4 August 2007 (UTC) | Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed. |
- Comment I like the concept Satyakam proposed but it is not unique enough to compensate the size and some distracting elements. Agree with Lycaon. --Javier ME 22:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Kungsleden from tjakta.jpg, not featured
- Info: created, uploaded and nominated by Nattfodd --Nattfodd 16:55, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Nattfodd 16:55, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Composition. There doesn't seem to be a subject and any interesting things are probably in the hills. I would suggest trying a panorama for this. --Digon3 talk 17:17, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
- Info: As Szilas said, there doesn't need to be a specific subject here other than the valley extending into infinity. What I tried to express through this shot was the very particular mood we were into after getting through this pretty hard pass (the highest point of the whole trail) and seeing this endless valley unroll upon us, with evening light and a really peaceful/melancholic set of mind. I guess the real subject is the perspective and the mood. --Nattfodd 23:42, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support - It's exactly the speciality of this part of the world, that you won't find anything interesting for the first sight. Emptyness and tranquillity prevail. Very characteristic and very good picture.--Szilas 19:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Too shallow DoF resulting in unsharpness, especially in the foreground. Most landscapes need both tripods and small apertures. This picture has been either cropped or downsampled as well, for some reason. Special note should be made though that this is perfect use of a human subject to provide scale. -- Ram-Man 23:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Ack Digon3. Anrie 07:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Bubulcus ibis 0011.jpg, not featured
- Info: created by Atamari - uploaded by Atamari - nominated by Atamari
- Support--Mbz1 19:34, 28 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- Support--William Avery 15:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Karelj 20:19, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Lighting, sharp, noise, composition - all weak.--Beyond silence 20:55, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Noisy or oversharpened. Too dark. Weird fringing around the bird's body. -- Ram-Man 23:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - Ack, Ram-Man. Anrie 07:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose colours, lack of sharpness. --Derbeth talk 16:43, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Fungia Coral Top Macro.jpg, not featured
- Info: created by User:Digon3 - uploaded by User:Digon3 - nominated by User:Archivaldo --Archivaldo 14:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Archivaldo 14:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment It is a well known coral. Here's the image I took in New Guinea
--Mbz1 02:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
-
- As Mbz1 already mentioned, this is a quite a common solitary coral from the genus Fungia. Moreover, it is not the back or the front side but the top which is showing ;-). They are rather odd amongst corals, because they move around over the bottom of the sea. Please change the name of the file at earliest convenience. Lycaon 08:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 07:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Ipomoea July 2007-1.jpg, not featured
- Info: Flowers and leaves of a Morning Gloria (Ipomoea acuminata), Porto Covo, Portugal. Created and nominated by Alvesgaspar --Alvesgaspar 17:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Alvesgaspar 17:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Harsh lighting. --Digon3 talk 00:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Neutral Light is rather vivid than harsh (in fact: I like it!), but the composition is a little bit problematical. -- MJJR 20:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Too bright, distracting reflections. Chaotic composition. --Derbeth talk 16:58, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 07:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Necrosyrtes monachus 0038.jpg, not featured
- Info: created by Atamari - uploaded by Atamari - nominated by --Atamari 20:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- Neutral --Atamari 20:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Same like the other picture of this animal: I think the picture is just not good enough to be a featured picture. The composition and the perspective are bad, and it looks like a snapshot. -- Christoph Leeb 13:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose As above. --Digon3 talk 15:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Bad lighting. --Derbeth talk 16:59, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
result: 0 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 07:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Caltha-palustris 0058 a.jpg
- Info: created by Rüdiger Kratz - uploaded by Überraschungsbilder - nominated by D-Kuru --D-Kuru 23:26, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support --D-Kuru 23:26, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I know that this picture is a little bit dark, but maybe there is somebody out there who can bright it up :-) --D-Kuru 23:26, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Wouldn't it be more appropriate to brighten it up (or have it done) before you submit it here? This is not the place for such requests. en:Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Images to improve and fr:Wikipédia:Atelier graphique/Images à améliorer will do that for you. Lycaon 23:41, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
|
|
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because underexposed. -- Lycaon 15:17, 5 August 2007 (UTC) | Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed. |
[edit] Image:Bird on fence.jpg (nomination withdrawn)
- Info: created, uploaded and nominated by H92 — H92 (t · c · no) 13:13, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support — H92 (t · c · no) 13:13, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
|
|
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because not sharp and the subject has not been identified. -- Lycaon 15:15, 5 August 2007 (UTC) | Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed. |
- Comment Probably a Rainbow Lorikeet.--Commander Keane 08:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment It doesn't seem to be a Rainbow Lorikeet. Please don't close the nomination yet, as I will ask someone at my local Wikipedia. Is there someone here that is good in editing images, then please make it sharper around the head and other important places. — H92 (t · c · no) 18:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Please edit your image (or have it done) before you submit it here. This is not the place for such requests. en:Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Images to improve and fr:Wikipédia:Atelier graphique/Images à améliorer will do that for you. Lycaon 18:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Stargazer Lillies Lillium orientale 'Stargazer' Flower 2000px.jpg, featured
- Info: Created, uploaded, and nominated by Ram-Man. 02:13, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- Info: Stargazer Lily (Lilium orientale 'Stargazer')
- Support -- Ram-Man 02:13, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support Jina Lee 02:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support --che 11:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose I think the background is distracting. Overall quality is good. --AngMoKio 12:47, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Karelj 20:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support - Anrie 07:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support Excellent quality! -- MJJR 20:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Digon3 talk 01:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support--Simonizer 09:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Yuval Y § Chat § 22:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support -- Lycaon 12:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Derbeth talk 16:44, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support - Beautiful colours and nice details. No doubt that the compositions from this author are improving. - Alvesgaspar 19:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
result: 12 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 07:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Monarch Butterfly Danaus plexippus on Echinacea purpurea 2800px.jpg, featured
- Info: Created, uploaded, nominated by Ram-Man. 04:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- Info: Monarch Butterfly (Danaus plexippus) on a Purple Coneflower (Echinacea purpurea).
- Support As per this nomination, this is sufficiently different from this FP for the same reason. It has much more detail and is a better illustrative/encyclopedic shot of a butterfly. -- Ram-Man 04:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- Then maybe we could delist the prior one?--Mbz1 21:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- They should be different enough. One is about the butterfly, the other is about the context: the flower, the eating, etc. They serve different purposes. If you look at that other nomination, it's almost the exact same issue, and we decided to keep both. -- Ram-Man 22:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- Then maybe we could delist the prior one?--Mbz1 21:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- Support I agree, it is better than the other one! Lycaon 09:49, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support Very nice --MichaD | Michael Apel 10:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support --AngMoKio 12:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support -- Butterfly takes undisputed pride of place here. William Avery 16:27, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Digon3 talk 01:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Simonizer 07:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support Lovely picture, I've never looked at a batterfly that way... Yuval Y § Chat § 22:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- Neutral lovly picture, but there is nothing on left.--Mihael Simonic 08:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment That's composition: if you would crop that, the composition would fail as the attention would be drawn outside of the picture... (my 5 €-cents) Lycaon 08:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support - Perfect composition (wow...) and good photographic quality. And yes, I'm putting the bar a little higher now. - Alvesgaspar 18:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support - Lovely picture of a beautiful butterfly.--Gretaz 18:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Simonizer 07:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Hornbill Zazu Chitwa South Africa Luca Galuzzi 2004.JPG, featured
- Info: created by Lucag - uploaded by Lucag - nominated by MichaD | Michael Apel --MichaD | Michael Apel 16:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support Excellent composition, nice light. Could be a bit sharper. --MichaD | Michael Apel 16:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support The species is Tockus leucomelas (Southern Yellow-billed Hornbill). Lycaon 18:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support --AngMoKio 19:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support Good picture of the subject and atmospherically evocative of African bush country. William Avery 19:27, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support what a nice bird ;) Pimke 21:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support wow...it seems unreal. Dantadd✉ 21:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support And of course, its from Lucag. Great picture. --Digon3 talk 01:48, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Simonizer 09:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support--Mbz1 21:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- Support -- Yuval Y § Chat § 22:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support i.o. --Böhringer 15:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 07:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Simphiwe Dana Wien2007a.jpg, not featured
- Info: created, uploaded and nominated by Tsui 19:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- Pour I like. Romary 20:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Bad lighting, much noise.--Beyond silence 20:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Lovely portrait at small sizes, but noisy in the largest. Unnecesarily horizontal, while there is a better cropped and colour edited version Image:Simphiwe Dana Wien2007aa.jpg --Javier ME 21:26, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I am aware, that lighting and sharpness are not the best (it was an open-air concert in the shadow of a building, not a portrait-shooting in a studio). As far as the edited version is concerned: in my eyes, while the light may be "better", the image loses most of its atmosphere when cropped and color-edited (and the noise increases). --Tsui 21:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Unfortunate lighting and framing. Anrie 07:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Noise and the fact that part of the head is cropped off. --Digon3 talk 01:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support This is an extremely graceful and, may I say it, soulful pose and the opposers are a bunch of accountants who miss the intricate beauty of the image in their search for technical flaws :) I'd consider alternative edits though. ~ trialsanderrors 05:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- Neutral Great facial expression. Some technical flaws but they are all tolerable for a event shot in my opinion. The light is not unfortunate, it fits the impression. The face is visible, thats important. I dont care if the headress is cut. Thats very common in portrait photography. But i also would like to see a vertical format. --Simonizer 09:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose crop -- Gorgo 17:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- Neutral First of all: This picture is great! But i would really prefer a color-improved version of this one. I prefer this uncroped version in this format...maybe it is possible to crop a little on the right side to move her a bit to the right side in order to "de-center" her a bit. But you have my support if you upload a color-improved version of this one. --AngMoKio 19:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- I did an edit here, trying to focus on the skin tone and reduce pixel grain. I'm still not perfectly satisfied, and if people keep complaining about the cropped headdress it might not be worth nominating. ~ trialsanderrors 16:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- Your edit is not bad. Though I have to say I like the format of this original picture. Well about the cropped headdress...the crop of the head is perfect and has to be like that. To crop upper parts of heads is a very common composition for portraits.--AngMoKio 08:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- I did an edit here, trying to focus on the skin tone and reduce pixel grain. I'm still not perfectly satisfied, and if people keep complaining about the cropped headdress it might not be worth nominating. ~ trialsanderrors 16:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- Info: After reading and considering the comments above I was tempted to load up another edited version. But there are too many different recommendations: vertical or horizontal format (on de.wikipedia someone also mentioned square), more or less correction of color and/or light etc. ... there does not seem to be one version to satisfy all viewers (for enzyklopedic use, there are already two edited images, one by myself, one by by trialsanderrors). Personally I like the image just as it is, with the blurry background (including the black area at the left, which, to me, works as a visual completion of the image), with the cut headdress (otherwise the bust-like portrait would lose its vertical balance) and the bluish-pale colors which support the atmosphere); so I wont load up another edit for FPC. Nevertheless: thank you for all comments, feedback is always very welcome :-) Tsui 17:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - Good portrait of a nice lady in a beatiful posture. Unfortunately the photographic quality is far from adequate for FP status. The edited version has better colours and crop but the chromatic noise is just too much. - Alvesgaspar 18:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support I have taken a lot of concert images, it's always very hard. This one is nice. J-Luc 14:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
result: 3 support, 6 oppose, 2 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Agama agama 0008.jpg, not featured
- Info: created by Atamari - uploaded by Atamari - nominated by --Atamari 19:59, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- Neutral --Atamari 19:59, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support beautiful picture --Archivaldo 20:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Lighting isn't the best and there is weird green and noisy fringing on the background. -- Ram-Man 23:13, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose lighting and background, especially the distracting leaves. --Digon3 talk 01:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support--Mbz1 21:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- Neutral subject is nice, but background takes too much attention ianaré 03:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Background is distracting. --Derbeth talk 23:44, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 2 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Monasterio de El Escorial.jpg, not featured
- Info: Façade of Monasterio de El Escorial.
- Info: Created, uploaded, nominated by User:Archivaldo --Archivaldo 07:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Dark, not too sharp.--Beyond silence 13:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Sharpness is good but it is too dark. --Digon3 talk 15:56, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
result: 0 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 08:43, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Trullo Alberobello.jpg, not featured
- Info: Trullo at Alberobello. Created, uploaded and nominated by --AM 17:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Weak composition: the image is mostly wall; also the BW, imho, does not contribute extra value to the picture. Lycaon 06:43, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Not the right picture for B&W. --Digon3 talk 16:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
result: 0 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 08:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Castle shumakov.jpg
- Info: created, uploaded, nominated by User:Archivaldo --Archivaldo 13:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Info:A paper castle.
- Oppose crop, noise, picture has still a harsh lighting and a not in the imagedescription declared edited background --Simonizer 13:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
|
|
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because considered not featured just a few days ago. -- Lycaon 13:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC) | Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed. |
[edit] Image:Swan displaying.6669.2.JPG
*
[edit] Left Version, not featured
- Info: created, uploaded & nominated by Ben Aveling 10:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose bizarre format. Rama 12:13, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
- Neutral i actually like the format. I am just not sure if there aren't some colour-improvements possible. --AngMoKio 17:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Mbz1 13:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- Oppose I'm not sure about the format, but I'm sure swans aren't blue --che 20:10, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Lighting. --Beyond silence 20:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Back lighting and color problems. -- Ram-Man 23:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Right Version, not featured
- Comment added colour adjusted version Lycaon 11:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose The color is much better and it now looks like it was taken in warm evening light streaming through trees or something similar. However, the noise and lack of detail, especially in that of the swan's underside, prevents me from supporting. This should be closer to perfection for an FP, but the picture is certainly now more useful. -- Ram-Man 12:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support--Mbz1 13:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- Oppose Noise yet.--Beyond silence 03:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support Vassil 07:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support Thanks Lycaon, clearly much improved. The original image is straight from camera, except for cropping. (The original, uncropped, is at Image:Swan displaying.6669.JPG) The light was mid afternoon, through trees. So basically shade, but not completely. Regards, Ben Aveling 07:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- Neutral - I cannot oppose this superb composition. But the noise is still quite obvious. - Alvesgaspar 15:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 09:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:California Quail mail in Golden Gate Park.JPG, not featured
- Info:Male California Quail Callipepla californica
- Info: created,uploaded and nominated by Mbz1 --Mbz1 01:16, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Mbz1 01:16, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Question: : isn't this a male Quayle? --carol
- Yes, he is a male (Quail not Quayle) and he was watching over his family, who was feeding in the grass just below him. It is what they usually do, when they have chiks.--Mbz1 02:58, 4 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- Oppose Not enough sharp.--Beyond silence 04:30, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose As Beyond silence, otherwise I would support it. Try downsampling it and see if that helps. --Digon3 talk 16:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you, Digon3. I have no idea what downsampling means. I'm not very good with PS and I do not really have a nice PS anyway--Mbz1 16:31, 4 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- Oppose Per above --Fir0002 www 01:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Downsampling simply means reducing the resolution of a picture from 3888 × 2916 to, say, 2000 x 1500. Its simple and increases sharpness in most cases, and even a bad PS should be able to do it. --Digon3 talk 01:48, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you, Digon3. It is interesting to know. I'll try next time.--Mbz1 14:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 09:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Dragomirna monastery sunset.jpg, not featured
- Info: The monastery of Dragomirna in Romania. It's already a Quality Image.
- Info: created, uploaded and nominated by Alessio Damato --Alessio Damato 13:03, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Alessio Damato 13:03, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Weak composition. --Beyond silence 14:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Terrible noise, sorry. --Derbeth talk 17:02, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Composition. --Digon3 talk 22:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Neutral I do not see noise being a big problem here, after having seen too many "noise-free" overprocessed flat-looking images. Maybe crop 10-15% at the bottom. -- Klaus with K 12:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 09:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Yellow Lantana Camara 1.JPG, not featured
- Info: created, uploaded, nominated by Digon3 --Digon3 talk 00:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support I think this is one of my better photos and was wondering if anyone else liked it. --Digon3 talk 00:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose I really like the arrangement of the flowers, but I dont like the background. I would prefer a more blurry background --Simonizer 07:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose background not perfect ; for memory look at
yakafaucon 08:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC) - Comment I should a have a new picture with a blurred and darkened background uploaded soon, and I will nominate that. Consider this Withdrawn and thanks for the comments and suggestions. --Digon3 talk 18:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Info: I Withdraw this nominaton. --Digon3 talk 18:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
result: Nomination withdrawn => not featured. Simonizer 09:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Misumena vatia female Luc Viatour 1.jpg, featured
- Info: created by Luc Viatour - uploaded by Luc Viatour - nominated by --Luc Viatour 09:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Luc Viatour 09:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Simonizer 11:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support Very beautiful picture.Vassil 12:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support That thing just blends right in. The unfocused flowers in the background are a bit distracting, but its still a great picture. --Digon3 talk 14:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Beyond silence 18:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support --AngMoKio 18:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support--Mbz1 21:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- Support -- Help! It's looking at me!! (A flower ID would be nice: is it Achillea millefolium?) Lycaon 21:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- yes it is a Achillea millefolium! Thank you :) --Luc Viatour 07:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support looks beautiful Pimke 07:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support great photo of interesting subject -- Ianaré 03:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support Amazing--Alnokta 04:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Karelj 22:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support Impressive and high quality. --Derbeth talk 16:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support Lestat 11:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Econt 21:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 10:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Bigleaf Hydrangea Hydrangea macrophylla 'Tokyo Delight' Pink 3008px.jpg, featured
- Info: Created, uploaded, and nominated by -- Ram-Man. 15:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- Info: Bigleaf Hydrangea (Hydrangea macrophylla 'Tokyo Delight')
- Support This is the third in a series of FP-quality pictures of this very popular and diverse species. The pictures are all very different aspects of the same species, so there is no issue with too many similar pictures. -- Ram-Man 15:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- Hortensia-1.jpg - Springtime buds and leaves by Alvesgaspar
- Bigleaf Hydrangea Hydrangea macrophylla 'Tokyo Delight' Flowers 3008px.jpg - Wintertime flowers by Ram-Man
- Comment Could you brighten it up a bit? --Digon3 talk 15:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, but there are two reasons it wasn't lightened more: 1) The pink colors look more washed or a little less intense and 2) The dried flower on the right will then have an overexposed hotspot. Perhaps you just want a brighter background? -- Ram-Man 15:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support--Beyond silence 18:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support --AngMoKio 18:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose I do not like composition.--Mbz1 21:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- Support -- MJJR 20:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support -- Lycaon 07:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - Not the best representation of the species, uninteresting composition. - Alvesgaspar 10:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
result: 5 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 10:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:seagull on sylt.jpg, not featured
- Info: created by Rummeyer - uploaded by Rummeyer - nominated by Rummeyer --Rummeyer 16:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Rummeyer 16:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment What gull is that? Larus ridibundus? Adam Cuerden 16:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- Yes it's a larus ridibundus -- Rummeyer 17:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose
no proper identification (if confirmed it is L. ridibundus can you add it to the description?), not categorizedand not sharp. Lycaon 17:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC) - Oppose contrast (white background), sharpness, distracting big red blob -- Gorgo 17:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support--Mbz1 20:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- Contra- dislike the contrast, there is much details from the bird lost-LadyofHats 00:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 11:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Dasht-e Kavir.jpg, not featured
- Info: created by NASA - uploaded by David.Monniaux - nominated by Mikkalai --Mikkalai 19:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Mikkalai 19:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose What are these terrible waves?--Beyond silence 19:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support--Mbz1 20:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- Oppose Impressive picture. Oppose for black line in bottom quarter. Lycaon 21:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- I'm sure you could remove it in PS. It is just too good of a picture to let it go like that.--Mbz1 21:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- Conditional Oppose When the line in bottom quarter is removed, change this to support. --Digon3 talk 17:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- Question: Can someone please explain what is shown here and add it to the image description page? I don't really have a clue what I see here. Furthermore I think, this image is not very usable for other wikimedia projects if there is no explaination about its content. --norro 19:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
-
- This is a satellite picture of a desert--AngMoKio 15:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- Neutral i support when the line got removed--AngMoKio 15:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose insufficient image description. --norro 08:16, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 11:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Darter August 2007-1.jpg, not featured
- Info: Time of darters, let's shoot them! This one (a red-veined darter dragonfly - Sympetrum fonscolombii), has an assassin look!. Created and nominated by Alvesgaspar -- Alvesgaspar 16:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Alvesgaspar 16:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support Nice one! -- Lycaon 18:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose
Unsharp.Not enough sharp. --Beyond silence 19:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)- Comment - What ??? I suspect you don't know very well what you are talking about. - Alvesgaspar 19:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
-
- I talking about this
. There is a lots of dragonfly pictures, and some is sharper then this. Now can be need more to be featured like this, I think. --Beyond silence 19:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, Not enough sharp. About that, enough good for QI, not enough good to FP. It's my opinion, sorry. --Beyond silence 19:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- I talking about this
- Oppose Amazing picture, but I agree with Beyond silence, this is a bit soft. Lycaon's picture is similar, and much sharper (tough I prefer the composition here), so I don't see the need to feature this one. Benh 21:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
-
- This has nothing to do with my picture, it's a totally different species! Lycaon 21:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- There is not talking about the species. --Beyond silence 21:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination Alvesgaspar 16:51, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
result: Nomination withdrawn => not featured.
[edit] Image:Departamento_moquegua_1865.JPG, not featured
- Info: created by Mariano Felipe Paz Soldan, uploaded by Achata and nominated by Fidelmoquegua 05:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support Fidelmoquegua 05:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support A very old, rare map from Latin America...--Szilas 14:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment I think need an English description.--Beyond silence 15:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose I'm sorry, it's a lovely map, but it's not the whole map: look at the right edge. The key is cut off in a way that removes the explanation of what things are. Adam Cuerden 20:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose conditional Same as above. If rescanned with key, change my oppose to support Ianaré 03:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment Apologize friend, but not everything is English. The image has excellent resolution and an unique quality for a map of a city where the material historical lack. Greetings Fidelmoquegua 02:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Netito777 03:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment"Descriptions can be in any language, but it is always a good idea to include an English description as well. If you can speak multiple languages, consider adding the description in all of them." (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:First_steps/Quality_and_description) Not everything English, but I think a featured picture must have a description that can be understand by most of people...--Beyond silence 19:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose ack Adam Cuerden. It has potential though. Lycaon 10:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 11:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] image:Pola - 32-45.jpg,not featured
- Info: created by the military mapping authority of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy - uploaded by Szilas - nominated by Szilas --Szilas 06:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Szilas 06:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support Great, and valuable. Adam Cuerden 20:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - Scan not good enough, image cropped at bottom, not a very beautiful map - Alvesgaspar 11:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 11:54, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Trichius zonatus.jpg, not featured
- Info: created by GabrielBuissart - uploaded by GabrielBuissart - nominated by GabrielBuissart --GabrielBuissart 14:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support I deleted the stains, thanks for report--GabrielBuissart 14:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- Neutral There are a lot of stains in this picture, maybe because of dust on the lens. Can you correct that? --Simonizer 14:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Noise and dust spots. --Digon3 talk 16:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support - nice closeup - Ianaré 03:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose The perspective could be much better -- Christoph Leeb 21:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support - Great colours - Anevrisme 10:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Too tight crop and overexposure of the background. Also the unfortunate attempt at removal of the dust spots reduces its FP chances :-(. Lycaon 10:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support-LadyofHats 00:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 11:56, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Sossusvlei south view.jpg, featured
- Info: created and uploaded by Lycaon nominated by Digon3 ----Digon3 talk 16:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support ----Digon3 talk 16:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support--Mbz1 16:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
I would support if the vignetting of the original photos were not visible in the sky. -- Klaus with K 19:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
-
- How can you get rid of the vignetting? --Digon3 talk 20:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- Restitch the panorama. On the how-to I've contacted Lycaon. -- Klaus with K 20:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- How can you get rid of the vignetting? --Digon3 talk 20:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- Info: I did an attempt to remove the vignetting. Please empty your cache and reconsider your vote. Lycaon 17:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose João Felipe C.S 18:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
-
- please state your reason for opposition Lycaon 19:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support another great panorama --AngMoKio 19:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support Great resulation with sharpness.--Beyond silence 19:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support Now its great ! --Simonizer 08:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Maybe I am just too picky but I now see horizontal streaks in the sky, and there is no fine grain/noise in the sky. -- Klaus with K 16:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC) P.S. I may change to neutral if the oppose above continues to have no reasoning given. -- Klaus with K 17:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support seems like unreal Pimke 20:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support Very sharp, good colors, great view. -- MJJR 20:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support Really a BIG beach! Beautiful panorama. --LucaG 15:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support Wow, great. --Derbeth talk 16:55, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support Dantadd✉ 03:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - Image is pixelated (look at the interface between the mountains and the sky) and I don't like the dune in the foreground, right on the center of the picture. But the colours are quite beautiful, I wonder if there are other versions. - Alvesgaspar 11:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment I had hoped the visible vignetting in the image as first submitted would be dealt with in rerunning the stitch with vignetting correction included (like in hugin 0.6 or 0.7) and not applying a blurring filter on the output. -- Klaus with K 13:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment Me too, but hugin keeps on crashing on my laptop :-(. Lycaon 09:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
result: 10 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 11:57, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Rhonegletscher.jpg,featured
- Info: created and uploaded by Ikiwaner nominated by Digon3 --Digon3 talk 16:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support I don't know why, but I really like this picture. --Digon3 talk 16:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support--Mbz1 16:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- Support Beautiful. Something about that bridge leading to that cavern struck me with longing to see it and explore it myself. Adam Cuerden 18:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support yep, the 'bridge' does it. Lycaon 19:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support I was there at the same day as Ikiwaner just a few hours earlier. What a accident. If i had known that, Ikiwaner and i could have made some kind of Wikimedia meeting there. ;-) I have some pictures of that glacier, too. I will upload them in a few days. The cavern is beautiful. The ice looks blue and glowing from inside. Very spectacular. Some words about the picture: Its a little pity that the beautiful summits in the background are covered by a big cloud, but anyway a good panorama. --Simonizer 08:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support The bleak impression when noticing the signs that the glacier extended further in the past chimes in with the dark cloud over the scene. -- Klaus with K 09:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support Nice panorama, good DoF. I especially like the two tiny human figures, reminds you of the size of this monster. --Nattfodd 10:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support great panorama --AngMoKio 19:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support I really like it because of the dramatic atmosphere. Benh 17:58, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support - Impressive ... and scaring. Alvesgaspar 00:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 11:59, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Fountains Abbey view crop1 2005-08-27.jpg, featured
- Info: created and uploaded by Klaus with K - nominated by Digon3 --Digon3 talk 17:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Digon3 talk 17:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support Crisp, clean - even has a fellow under the tree, to give the scale. However, where IS Fountains Abbey? The picture information doesn't say. Adam Cuerden 18:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- Info: Located in North Yorkshire, England, I have updated the image description accordingly. -- Klaus with K 19:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support The photo does convey the atmosphere of the location. -- Klaus with K 19:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support Lycaon 19:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support--Mbz1 03:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- Support --Simonizer 16:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support --AngMoKio 19:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support it couldn't be better Pimke 20:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Discordo - the biggest cloud is too dark, it ruined the picture. Not categorized, no infobox...no. Dantadd✉ 03:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
-
- Info: Infos have been there (no infobox but multilingual), categories are there. -- Klaus with K 08:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 12:00, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Senna‗obtusifolia.jpg, not featured
- Info: created and uploaded by Pieria --Pieria 09:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Composition (the flowers do not feature), overexposed and grainy. Lycaon 10:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Composition, noise. --Beyond silence 12:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose As above. --Digon3 talk 22:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
result: 0 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 12:04, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Vasa above bow2.jpg, not featured
- Info: Created, uploaded and nominated by Peter Isotalo; a picture of the museum ship Vasa shot from the catwalk used to service the lighting fixtures below the ceiling of the Vasa Museum. The platform is off limits to visitors and is otherwise only accessible to postcard photographers. / Peter Isotalo 10:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose That's a missed opportunity then :-(. The picture is far too noisy to be featured here. Sorry. Lycaon 12:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Is it a technical limitation of the camera or merely a matter of settings? Peter Isotalo 16:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not sure the settings can be improved upon. Check the ISO settings an put them as low as possible. If it is on Auto, it will probably revert to ISO 400 in such circumstances. With a lower ISO you will get longer shutter times, but I assume your using a tripod already anyway. The Canon PowerShot A610 can be set as ISO 50, that should reduce the grain. Illumination of the ship will always be a problem though, I'm afraid. Lycaon 16:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- I actually know diddly about photography and I don't even own a tripod so I guess it might be difficult to get it up to featured quality. Especially considering how shaky one gets when hobbling about on a steel catwalk some 30 meters above the museum floor... :-) I'll see what I can do about getting the AV tech guy to get me a a few shots worth of extra photo lighting (they really only turn it on for press photos as far as I know). One thing, though: is the composition okay? Peter Isotalo 17:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Maybe you could try Photography critiques or Quality images first to get some more feedback? Lycaon 22:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- I actually know diddly about photography and I don't even own a tripod so I guess it might be difficult to get it up to featured quality. Especially considering how shaky one gets when hobbling about on a steel catwalk some 30 meters above the museum floor... :-) I'll see what I can do about getting the AV tech guy to get me a a few shots worth of extra photo lighting (they really only turn it on for press photos as far as I know). One thing, though: is the composition okay? Peter Isotalo 17:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not sure the settings can be improved upon. Check the ISO settings an put them as low as possible. If it is on Auto, it will probably revert to ISO 400 in such circumstances. With a lower ISO you will get longer shutter times, but I assume your using a tripod already anyway. The Canon PowerShot A610 can be set as ISO 50, that should reduce the grain. Illumination of the ship will always be a problem though, I'm afraid. Lycaon 16:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Is it a technical limitation of the camera or merely a matter of settings? Peter Isotalo 16:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Looks good, but unsharp & noisy.--Beyond silence 00:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Lucky you, I have been looking for this angle all the time I was in there! But noise is really too high for FP. --Nattfodd 07:16, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I tried to apply some technical adjustments, but unfortunately I could not make it any better than the version I uploaded. Apparently this is extremely hard image to improve regarding noise. Unfortunately the orginal has a lot of noise, which obviously can be reduced in both luminance chrominance channels. However, what makes this tricky, is that when the noise is reduced, the detail in deck and other parts of the image starts to dissapear. Which is a really, really pity. The angle is good and such image is certainly needed by the projects. In any case, thank you Peter for contributing the image. --Thermos 09:47, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
result: 0 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 12:07, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Dragón de papel.jpg, not featured
- Info: created, uploaded, nominated by User:Archivaldo --Archivaldo 14:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Info:A Origami Dragon
- Oppose Lighting and background. --Digon3 talk 22:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Lighting and background is not bad, but the photo is not enogh sharp to be an FP. Sorry but it's a technical sport. --Beyond silence 00:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
result: 0 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 12:08, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Hydrodictyon reticulatum.jpg
- Info: created by NEON - uploaded by NEON ja - nominated by Pixeltoo 17:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Pixeltoo 17:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
|
|
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because too small. --Digon3 talk 18:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC) | Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed. |
[edit] Image:Flame Skimmer final guard.JPG, not featured
- Info: A male Libellula saturata (Flame Skimmer) is performing a final guard over female as she lays eggs
- Info: created uploaded and nominated by Mbz1 --Mbz1 22:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Mbz1 22:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Terrible sharpness, sorry. --Beyond silence 23:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination 2 dragonflies more, 2 less who cares?
result: Nomination withdrawn => not featured. Simonizer 07:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Edit, not featured
- Oppose Terrible sharpness, sorry. --Beyond silence 23:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination 2 dragonflies more, 2 less who cares?
result: Nomination withdrawn => not featured. Simonizer 07:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Anolis sagrei mue.jpg, not featured
- Info: A brown anole molting, subject was about 12cm long - created and uploaded by Ianaré Sévi --Ianare 02:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support Ianare 02:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support--Mbz1 03:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- Oppose Distracting background, lack of sharpness on the body, not enough of the face shown. --Nattfodd 10:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Bad lighting and composition.--Beyond silence 19:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Too dark, the lizard is not presented well. --Derbeth talk 16:57, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose The picture is too dark and grey, so that the animal isn´t really presented well. Furthermore the perspective is bad.--Lucas Löffler 19:32, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Anolis sagrei tête.JPG, not featured
- Info: - A male brown anole extending his dewlap - created and uploaded by Ianaré Sévi --Ianare 02:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support Ianare 02:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support--Mbz1 03:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- OpposeHarsh lihgting --Archivaldo 10:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose the image is too small. --Nattfodd 09:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)}}
- Support --Karelj 22:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose too small --Simonizer 11:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose too small, not too sharp --Beyond silence 15:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose too small. --Digon3 talk 15:52, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 08:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Laubfrosch.jpg, featured
- Info: created and uploaded by Christoph Leeb - nominated by D-Kuru --D-Kuru 13:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support --D-Kuru 13:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose It's quite nice, but for me too many parts of the frog are out of focus and the framing is really unfortunate. --startaq 16:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support i like the composition. Good quality. --AngMoKio 19:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support Good sharpness at main part.--Beyond silence 19:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Karelj 22:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support Nice subject & colors. --Atoma 08:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Bad lighting, parts out of focus--Anevrisme 10:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support--Mbz1 04:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- Support--Mihael Simonic 10:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support Very nice !! despite the short depth of field. Benh 17:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - Unfortunate framing. The portrait format is not adequate for the subject. - Alvesgaspar 17:53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support I really like this image. Unfortunately, the frog's back leg is out of focus, but I think it's OK. — H92 (t · c · no) 18:16, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Too shallow DOF: back and front legs are out of focus. Lycaon 17:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose As stated above, it's a very nice picture in which main parts of the frog are well focused while other are not. Focus cannot be fixed now, but framing can. Why should we feature a picture with a failure which is so easy to fix? --Javier ME 22:02, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- If it "is so easy to fix" fix it and upload it :-)
- --D-Kuru 21:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support--Econt 21:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support-LadyofHats 00:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support Yes, I support myself, why not? :) --Christoph Leeb 13:14, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Lucas Löffler 19:31, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
result: 13 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 08:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Mother and daughter.jpg
[edit] Original (left), not featured
- Info: Flower and bud of a Yellow Chamomile (Anthemis tinctoria). Created and nominated by Alvesgaspar -- Alvesgaspar 17:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Alvesgaspar 17:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 08:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Edited version by Lycaon (right), featured
- Support - Alvesgaspar 18:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support really very nice composition. @Lycaon: did 'denoise' the whole picture or only selected areas. --AngMoKio 19:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
-
- BG was de-noised more (and differently) than the flowers themselves. Lycaon 05:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support Very nice. --Digon3 talk 00:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support Beautiful colours and contrast. Lycaon 05:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support Background is a little bit too dark for my taste, but the colours are great. --Simonizer 08:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support great colours Pimke 19:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support wohl keine Frage --Böhringer 15:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 08:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Foz Do Iguacu.png, not featured
- Info: created by Giacomo Miceli - uploaded by Satiriasi - nominated by João Felipe C.S
- Support João Felipe C.S 18:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Karelj 22:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Composition: too little space above the falls; heavily overexposed rapids/falls. Lycaon 08:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support good panorama -- Christoph Leeb 09:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose overexposed --Simonizer 11:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose overexposed. --Digon3 talk 15:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose overexposed, unsharp. --Derbeth talk 16:58, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support - e sempre as mesmas desculpas...indefectível e frustrante. Dantadd✉ 03:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 08:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Necrosyrtes monachus 0003.jpg, not featured
- Info: created by Atamari - uploaded by Atamari - nominated by --Atamari 20:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- Neutral --Atamari 20:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support Beautiful composition.--User:Archivaldo 07:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Head fringed and overexposed. Simple grass background lacks wow too. Lycaon 08:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose I think the picture is just not good enough to be a featured picture. The composition and the perspective are bad, and it looks like a snapshot. -- Christoph Leeb 13:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Head fringed and overexposed.--Beyond silence 15:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose As above. --Digon3 talk 15:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Agree with previous votes. --Derbeth talk 16:59, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 5 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 08:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Brandenburg Gate Quadriga at Night.jpg, featured
- Info: Created, uploaded and nominated by me. Thank you for your opinions. -- אx 09:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support Great work. Good night pic. Von wo aus hast du die Quadriga fotografiert? --Simonizer 09:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
-
- The photograph was taken from about 100 m away from the Brandenburg Gate, i. e. here:
|
Camera location |
|
This and other images at their location on: Google Maps - Google Earth - OpenStreetMap | (Info) |
|---|
- -- אx 10:27, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support I think this is the first night pic that I support. Nicely sharp and no grain. And with proper geotag. Well done!. Lycaon 10:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support it's can be a bit better, but enough good.--Beyond silence 03:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Pour Romary 16:11, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support That's a lovely way to bring out the three-dimensionalness of the statue, and remove distracting backgrounds. Great work! Adam Cuerden 04:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support Vassil 05:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Böhringer 15:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Digon3 talk 23:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Discordo - wow factor? Zero. This can be a quality picture though. Dantadd✉ 03:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support Great night picture, I like it F.H.B. 11:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 08:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Felis silvestris - July 2007-1.jpg, not featured
- Info: Portrait of a street she-cat. Created and nominated by Alvesgaspar --Alvesgaspar 11:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Alvesgaspar 11:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose It's good photo, but not enough sharp to FP, sorry. --Beyond silence 15:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Info: - Image was slightly sharpen and downsampled. I think it is ok now. Alvesgaspar 16:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose If this was a wild animal then it would probably be good enough, but this is a very very common animal, and I expect absolute technical perfection in a shot like this. -- Ram-Man 16:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- It is very hard to photograph common animals(pets). They usually do not want to pose.--Mbz1 03:00, 4 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- Technicallly, if this is Felis sylvestris, not Felis catus, it is a wild animal. That said, although Felis sylvestris does have that pattern quite often, "street she-cat" doesn't quite sound right as a description. Adam Cuerden 07:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- It is very hard to photograph common animals(pets). They usually do not want to pose.--Mbz1 03:00, 4 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- Comment - Maybe this picture lacks the necessary wow factor for FP status, that is easy to accept. But I don't understand why it is being rejected on the basis of technical reasons. The image is sharp, detailed, well composed, and the colours are nice and natural. DOF was carefully chosen to keep the background blurred and give some depth to the head, even at the expense of some slightly unfocused areas. I went through all pictures listed in the Felis silvestris catus page and, frankly, I couldn't find a better one (including Fir0002's). Adam Cuerten is right, the sub-species should read "Felis silvestris catus". - Alvesgaspar 11:31, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose The framing. The paw on the bottom is partially cut off. --Digon3 talk 15:58, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support Jina Lee 05:51, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support Miaou ! J-Luc 14:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 08:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Capri coastline.jpg, not featured
- Info: Coastline of Capri, taken from a boat. Created, uploaded, and nominated by Sean William --Sean William 16:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support Sean William 16:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Contra Maybe a nice holiday-snapshot, but not special enough for a featured picture in my eyes. I miss the symbolic meaning. --Christoph Leeb 17:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Contra Good photo, but not enough sharp.--Beyond silence 03:44, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Contra Technically the middle is good, but the edges are not. --Digon3 talk 16:00, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support Some little problems on the edges, but it seems a very good picture to me. Vassil 07:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Mountains in the background are not shown well. A bit too dark. --Derbeth talk 17:01, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 08:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Grenouille-agile.jpg, not featured
[edit] Original, not featured
- Info:A Agile Frog (Rana dalmatina) landing in a stone.
- Info: created by Gretaz - uploaded by Gretaz - nominated by Gretaz --Gretaz 18:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Gretaz 18:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Too dark. --Digon3 talk 18:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Agree with Digon3. Lycaon 22:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose The photo's not too dark, the frog has a dark color, i think! I may support , but has lower resolution than 2 million pixels (e.g. 1600 x 1200 = 1.92 million). Sorry --Beyond silence 00:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose too small --Simonizer 09:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 08:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Edit, not featured
- Info: I have retouch the picture, and now she had a bigger resolution than 2 million, and she is less dark.
- Support --Gretaz 13:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry, but it is still underexposed. --Digon3 talk 20:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose It is not overexposed! But after resize, not enough sharp, sorry. --Beyond silence 22:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose I like the composition but i dont like the illumination --Simonizer 09:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 08:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Tettigonia cantans Richard Bartz.jpg, not featured
- Info: created & nominated by --Richard Bartz 14:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Info: Majestic posing of a Grasshopper. The shimmering is natural.
- Support I like the colors --Richard Bartz 14:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - I like the colours and composition but the image is unsharp and noisy. The bar is a little higher, rememmber?... Alvesgaspar 15:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose The image is sharp enough but very noisy. --Digon3 talk 17:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose yeah it is a bit noisy...but that wouldn't be a problem for me. It is still acceptable. But I am not convinced by the composition. I think the angle of view is not good. Btw: impressive camera...is it new? --AngMoKio 21:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Nein, ich hab mir die mal flux ausgeliehen um zu sehen ob die Kamera die 14 mal mehr kostet als meine, 14 mal bessere Bilder macht. Ich war ein bischen enttäuscht und hab danach einen Muskelkater gehabt. Aber tolles Maschinchen, trotzdem. --Richard Bartz 22:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose ack Digon3 Lycaon 23:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 08:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Malachite Macro 43.jpg, not featured
- Info: created and nominated by Digon3 --Digon3 talk 17:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Noisy, not too sharp. Sorry. --Beyond silence 22:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - Yes, it is somehow noisy but not unsharp - Alvesgaspar 20:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Ok, it is denoised. I'll Withdraw this for now and renominate later. --Digon3 talk 16:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
result: 0 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 08:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:ADHOCMarinade.JPG, not featured
- Info: created by Gerard cohen - uploaded by Yakafaucon - nominated by Yakafaucon --yakafaucon 14:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support --yakafaucon 14:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Not enough sharp. --Beyond silence 22:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose The lighting (and the reflection off the water)and dirty background. --Digon3 talk 23:30, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 08:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Two tektites.JPG, not featured
- Info:Tektites demonstrate two common shapes: dumbbell and teardrop
- Info: created,uploaded and nominated by Mbz1 --Mbz1 20:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Mbz1 20:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose I don't like the red background, but it's the reflections from the lighting that made me oppose. It is also unsharp on the ends of the Tektites and there is alot of noise in and around the shadows. I did enjoy read about the Tektites and Zircons though. --Digon3 talk 23:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- It was the idea, I mean to make people, who are interested in minerals, to learn about tektites. I like mysteries and they are mystery. Have you known about them before?--Mbz1 23:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- Oppose Redo them on a neutral coloured background, keep the reflections a bit down and I'll support. Nice topic, great potential. Lycaon 08:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose distracting background and partly out of focus -- Gorgo 19:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 08:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Edit 1, not featured
- Info: It is so called Australite (came from Australia) tektite, which demostrates a really rare shape - shallow bowl.--Mbz1 22:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
result: 0 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 08:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Cascade-Grand-Galet.JPG, not featured
- Info: created by User:Bouba - uploaded by Bouba - nominated by Yakafaucon --yakafaucon 08:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support for the composition and the colors - Yakafaucon- -yakafaucon 08:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Overexposed, flat colours, not sharp. Composition is fine. Lycaon 08:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Lestat 10:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose As above. --Digon3 talk 17:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 08:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Pillnitz-pan2.jpg, not featured
- Info: created, uploaded and nominated by Kolossos. --18:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support I weakly support, overall good technical quality, maybe the ligh bit bad. --Beyond silence 13:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 08:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Darter August 2007-5.jpg, not featured
- Info: Juvenile red-veined darter (Sympetrum fonscolombii). Created and nominated by Alvesgaspar --Alvesgaspar 16:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Alvesgaspar 16:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment It is also a Sympetrum fonscolombii, but not yet fully coloured out male or female. Lycaon 17:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support -- MJJR 20:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose A prime example of what I was talking about here, sorry Alvesgasper but the quality at full res is not FP standard. It's full of artefacts and lacking in detail. --Fir0002 www 22:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- In the text you are referring to, you say: People just click on a image on the thumbnail, have a look at it on the image description page, see it's nice there, note that it is larger than 2000 pix and support without ever looking at it full res -that is a quite comtemptuous comment and a wild extrapolation about Commons reviewers' behaviour. You may of course, like any other user, explain the reasons behind your opposing votes on Commons FPC. But to disdain the whole FPC project just because you think the people reviewing here is careless and incompetent, is not only rude, it is false. - Alvesgaspar 23:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination Alvesgaspar 10:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
result: Nomination withdrawn => not featured. --Simonizer 06:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Darter August 2007-6.jpg, not featured
- Info: Red-veined darter. Created and nominated by Alvesgaspar --Alvesgaspar 16:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Alvesgaspar 16:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support -- MJJR 20:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Very very nice catch but, again, not sharp enough. This picture could be half-scaled without loss of detail. Strange "ghosting" effect at the bottom part of the picture on the plant (excuse my poor english !). -- Benh 07:16, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination Alvesgaspar 10:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
result: Nomination withdrawn => not featured. --Simonizer 06:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Darter August 2007-8.jpg, not featured
- Info: Scarlet darter (Crocothemis erythraea). Created and nominated by Alvesgaspar --Alvesgaspar 16:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Alvesgaspar 16:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment this is not Red-veined darter a but a Scarlet Darter (Crocothemis erythraea). Lycaon 17:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, done. Alvesgaspar 18:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination Alvesgaspar 10:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
result: Nomination withdrawn => not featured. --Simonizer 06:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Darter August 2007-10.jpg, not featured
- Info: Red-veined darter. Created and nominated by Alvesgaspar --Alvesgaspar 16:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Alvesgaspar 16:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support -- MJJR 20:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Disadvantageous illumination --Bergwolf 21:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - That lighting effect is on purpose... Alvesgaspar 22:51, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Much shadown. --Beyond silence 21:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination Alvesgaspar 10:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
result: Nomination withdrawn => not featured. --Simonizer 06:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Yellow Lantana Camara 1 Edit.jpg
- Info: created by Digon3 - uploaded by Ram-Man - nominated by Digon3 ----Digon3 talk 17:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support Here is the edit with darkened and blurred background. --Digon3 talk 17:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose I'd like a more sharp, less noisy pciture to FP. Sorry --Beyond silence 21:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose No FP for me --Bergwolf 21:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- Contra-dislike the composition. i find it with insuficient quality for FP LadyofHats 00:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose --Lestat 21:42, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination --Digon3 talk 19:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
result: Nomination withdrawn => not featured. --Simonizer 06:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Darter August 2007-12.jpg, not featured
- Info: Female red-veined darter (Sympetrum fonscolombii). I thought the darter season was over for me, but then I saw these two gorgeous ladies and I couldn't resist. Created and nominated by Alvesgaspar --Alvesgaspar 19:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Alvesgaspar 19:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Bad orientation of the bug, the first picture is much nicer. --Nattfodd 22:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination Alvesgaspar 10:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
result: Nomination withdrawn => not featured. --Simonizer 06:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Crown Prince Frederick William of Prussia - Illustrated London News August 20, 1870.PNG
[edit] version 1 with text, not featured
- Info: created by ST or TS (see notes) - uploaded and nominated by Adam Cuerden --Adam Cuerden 23:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Adam Cuerden 23:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support--Mbz1 03:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- Question: would it not be better without the text? Good quality scan, btw. Lycaon 12:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I prefer these sort of things with context on the page, if it relates to them. It's interesting as a photo, but even more interesting with period thoughts on the person attached. That said, I'd be quite happy to upload a text-free version, for use on foreign wikis. Adam Cuerden 15:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support -- Lycaon 06:36, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support Value & resolution. --Beyond silence 02:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
result: 4 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 12:01, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] version 2 without text, featured
- Comment Alternate posted. Adam Cuerden 00:26, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support -- Lycaon 06:36, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Neutral - Very nice quality and value. However, I would recommend the picture to be downsampled to the original's size due to the type of engraving used. In this case a bigger picture doesn't add any value, on the contrary. - Alvesgaspar 18:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- The original is a full A3 newspaper page print, so it's not actually made that much bigger. Also, you can't get the necessary detail if downsampled so that it shows on the screen at the original size: Distinct lines become patches of grey, or, worse, moiré. If you'll look, many of the lines - especially in the hair - are only seperated by a pixel. Adam Cuerden 22:47, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support--Mbz1 16:16, 5 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- Support Value & resolution. --Beyond silence 02:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support very nice. We need more of this kind of image here... Dantadd✉ 03:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support Though I prefer version 1, for Commons, I suppose it makes sense to go with the version that can be used on any language's wiki. Adam Cuerden 05:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support Good depiction of a historical image -- Klaus with K 15:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Simonizer 07:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Bitis arietans.jpg, featured
- Info: created by JuliusR - uploaded by JuliusR - nominated by JuliusR --JuliusR 14:02, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support --JuliusR 14:02, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support Composition, sharp. --Beyond silence 14:56, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support It's staring at me. Very detailed. --Digon3 talk 16:09, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support DOF is a bit shallow, but the important parts are sharp. Nice close-up. Lycaon 16:12, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support--Mbz1 16:28, 4 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- Question: JuliusR, what type of lens did you use? --Digon3 talk 17:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- I used the Canon "EF 50mm f/2.5 Compact Macro" Lens --JuliusR 17:50, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Neutral - That was too harsh for such a good picture :) - Alvesgaspar 16:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support Vassil 07:01, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support--AngMoKio 09:30, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support Maybe a neutral background, like Alvesgaspar mentioned, would emphasize the head of the snake more, but this way it gives you a impression what the snake is doing at the moment. About DOF i agree with Lycaon. --Simonizer 09:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Böhringer 10:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Simonizer 07:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:35wBridgecollapse.gif, not featured
- Info: created by United States Army Corps of Engineers - uploaded by Anetode - nominated by Kulshrax --KULSHRAX 17:12, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support --KULSHRAX 17:12, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Although this image is of low resolution and quality, it captures a historical moment excellently. This is the only known footage of the bridge's collapse, and that should be taken into account when rating this picture. It has huge historical significance and cannot be replicated, and I feel that those are strong, migrating reasons. KULSHRAX 17:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support--Mbz1 17:47, 4 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- Support Beacuse of strong, migrating reasons. --Digon3 talk 17:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose far too small, I can hardly see what's happening. Lycaon 18:11, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Well, I don't really see anything that can be done to fix that now, unless more footage surfaces, but this is the only know footage of the event, and footage of this kind is extremely rare, so I feel that it is acceptable, because it is possible the the security camera that caught this footage could only produce this resolution. Also, when you think about it, it is remarkable that this is in color, because the majority of security cameras are in black and white. KULSHRAX 18:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose agree with lycaon, I also can't see the "huge historical significance" of this event. It's really great to have this video here on commons but that doesn't mean it has to be featured, there are tons of pictures that are unique here. -- Gorgo 00:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support I mean, people still talk about the Tay Bridge disaster (Victorian era), and various other fallen bridges. I can't help but think that this will be similar, at least in its local area. Adam Cuerden 01:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose It is really extraordinary, but I think a bridge disaster not have enough historical value to counterweight the low resolution and bad composition. Sorry --Beyond silence 02:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose I don't see any reasons why this animation should be a FP. --AngMoKio 11:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose agree with lycaon --Donarreiskoffer 11:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support At the moment, the rules (guidelines) say that FP is about valuable pictures. This is clearly an important image, and a valuable image. If this nomination fails, then I suggest we change the written guidelines to make it clear that we want pretty pictures, and that things like historical value are nice to have, but not as important as being pretty. Regards, Ben Aveling 23:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment I think too the value is more important than being pretty. But I am not agree with you, this isn't a very important image. A war, an invention or revolution changes the history, and has a historical value. A bridge collapse is terrible, but don't change the going of world - to being terrible don't more than being pretty! --Beyond silence 00:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support-i do think it has an historical value, but would agree to demote it as soon as a better animations comes up... it is not only about world history but also about tecnical history. LadyofHats 00:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Karelj 21:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
result: 7 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral =>not featured. Simonizer 07:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Agama aculeata.jpg, featured
- Info: A Ground Agama (Agama aculeata), blending in with its natural environment.
- Info: created, uploaded and nominated by Lycaon -- Lycaon 19:31, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support -- Lycaon 19:31, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support - Sharp and clear, beautiful detail. Alvesgaspar 22:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support--Mbz1 16:14, 5 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- Support Sharp, light. --Beyond silence 02:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support Vassil 05:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose No Wow for me cause of composition and light, but it is surely a good and illustrative picture --Simonizer 09:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support sehr gut getarnt, musste 2x hinsehen --Böhringer 15:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Digon3 talk 22:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support--Donarreiskoffer 11:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Pimke 18:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose I don't like the bird' eye view. --Christoph Leeb 10:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support-LadyofHats 00:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose --Karelj 21:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC) Backgroung and object have very similar colour, maybe the photo from different angle could help.
result: 10 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 07:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Gull Porto Covo July 2007-8.jpg, not featured
- Info: Pair of seagulls (Larus argentatus). Porto Covo, west coast of Portugal. Created and nominated by Alvesgaspar --Alvesgaspar 23:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Alvesgaspar 23:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Not too sharp, one side in shadow, one side in overexpose. Sorry --Beyond silence 02:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose agree with Beyond silence, but i like the spiderweb below the gulls ;-) --Simonizer 10:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support I like the lighting and I can hear the sea from here :-) --J-Luc 14:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose agree with Beyond silence. --Digon3 talk 22:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Contra- dont like the composition. and agree with BeyondSilenceLadyofHats 00:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:The Bible - Gospel of John - Chapter 19.JPG, not featured
- Info: created by RedCoat - uploaded by RedCoat - nominated by RedCoat --RedCoat 17:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support --RedCoat 17:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I'll grant it's hard to make a bible verse dramatic, and you manage fairly well, but that's kind of an awkward printing. Dividing Jesus into "Je-" and "sus", using him instead of Him, and so on. Also, the file name is obviously inaccurate (9 for 19), and leaves out the book it's from. Adam Cuerden 18:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
-
Done - Your concerns have been fixed. How on Earth I saw 'chapter 9' I have no idea! I have also noted the Gospel of John, however I am afraid I can't do anything about the printing - it's a direct transcription of the King James Version which was first published in 1611. RedCoat 22:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment What is the purpose? --Beyond silence 21:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- Contra- even with al that corrections i do not think it has any value as FP. LadyofHats 00:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Tegen I'm with the lady... Lycaon 21:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose While shallow DoF is a pretty obvious choice, I think there should either be a clear subject (chapter 19, a given word/sentence) or none (so just a paragraph of text with no big typesetting changes). Interesting lighting, but unfortunate crop which kills the left directing line. This kind of shot can have a very high impact, but this one lacks too much in composition and choice of the subject for a FP, imho. --Nattfodd 22:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose I'm afraid it has no FP value at all. -- MJJR 20:23, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 07:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Flor de Ibitipoca3.JPG, not featured
- Info: created, uploaded and nominated by Econt 21:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support Econt 21:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose No proper id. Lycaon 21:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose unlovely composition & illumination --Bergwolf 22:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- Contra- dislike composition, but from all very bad illumination LadyofHats
- Oppose Part of the flower isn´t at photo. --Dezidor 21:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 07:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Taktshang.jpg
[edit] Original, not featured
- Taktshang Monastery, Bhutan by Greenmnm69 (Douglas J. McLaughlin)
- Info: Created and uploaded byGreenmnm69. Nominated by Mattes -- Mattes 09:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Its a very good motif. Unfortunately the author didnt choose a good composition. Furthermore the sky is overexposed and there is chromatic aberration visible --Simonizer 11:15, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Good valuable photo, but technicaly weak: dark, not too sharp. Sorry--Beyond silence 13:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
result: 0 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 08:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Edit 1, not featured
- Added cropped version. Lighter and contrast increased. --AM 21:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Overexposed sky. --Digon3 talk 15:57, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support this one is nice, I like the vertical composition J-Luc 14:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Supportbis ein besseres Bild kommt finde ich es trotz “Overexposed” sehr relevant --Böhringer 15:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Noisy --Beyond silence 15:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support Rare picture, amazing view. I tolerate the overexposure here. --AM 17:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose I like the composition, but not the overexposure. Ben Aveling 08:51, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 08:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Edit 2,not featured
Info: I agree that this white sky is unaesthetic, but it was cloudy so it's impossible to get something else.I propose an edit: I cropped the picture and I adjusted the levels. It's still rather dark, but the monastery is in the shadow. Vassil 07:58, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support Vassil 08:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support Very nice work and a spectacular view rare to see. Great Wow effect! -- Mattes 09:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC) looks great now except it is not upright anymore... Thanks Vassi! -- Mattes 12:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose I don't like the crop. And technicaly noisy and unsharp.--Beyond silence 14:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Bad crop. --AM 17:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Top is cropped off too much. --Digon3 talk 23:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support Unusual cropping, but still an impressive triangular composition, that supports the subject. Lots of Wau for me :-) --Malene Thyssen 08:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Regrettably Oppose due to the crop. -- Slaunger 22:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 22:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Contre-jour talk.jpg
[edit] Version 1, not featured
- Info: Talking in the evening near the sea. Though not as good as The photographer (which I believe it is my best picture ever), this is a nice coloured example of the contre-jour photographic technique. Created and nominated by Alvesgaspar --Alvesgaspar 18:53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Alvesgaspar 18:53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Neutral i think that couple is a bit too much centered and there is a bit too much space around them. But I really like the picture...it has a nice atmosphere. --AngMoKio 09:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose It is really a great photo. But not enough valuable. "Beautiful does not always mean valuable." It really has a photographic technique value, but after an other good example as The photographer it inflated. Sorry. --Beyond silence 02:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Version 2, not featured
- Info: I edited the original pic slightly with a tighter crop. I 'decentered' the couple a bit. --AngMoKio 09:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support --AngMoKio 09:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose It is really a great photo. But not enough valuable. "Beautiful does not always mean valuable." It really has a photographic technique value, but after an other good example as The photographer it inflated. Sorry. --Beyond silence 02:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support Value is a very vague word. For someone, who wants to know how a wonderful evening at the coast near Porto Covo looks like, this picture has value. So i concentrate on the picture. Beautiful Contre-jour! --Simonizer 08:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support For me,it's a beautiful and meaningful picture. Vassil 08:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- Contra a motive seen far too often. enough for QI but not for FP-LadyofHats 00:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 22:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:CH Caterpillar.jpg, not featured
- Info: Caterpillar of the Spurge Hawk-moth, seen in Kriegtal near Binn, Valais, Switzerland at approx. 2000m altitude. Created, uploaded, and nominated by Dschwen
- Support --Dschwen 13:31, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support - Excellent sharpness and detail. Are you sure about the species, the pattern is OK but the colors seem different? - Alvesgaspar 19:41, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- It was confirmed on the german taxo page, and the plant it is sitting on was identified to be the typical food plant of this caterpillar species too. --Dschwen 20:34, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support sharp and detailed. --Ikiwaner 21:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Composition. Dont like the head of the caterpillar squeezed in the lower right corner. But the picture has great detail --Simonizer 08:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Digon3 talk 15:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose The head is a bit unclear, and I agree with Simonizer, the head is squeezed in the lower right corner. Too bad, 'cause the picture could be very nice. — H92 (t · c · no) 18:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Info: I uploaded another shot from this series here if you'd like a comparison. Note that I have not yet edited out the dust specs on that one.--Dschwen 18:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Karelj 21:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose It seems to me that the plane of optimal DoF is not situated properly, resulting in the out-of-focus head. The composition is unfortunate. As a butterfly/caterpillar photographer myself, I wouldn't be disappointed with a shot like this, but I wouldn't expect it be a FP either. -- Ram-Man 02:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Nice QI photo, but does not have enough wow for me to be FP. -- Slaunger 22:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 22:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Xerus inauris.jpg, featured
- Info: created and uploaded by Lycaon - nominated by --LucaG 15:47, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support Stirring pose, great DOF and details. --LucaG 15:47, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support--Mbz1 16:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- Support Eyecatching, high quality. --Derbeth talk 17:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support -- MJJR 20:14, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support Value. --Beyond silence 02:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support Vassil 05:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Simonizer 06:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Digon3 talk 15:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support einfach gut --Böhringer 15:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support nice — H92 (t · c · no) 18:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support--Gretaz 18:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support Very nice moment, nice uni-color too. --Atoma 07:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support--Chrumps 18:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support -- Ram-Man 02:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 22:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Macaca fascicularis in Lopburi.JPG, not featured
- Info: created by Chris_huh - uploaded by Chris_huh - nominated by Chris_huh --Chris_huhtalk 15:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Chris_huhtalk 15:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Neutral the picture is unfortunatelly shaken. But i think the composition is great that's why i can't oppose. --AngMoKio 19:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Not enough sharp. --Beyond silence 19:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Great expression, but not sharp enough. --Nattfodd 22:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose as above. -- Ram-Man 03:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Question: Would anyone be able to sharpen it up a bit, i have had a go (not this edit though, but it looked ok) but i don't know if it might be going too far. Chris_huhtalk 11:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose --Lestat 16:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. (rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 23:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Lavatera maritima.JPG, not featured
- Info: created by He Who Laughs Last - uploaded by He Who Laughs Last - nominated by He Who Laughs Last --He Who Laughs Last 20:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support --He Who Laughs Last 20:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Sharpness, overexposed part. --Beyond silence 23:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - Barely enough for QI but far from FP status. Main flaw is the tight crop. I would suggest more space around the flower, specially at the bottom, remember the flower is "looking down". Alvesgaspar 23:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - The image isn't cropped thats the full size image straight from the camera. I understand what you're saying, but I can't fix it. --He Who Laughs Last 06:33, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Crop and lighting. --Digon3 talk 19:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 23:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Commons:Featured picture candidates/
[edit] Image:Hipocampo.jpg, not featured
- Info: created, uploaded, nominated by User:Archivaldo --Archivaldo 15:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- Info: A paper hippocampus.
|
|
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because it is too small --Simonizer 16:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC) | Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed. |
[edit] Image:Armeniancrossstone.jpg, not featured
- Info: created by Gevork Nazaryan - uploaded by Yegoyan - nominated by FHen --FHen 09:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Way too small. (Can't find that "killer" template.) --che 09:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
|
|
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because it is too small - Alvesgaspar 12:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC) | Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed. |
[edit] Image:Grasfrosch1.jpg
- Info: created by and uploaded by Christoph Leeb - nominated by D-Kuru --D-Kuru 13:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support --D-Kuru 13:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Too dark, don't like perspective and framing --Anevrisme 10:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Not bad, but a bit too dark, and the flash a bit distracting.--Beyond silence 13:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Too dark and underexposed. --Digon3 talk 15:53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Can Anyone try to make it a little bit brighter? --D-Kuru 23:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment new, brighter version added (New Layer-Screen-Opacity 65%). --Christoph Leeb 01:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 08:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Edit 1, featured
- Support Adam Cuerden 04:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support J-Luc 14:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support --D-Kuru 14:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support Vassil 20:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support Size and DOF both on the limit. But composition and colours are very nice. Lycaon 09:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support-LadyofHats 00:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support Yes, I support myself, why not? :) --Christoph Leeb 13:13, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Lucas Löffler 19:33, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 18:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Dibujo copia.jpg
[edit] Original, not featured
- Info: created, uploaded, nominated by User:Archivaldo --Archivaldo 20:15, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- Info: A T-Rex skeleton.
- Oppose - Image is pixelated. Also, if the picture was manipulated to get a black background (as it appears to be), it should be stated with a "Retouched" template. - Alvesgaspar 22:26, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support Damn good origami, that. Adam Cuerden 04:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Damn good origami, but the picture of it is not. Especially the light is very unfortunate. Dont like the composition either. Picture has no depth --Simonizer 08:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- CommentOk,what is the perfect lighting?Can you explain me? --Archivaldo 13:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- For that kind of picture you need a smooth and uniform illumination --Simonizer 11:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- SupportI think that is my best work.I used a composed lighting because I thought it was the best lighting for the picture.--Archivaldo 14:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Unsharp & noisy. --Beyond silence 00:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose ack Beyond silence. -- Lycaon 05:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Contra- bad qualityLadyofHats 00:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 22:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Edit, not featured
- Info: I propose an edit: I smoothed the inside to remove the pixelisation then I sharpened the contours.It's a beautiful origami, the light of copia is better, but I'm not sure that this edit is technically good enough for an FP. Vassil 15:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- CommentEy thanks,Can you told me how you remove the pixels?I have tryed it but I didn´t know.
- With Photoshop, I used "gaussian blur". Vassil 18:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Ok,thanks--Archivaldo 08:30, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Unsharp & noisy. --Beyond silence 00:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose ack Beyond silence. -- Lycaon 05:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Contra-same as above, the composition is straight foward and boring, too much empty space, not enough contrast in the main object. general bad quality LadyofHats 00:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
result: 0 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 18:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Ensifera wagenmoos 01 edit.JPG, featured
- Info: created, uploaded and nominated by Simonizer 10:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support New lens (my first macro lens with a fix focal lenght), difficult light situation and uncomfortable terrain (stinging-nettles), but i think I made the best of a bad job, so i try a FP nomination--Simonizer 10:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support Finally a macro shot with a really great composition. Great picture! --AngMoKio 10:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support - Agree on the composition. Pity that the lighting is not the best. Alvesgaspar 10:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support als ob er überlegen möchte - ich bin davon überzeugt --Böhringer 15:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support Maybe lighting and DoF aren't superior, but colors and composition are indeed -- MJJR 18:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support Very good! — H92 (t · c · no) 18:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support Agree with AngMoKio, great composition. --LucaG 18:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Digon3 talk 20:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support I'm with MJJR today :-) Lycaon 22:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support--Donarreiskoffer 11:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Lestat 11:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support Pimke 18:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support My vote isn't needed, but I wanted so much to tell how I actually find the lighting great... what a nice atmosphere it gives to the picture... Wonderful lighting, composition, technical qualities and so on Benh 21:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Richard Bartz 23:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support--Javier ME 16:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Not that it makes a difference, but the DoF is too shallow and the backlighting obscures the insect's details. A few months ago it might have been a featured picture, but we have more perfect insect photos. I'm not sure why people like Alvesgaspar support despite the lighting. -- Ram-Man 02:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - Because heart (the artsy side) has prevailed over reason (the technical side). And I like to believe that I'm more on the first side... With the present hight of the bar I consider this one to be on the borderline. And though the lighting is not the best it doesn't affect much the detail on the hopper's body. Alvesgaspar 11:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I can tell you why I supported. We also judge the composition here...and in my opinion this is one of the very few pictures of an insect that really has a thought-out composition. For most insect pictures i can't really give a vote at all. They are quality-wise very good but seldom have a convincing composition - that's why I dont know how to handle them. --AngMoKio 19:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
result: 15 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 18:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Cheloniidae-Kélonia-Réunion.JPG, not featured
- Info: created by Thierry Caro - uploaded by Thierry Caro - nominated by Thierry Caro --Thierry Caro 20:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support: I think that is is a better picture than this one, as two species can be seen at once --Thierry Caro 20:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose composition, I prefer this one. Lycaon 22:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support The picture have some minor technical problems, but I think it is a hard shot. But the value is really good, and the compistion I like very much too (can see two view of turtle at once!). The lighting is good, at specialy on the main part the face too. And the resulotion is high, so I support. --Beyond silence 00:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose both are cut; composition (too much space on the left, angle of top turtle); color/quality of lower turtle is also not that great -- Gorgo 18:51, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support Of course in my opinion your image is much worse than my image
you compare yours to. More turtles not always equal better. Yet because it is an underwater image, and I could corespond with taking underwater pictures, I support it.--Mbz1 21:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1 - Support-All in all, considering the circunstances i think it is good and informative LadyofHats 00:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose --Karelj 21:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC) Composition, there is better pic here.
- Oppose Compositionally Mbz1's FP is much better. -- Ram-Man 02:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support Poromiami 5:30 14 August 2007 (UTC)
result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 18:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Tuebingen Neckarfront 2006-06-11.jpg, not featured
- Info: created and uploaded by Klaus with K - nominated by Digon3 --Digon3 talk 20:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Digon3 talk 20:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Question: hmm (again, sorry): is this a bend, a corner or is this a straight part with an exotic (excusez le mot) projection? Lycaon 22:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure it is a cylindrical projection, but you would have to ask Klaus with K. For this picture I think a cylindrical projection is better than a straight, equirectangular projection, which IMO would make it boring. --Digon3 talk 22:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment Hmmm, I just wanted to illustrate here how to remove some dust...and now that. Yes it is a cylindrical projection, in panorama context I would call that a bog-standard projection. The horizontal angle covered is 180 degrees, too much for a rectilinear projection. -- Klaus with K 13:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support catches the mood (and now with infos and cats) -- Klaus with K 14:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose I don't like cylindrical projection for this picture. --Lestat 10:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
-
- Question: what other projection covering 180+ degrees FoV do you suggest? -- Klaus with K 12:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- This seems to be more than 180 degrees and looks like a rectilinear projection? Maybe its possible? --Digon3 talk 19:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- It cannot be rectilinear. My guess is its cylindrical too, wit a semistatistical distribution of trees you just don't notice it. In Klaus' picture there are many straight and linear elements which get distorted by the projection. No biggie for me, I prefer conserved proportions over straight lines in this case. --Dschwen 20:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- This seems to be more than 180 degrees and looks like a rectilinear projection? Maybe its possible? --Digon3 talk 19:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Because of the projection used (building don't look vertical), unsharpness and slight purple fringing. Benh 20:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
-
- Vertical features do show as vertical. Some old buildings are simply not vertical. -- Klaus with K
- Support Some strange projection effects, but it's FP worthy. -- MJJR 20:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support A bit underexposed on the sides, but still good for FP. I don't see projection as a problem at all. --Nattfodd 07:13, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose --Karelj 21:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC) As Lestat
- Support Incredibly detailed. Amazed how you have avoided observable stitching errors with som many moving people. -- Slaunger 22:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 18:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Oleander June 2007-1.jpg, not featured
- Info: Buds of a pink oleander (Nerium oleander), Lisboa, Portugal. Still taken with my old Konica Minolta. I think that the composition and colours are worth a try. Created and nominated by Alvesgaspar --Alvesgaspar 23:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Alvesgaspar 23:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Donarreiskoffer 11:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Overexposed. --Beyond silence 15:51, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose I agree with Beyond silence. The reflection from the sun gives it distracting overexposed spots and the lighting is a bit harsh for a FP. --Digon3 talk 17:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose per Digon3 -- Lycaon 23:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Lestat 10:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Contra-bad lighting, and boring composition LadyofHats 00:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose clearly overexposed resulting in blown colors (reds). -- Ram-Man 02:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 18:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Defence-of-Paris.png, featured
- Info: created by Mr. Barnard, stitched together and straightened by ADuran (VegetaU on English Wikipedia) and Rugby471 from two uploads by nominator Adam Cuerden --Adam Cuerden 06:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Adam Cuerden 06:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support. --KFP 09:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support Resuliton, value. --Beyond silence 15:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Lestat 10:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support-LadyofHats 00:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
result: 5 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. --Beyond silence 03:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Vespula rufa on bupleurum falcatum Richard Bartz.jpg, not featured
- Info: created & nominated by --Richard Bartz 09:48, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Info: Vespula rufa on bupleurum falcatum
- Support I like the colors --Richard Bartz 13:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support Like the composition. Both the plant and the insect are in there. --Digitaldreamer 13:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support I like the composition and the colors. yakafaucon 08:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Not enough sharp from DOF. --Beyond silence 15:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose I dont like the composition with the wasp placed at the right border. But the colours are nice --Simonizer 16:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Too low DOF. --Digon3 talk 17:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose i also have to oppose bcs of the composition. The wasp points somehow out of the picture. Welcome back Richard... --AngMoKio 20:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose I quite like the composition: the flower is central. But I agree with Digon3 about the DOF. Lycaon 19:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Bergwolf 20:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support-LadyofHats 00:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose The DoF is a little shallow, but this image looks like an oversharpened unsharp image. Right or wrong, it's not the best we have. -- Ram-Man 02:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - Composition Alvesgaspar 20:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
result: 5 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. --Beyond silence 03:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Thymelicus 01.JPG, not featured
- Info: created, uploaded and nominated by Simonizer 11:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Original, not featured
- Support I love this cute little fellow and the picture as well --Simonizer 11:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Could you get rid of the background noise? --Digon3 talk 17:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Info: I denoised the background of this picture version, too. --Simonizer 07:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support THe bar is set high, but I really like the composition and colors. --Digon3 talk 13:12, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support - Me too - Alvesgaspar 17:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment No other comments? --Simonizer 07:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Needs noise reduction and perhaps some background-only lightening. I don't like how the image below loses contrast in the insect. Even so, I'm not convinced this is quite FP material. -- Ram-Man 02:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. --Beyond silence 03:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Edit, not featured
- Info: I added a brighter and noise reduced version --Simonizer 22:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Simonizer 22:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Neutral The noise is reduced, but I really like the brightness level in the other version. --Digon3 talk 00:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support 2 "Fliegen" auf einen Streich, sehr gut--Böhringer 15:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose The noise reduction is good, but the brightness level is not. -- Ram-Man 02:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. --Beyond silence 03:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Pieczęć Jagiełły.jpg
- Info: created, uploaded and nominated by Lestat. --Lestat 19:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Lestat 19:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support Though the image description could use a lot more detail, particularly "How big is it?" and, perhaps describe Władysław Jagiełło on the lines of "King Władysław II Jagiełło of Poland" or suchlike, to give context? Adam Cuerden 01:14, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support Good value, technicaly acceptable. --Beyond silence 22:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support Vassil 08:51, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support The image could be cropped, but it's technically excellent. -- Ram-Man 02:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support --WarX 18:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support Basik07 09:21, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. --Beyond silence 03:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:CH Val d'Uina.jpg, not featured
- Info: Uina Gorge in Engadin, Switzerland. Created, uploaded, and nominated by Dschwen.
- Support --Dschwen 20:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose --Lestat 10:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Good composition, but I think need more sharpness to be FP. Sorry --Beyond silence 19:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Seems unfocused in all but one spot in the middle. --Digon3 talk 20:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Wow, this is getting destroyed :-). It is focussed on the foreground region, the bright bg is deliberately unsharp to make the fg stand out. It was probably a mistake to upload the whole 12.8 Megapixels. --Dschwen 20:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support Great --Simonizer 08:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support muss es in der mitte sein? ich denke nicht. --Böhringer 10:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support Nice...--Christoph Michels 00:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose --Karelj 21:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC) nothig special - group of people and some stones.
- Oppose DoF is too shallow for a shot like this. Lacks sufficient wow factor. Exposure isn't great, although I wouldn't oppose because HDR techniques were not used. -- Ram-Man 02:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
result: 4 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. --Beyond silence 04:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Aeshna cyanea male Luc Viatour 1.jpg, not featured
- Info: created by Luc Viatour - uploaded by Luc Viatour - nominated by --Luc Viatour 09:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Luc Viatour 09:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support sehr schwer zu erreichen. Kompliment --Böhringer 15:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support--Mbz1 18:12, 8 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- Oppose Unsharp. --Beyond silence 18:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Bergwolf 20:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose At the risk of shocking some people over here, I (weakly) oppose too, although I start to realise (just bought a macro lens) how hard it must have been to catch that one... Some people manage to catch much sharper subjects in similar conditions Image:Hoverflies_mating_midair.jpg -- Benh 20:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment I don't know that it is a fair comparison, different insects, different behaviour, dragon flies fly very fast, do mating hover flies fly at full speed ? (might they just hover :-) --Tony Wills 22:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Karelj 21:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC) Even I think, it is too much photo of insects on FPC, this one is very good.
- Oppose This is a brutally difficult shot, and I wouldn't be sad if it becomes a FP despite my vote. Still the resolution is too low (because of the insane difficulty of getting closer!) and it's just not sharp enough. Impressive, but not an FP for me. -- Ram-Man 02:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support Yes brutally difficult - hover flies, hover/ dragon flies, dart. --Tony Wills 12:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support Fascinating (*rising an eyebrow*) --LC-de 08:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - Sorry but I am with Benh - Alvesgaspar 20:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support ;) --Richard Bartz 00:43, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose ack Ram-Man -- Lycaon 08:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support Basik07 10:21, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
result: 9 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. --Beyond silence 04:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Pieris rapae close Richard Bartz.jpg, featured
***
- Info: created & nominated by --Richard Bartz 11:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Info: There is a total view and a closer view attached as versions.
V1 Close up
- Support --Richard Bartz 11:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Looks oversharpened and has blown highlights. I would have loved a bit more DOF and a landscape layout instead of a portrait view, preferably seeing the whole critter. Lycaon 12:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Sorry I cant deliver that. The lens is at its maximum with f16 at a magnification of 2,5x. --Richard Bartz 12:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)Forget it. --Richard Bartz 12:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Neutral es gefällt mir sehr gut, ich würde jedoch dieses [10] relevanter sehen und auch ein Support dafür abgeben. --Böhringer 15:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Bergwolf 20:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Digitaldreamer 21:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support-LadyofHats 00:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support Sharp. --Beyond silence 01:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose --Karelj 22:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC) Unnatural colours, composition.
- Oppose I'm not sure why the comment above was crossed out. I am opposing for DoF reasons and because of what appears to be oversharpening. I'm unsure why EXIF information was not provided, since this allows me to make sure I don't oppose for bad reasons. -- Ram-Man 02:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support Great detail of the head --Tony Wills 23:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
result: 6 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. --Beyond silence 04:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
V2 Total view
[edit] Image:Pieris rapae total Richard Bartz.jpg, not featured
- Info: Here is a total view.
- Support --Richard Bartz 16:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - Oversharpen, unnatural colours - Alvesgaspar 18:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Overexposed. --Beyond silence 18:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Question: Is that Valerian (Valeriana offcinalis) it is sitting on? Lycaon 19:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Thats why he was so relaxed ? :) I agree --Richard Bartz 13:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Bergwolf 20:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Overexposed and unsharp. --Digon3 talk 20:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support danke --Böhringer 10:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Digitaldreamer 21:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Colours are good, composition is ace, but it is indeed oversharpened, and overexposed. Lycaon 22:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose --Karelj 22:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC) Colours, exposition.
- Oppose Oversharpened, Overexposed. -- Ram-Man 02:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose as above --LC-de 09:03, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
result: 4 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. --Beyond silence 04:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Tetrao urogallus Richard Bartz.jpg, featured
- Info: created & nominated by --Richard Bartz 11:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Richard Bartz 11:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support - Yes sir, whatever you say sir, anything else sir? - Alvesgaspar 16:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
-
- No sir, thank you, thats all. I have to watch out for the dragonfly above, yummie! :) --Richard Bartz 16:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Digon3 talk 16:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support--Mbz1 18:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- Support Pimke 18:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Beyond silence 18:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support --LucaG 19:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiichard! --Bergwolf 20:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Greeeeeeeeegor gor gor gor :P --Richard Bartz 22:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Simonizer 06:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose I'm afraid I'm going to buck the trend, but the dark areas of it's feathers have been lifted way too much resulting in a v. unnatural colour and high levels of noise --Fir0002 www 09:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support wo steht denn dieser Auerhahn? --Böhringer 10:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- Info: Neu-Schönau, im Bayerischen Wald --Richard Bartz 12:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Digitaldreamer 21:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support-LadyofHats 00:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Lacks the undefinable wow factor for me. Perhaps it's the angle, or perhaps the color balance. -- Ram-Man 02:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Merikapteeni 17:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support Basik07 10:25, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
result: 14 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. --Beyond silence 04:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Nyamata Memorial Site 13.jpg, featured
- Info: created by Fanny Schertzer - uploaded by Fanny Schertzer - nominated by Rama --Rama 12:12, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Rama 12:12, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support Med 12:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support creepy Cary Bass demandez 15:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support--Mbz1 18:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- Comment Not categorized! --Beyond silence 18:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- it is in an article. Rama 18:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
-
- Do you mean in a gallery? No problem, I create to it a category. My pleasure. --Beyond silence 19:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Overexposed parts, noise. --Beyond silence 19:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Neutral I think a crop would optimize the picture. Its a pity that the skull on the very right is out of focus --Simonizer 08:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose unfortunate DOF and a quite noisy in the darker parts. Lycaon 16:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Can we send this to one of the graphics labs? I don't think it'd need too much fixing to make it an FP. Adam Cuerden 21:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- They should be send there (or to review) before they reach here!! :-( -- Lycaon 21:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose DoF and exposure. -- Ram-Man 02:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support ♦ Pabix ℹ 07:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support Ludo 08:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support inisheer 06:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
result: 7 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Simonizer 07:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Edited
Edited by --Beyond silence 19:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Oppose very noisy --Bergwolf 20:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose DoF, noise, and exposure. -- Ram-Man 02:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support DOF is not really annoying (is it wrong to focus on the center skulls?). David.Monniaux 13:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Edit 2
Support Adam Cuerden 21:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Overexposed --Beyond silence 22:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose DoF and exposure. -- Ram-Man 02:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:CH Diavolezza Hut.jpg, not featured
- Info: created and uploaded by Dschwen - nominated by Klaus with K --Klaus with K 17:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support Upper station, restaurant and the mountains, all there to show what one needs for skiing. --Klaus with K 17:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
-
- You forgot to mention the snow... ;-) Lycaon 17:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support Yes. Lycaon 17:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support--Mbz1 18:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- Support Good composed panorama. --Beyond silence 18:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Neutral Not enough "wow" factor for me, but enough not to oppose. --Digon3 talk 20:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
-
- you could complain about the cylindrical projection artifacts :~) -- Klaus with K 10:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support Vassil 09:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- Neutral zu wenig Himmel oder unten zu viel Schnee --Böhringer 10:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry, it's a very nice picture but not a FP material. --Atoma 11:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose --Karelj 22:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC) As Atoma.
- Support - Seems like an interesting place. --typhoonchaser 11:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Technically brilliant QI, but not FP IMO. -- Slaunger 13:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - Very correct and sharp, no wow. Alvesgaspar 20:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
result: 6 support, 4 oppose, 2 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Kissing Prairie dog.JPG
[edit] Original, not featured
- Info: Kissing Black-tailed Prairie Dogs
- Info: created ,uploaded and nominated by Mbz1
- Support --Mbz1 02:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- Neutral wenn da dieser Hintergrund nicht wäre, wäre es ein volles pro geworden --Böhringer 10:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support Emotional pro Funny that the right dog lifts his left foot overwhelmed --Richard Bartz 12:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support So cute! Vassil 12:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- Why not imagine to watch it with a pinkish brown sunglas? :-)) --Richard Bartz 20:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment What about with red category? --Beyond silence 13:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- I turned it blue. Vassil 14:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose sorry to have to go against the current, but this image is oversaturated. The original has far more natural colours. Support (of course) when corrected. Lycaon 16:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Wouldn't this be an invasion of privacy? -- Cat ちぃ？ 18:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support Because I am a sap for cuteoverload.com and animals cuddling. I like the unsaturated version as well. Arria Belli | parlami 18:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Can your correct red point under the left hand? --Beyond silence 21:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Red-point, color cast, unsharpness. It is cute though. -- Ram-Man 02:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Edit, featured
Question: For the colours, do you prefer like this? Vassil 20:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Can your correct red point under the left hand? --Beyond silence 21:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- It's done. Vassil 22:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support Me likey. --Digitaldreamer 21:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support Good value. --Beyond silence 22:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support--Mbz1 00:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- Support Ok. So cute! (Once again) Vassil 01:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support I like the second one very much. Arria Belli | parlami 11:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Lestat 21:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Still very much over-saturated. -- Lycaon 18:33, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Cute but unsharp. -- Ram-Man 02:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Urban 05:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support Any but the first. --Digon3 talk 20:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC) copied from Edit3 --Simonizer 13:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
result: 8 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured Simonizer 07:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
-
- Why did you promote the Edit3 when Edit has that votes too? --Beyond silence 08:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- Guess because the colours were not correct??? Lycaon 08:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- Ack Lycaon --Richard Bartz 08:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- Wrong count. 8 people supported this one. Digon3 said he supported all, but the first.--Mbz1 12:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
So edit 3 has 8 support-votes, too. So the situation is the same. Personally i find the colours in this version oversaturated. So i decided to feature the other version. But I dont know what to do in such a situation. The guidlines say we should feature only one picture of the same motif. So i decided to feature the last one. But if you dont agree with this decision, what else can we do? Should we consider a new nomination of both edits? --Simonizer 13:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)Iam confused. I copy Digons Support vote and feature this one. --Simonizer 13:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- Ack Lycaon --Richard Bartz 08:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- Guess because the colours were not correct??? Lycaon 08:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- Why did you promote the Edit3 when Edit has that votes too? --Beyond silence 08:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Edit2, not featured
Just for Beyond Silence red spot is removed(I wish I knew how it came about in the first place)--Mbz1 22:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
-
- Thanks, it is better for everybody! ;) --Beyond silence 22:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support--Mbz1 00:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- Oppose Unsharp. -- Ram-Man 02:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Edit3, not featured
I've been naughty and removed the onlooker in the background. Lycaon 14:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- How nice of you. Is it possible to remove wood also?--Mbz1 15:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
Doubleplus Support Wonderful! 
--Richard Bartz 18:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support Any but the first. --Digon3 talk 20:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support nice, ok --Böhringer 22:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support Great moment. Good editing too. --Nattfodd 22:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment The reconstitution of the background tree is a great work! But a sign of the crime remains: the onlooker's tail... Vassil 12:42, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- hahaha, good Vassil, I missed that one. Thanks. I'll fix it. Lycaon 14:08, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose I don't like th colours. --Beyond silence 18:15, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- I'm sorry but there is nothing to 'like' about natural colours. That's how they are. Lycaon 18:31, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support The crime is perfect now! Vassil 21:01, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Karelj 22:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Unsharp. -- Ram-Man 02:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support Sweet --Bergwolf 16:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
result: 7 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (other version has more support votes) Simonizer 07:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Argynnis paphia on Carduoideae Richard Bartz.jpg, featured
- Info: created & nominated by --Richard Bartz 12:51, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Richard Bartz 12:51, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose I like this picture very much, but the DOF makes not enough sharp at important parts and a noisy. Sorry. --Beyond silence 13:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- Shurely it was possible to take this butterfly with 100ISO, a ring flash, from a sideview or topview for low noise and "perfekt?" DoF, but this causes in a very dark background, boring composition and unnatural colors. What i tried and still try is to display the 100% brightness of the background, i mean the state i have seen at the place. Its not possible with my cheaper 400D, so i used 800ISO which causes a slight noise. DoF: the most FP butterflies are from a sideview, so taking one from diagonal view by this distance and no crop at a apperature of 14 which is 3x higher than your eye (another unnatural thing) result in this image. As a example, this one is in apple-pie order with a greater distance, but very boring for me. --Richard Bartz 16:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- The human eye works differently than a lens because the brain sees perceived sharpness differently than just whatever the aperture is.
- SupportNice colors and composition.--Mbz1 18:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- Support -- MJJR 20:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Bergwolf 21:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Digitaldreamer 21:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support-LadyofHats 00:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Böhringer 10:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose As a butterfly photographer, the quality isn't high enough. It feels unsharp, noisy, or maybe it's just the DoF. I expect a high standard for insect photos, and a different angle could have produced a better picture without killing the soul of the picture, but that's just my opinion. -- Ram-Man 02:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
result: 7 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 07:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Kleine Emme Nagelfluh 01.JPG, not featured
- Info: created, uploaded and nominated by Simonizer 14:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Simonizer 14:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support--Mbz1 18:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- Support I especially like the green trees and the blue sky in the background. --startaq 18:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - I don't like the composition. Most part of the photo are rocks. Alvesgaspar 20:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
-
- Yes but they are the motif and they are building great lines through the picture and letting your eyes move around --Simonizer 22:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- And as far as I can remember there are not many featured pictures of this kind (river- or forest- or similar detailpictures ) at wikimedia. And i thought this one is pretty good because of the composition and the strong contrasts of dark and bright areas. But now I see how wrong i could be. ;-) --Simonizer 07:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - As per Alvesgaspar --Bergwolf 21:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Alvesgaspar. I would like to see more pictures of the trees and the blue sky in the background. --Digon3 talk 13:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Dont know what blue sky you are talking about!? It was a cloudy day. ;-) --Simonizer 11:25, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Low quality. --Derbeth talk 08:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Darter August 2007-3.jpg
[edit] Original (left), not featured
- Info: Red-veined darter. If this one suffers from unsharpness or any other unexpected and disgusting sin, there are some more coming up. These are indeed amazing creatures. Created and nominated by Alvesgaspar --Alvesgaspar 16:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Alvesgaspar 16:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose f/8 is too shallow, sorry. Interesting pose though. -- Ram-Man 03:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support Poromiami 5:25 14 August 2007 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Alternative (right), not featured
- Info: - Alternative improved picture added - Alvesgaspar 19:26, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support - Alvesgaspar 19:26, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support Good sharpness. --Beyond silence 02:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose I will admit great pickiness in my evaluation of insect photos, but this composition is better than many, but the DoF could be higher, and certainly the resolution as well. Is this a crop or a downsample? I would have liked to see a smaller aperture for more DoF. The composition, however, is excellent and should be the benchmark for future insect photos of this type. -- Ram-Man 03:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Depends on the size of the insect --Richard Bartz 01:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- Info: - This is a crop, not a downsample. Maybe I could get a little closer with my macro lens (not much) but then the DOF limitations would be even worse. The only way to get the whole insect in focus is to take him from above. Yes, I believe there is some pickiness in your evaluation, this is one of my best (two) dragonflies photo. The other one was opposed because the wings were distracting (?). Perhaps there is some irritation in the reviewers because I nominated so many dragonflies in a short time. Even if none of them is promoted (the most certain thing) I'm sure they have contributed for raising the bar in this particular subject. - Alvesgaspar 11:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- This would have been a neutral vote for me a couple months ago, but I think I'm trying to raise the bar a little so that only perfect pictures get through. Unless this insect is smaller than I think it is, you could have gotten closer (theoretically) for more resolution. The composition makes the DoF issue less important, although I would have shot the picture at f/13 (if given the choice). Also, the focus is not on the eye, which is a bit distracting. For me it was very close, but just not quite there. -- Ram-Man 01:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- Depends on the size of the insect --Richard Bartz 01:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support WOW! -- Slaunger 15:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Darter August 2007-9.jpg, not featured
[edit] Original (left), not featured
- Info: Red-veined darter. Created and nominated by Alvesgaspar --Alvesgaspar 16:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Alvesgaspar 16:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support -- Lycaon 19:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support -- MJJR 20:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose A prime example of what I was talking about here, sorry Alvesgasper but the quality at full res is not FP standard. It's full of artefacts especially on the wings --Fir0002 www 22:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- In the text you are referring to, you say: People just click on a image on the thumbnail, have a look at it on the image description page, see it's nice there, note that it is larger than 2000 pix and support without ever looking at it full res -that is a quite comtemptuous comment and a wild extrapolation about Commons reviewers' behaviour. You may of course, like any other user, explain the reasons behind your opposing votes on Commons FPC. But to disdain the whole FPC project just because you think the people reviewing here is careless and incompetent, is not only rude, it is false. Alvesgaspar 23:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Noisy, sorry. --Beyond silence 23:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry, raising the bar here. This is not sharp enough. Also, for future reference, please pick one or two of your best pictures and nominate those, instead of trying to nominate each one to try to increase the odds of success. I've been lectured about that before. -- Ram-Man 03:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)#
result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 16:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Alternative (right), not featured
- Info: Alternative improved picture added (a juvenile male, I suppose) - Alvesgaspar 20:33, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support - Alvesgaspar 20:33, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support They are actually no such things as juvenile dragonflies (juvenile dragonflies are the larvae that live in the ponds). It takes some time for them to get their full colours, that's all ;-). -- Lycaon 20:40, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
- Neutral This is the best one of the bunch sharpness-wise, but not compositionally. It's a good shot of record, but the head is obscured (which is unfortunate) and the tail is blurred (which is ok). Another angle, such as a front view, could have still shown the colors and been stronger compositionally. -- Ram-Man 03:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose sharp on the wings, yes, but most of the rest is not in the focal plane (such as the reproductive parts at the bottom), which makes the image encyclopedically useless. --Dschwen 22:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 16:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:I'll Miss You Dad by Cecilio M. Ricardo Jr.jpg, not featured
- Info: created by Cecilio M. Ricardo Jr., TSgt, USAF (image from US Defense Information School) - uploaded by Smokizzy - nominated by Smokizzy --Smokizzy (talk) 17:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Smokizzy (talk) 17:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Mbz1 17:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- Oppose - Tender and beautifull picture, ruined by an unfortunate crop. With the both feet visible and more space above it would be almost perfect (although dad's bag is ugly!) - Alvesgaspar 18:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Böhringer 18:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Crop. --Digon3 talk 18:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- CommentIn my opinion it is the crop, which makes the picture so touching, tender, beautiful and powerful. The subject of the picture is the girl.--Mbz1 19:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- Support --Jacopo 20:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose The composition renders the image ununderstandable. The subject of the image is the interaction of the girl and the grunt, not a little girl clutching to fatigue pants from which something green is hanging. Rama 20:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- I respectfully beg to differ. The subject of the image is not the interaction of the girl and the grunt, but the childs emotions as her father leaves to fight a war. The child is the subject. Smokizzy (talk) 01:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- The child would not be doing this for any pair of camouflage pants, she's clutching at them because her father is inside. An image for "war-torn child" would be the child sitting alone with some military background. The introduction of the father in the image not only changes the subject into the relationship, which is then poorly rendered, but also makes the image less readable because of the "near-human" nature of the father (as he is framed) and the bottom of his bag, which is not immediately identifiable. Rama 08:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- I respectfully beg to differ. The subject of the image is not the interaction of the girl and the grunt, but the childs emotions as her father leaves to fight a war. The child is the subject. Smokizzy (talk) 01:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Rama said it all. Lycaon 20:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support Great value with meaningful composition, acceptable technical condition. (is it really documentary?) --Beyond silence 21:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Acknowledge Rama --Bergwolf 21:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment For Rama> The little girl as tall she is only catch on his father leg. This enlarges the drama of situation: the girl looks very little with his emotion at the big world big troubles, his father's leg symbolize the WAR, the FEAR, the SACRIFICE (for me). --Beyond silence 02:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
-
- So what ? Can't the grunt duck to level with the girl ? If that thing symbolises anything to me, it's the dehumanising which produces faceless people unable to look at their children in the eyes.
- But the point on featured picture review is not what things represent, it's more whether it's a good idea the make portrait of people which cut them at their crotch. Rama 08:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
-
- PS: I am not immune to emotions convoyed by photos of children torn by war, at the image on the right shows. But you can witness that this works better when 1) it looks less cheesy 2) the grunt is shown as a human being whose humanity shows through the uniform, rather than just the bottom part of a combat droid. Rama 08:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support WOW. 11 comments in just 3 hours. This picture must be good!!!! --Simonizer 08:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
-
- Or very controversial... Lycaon 21:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support It just has the wow-effect. I really like it. --Christoph Leeb 11:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Malene Thyssen 08:30, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Thermos 09:04, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Looks like a propaganda pic. Could be an artificial composition by the USAF. --AM 11:29, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
-
- Do you oppose every military-themed pic based on that rational? If yes, fine. If not, please explain why you think it is "an artificial composition by the USAF". Smokizzy (talk) 18:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
- May he think it's a directed scene. --Beyond silence 18:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think it is a staged photo, the angle would be less lousy. It is probably a candid, and yes it is propaganda, which is fine in itself. The problem is that it is cheap and mediocre propaganda. Rama 08:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support Adam Cuerden 10:18, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose --Karelj 22:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC) Sa AM
- Oppose Cute, but no. ~ Wikihermit 01:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support The bag is a bit unfortunate, but the hand on her head is beautiful, and the expression on her face is wonderful. ~ Riana ⁂ 01:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
-
- There's the bag, the feet of the grunt and the teddy are cut, the background is disturbing, and the composition is lousy. Sharpness and lightning are passable, hooray! Rama 07:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support – A very good picture. –Animum 01:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support It's powerful, even if it is propaganda or posed. I'm not sure why posing would be a problem: most portraits are posed, but they often make good FPs. -- Ram-Man 03:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Urban 04:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support Good example for – in my humble opinion – "kitsch" war propaganda and therefore of good encyclopedic value. Well done! --Christoph Michels 21:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support but I don't think of the picture as "war propaganda". --LC-de 06:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment To whoever says the picture is "propaganda", this picture could probably be used by either pro or anti-war people. I.e. "Honor the sacrifice of our military and their families" or "Please don't harm military families by sending them off to an unjustified war." Hard to call something propaganda when it has no clear bias. Smokizzy (talk) 14:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- This is a naive statement. Any image can be labeled with something as to say one thing or its opposite. Rama 14:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
-
- Well, I agree with Smokizzy in that the meaning of an image is always depending on the context it is presented in, and how it is interpreted. However, to me this image feels staged, overromantic and somehow like a "cliché". That is what makes me associate it with propaganda. This does neither mean that the image actually is any of that, nor that it was intended in such a way or that no other interpretation would be possible. Sorry if I offended somebody. --Christoph Michels 00:13, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Perfectly dubious message for most of the world. Only the poor little girl looks understandable for everyone, she ought to have 90% of the subject.--Benwik 21:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support The interesting aspect about this picture is, that it can be interpreted as pro-war or anti-war. I tend to anti-war. However: the picture makes you think. A few pictures are able to do this. Metoc 19:30, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
result: 17 support, 9 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 17:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Paul Simonon mg 6701b.jpg
[edit] Original, not featured
- Info: created by Rama - uploaded by Rama - nominated by Rama --Rama 20:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Jacopo 20:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support Expressive portrait and impressive atmosphere. Vassil 20:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- Neutral good picture, valuable FP candidate, but needs some noise reduction first. Lycaon 20:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment With some improve, may can be better.--Beyond silence 02:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support I like this version and the modified one below. Cary Bass demandez 12:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose João Felipe C.S 00:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support. Great portrait. I don't mind the slightly grainy BG, you'd get that on analog film too. Has some sensor dust though... --Dschwen 22:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
result: 4 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 17:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Edit 1, not featured
- Comment Do you have any sort of improvement in mind ? I tried the fiddling with the curves, but I am colour-blind so it might look strange to people with normal vision. Rama 07:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose ruins colors. --Dschwen 22:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
result: 0 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 17:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Edit 2, featured
- Comment Noise reduced and slightly resampled. Lycaon 07:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support Vassil 11:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support -- Lycaon 11:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support as above Cary Bass demandez 12:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Simonizer 13:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Beyond silence 13:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Böhringer 22:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Luc Viatour 08:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose João Felipe C.S 00:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support Cool --Bergwolf 16:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose. The denoising kills facial details. Please compare to the original at full size! --Dschwen 22:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
result: 8 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 17:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Digestive system diagram en.svg, featured
- Info: created, uploaded and nominated by LadyofHats --LadyofHats 22:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC).
- Support --Beyond silence 02:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support -- Lycaon 07:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support Great informative, professional-looking image. As always. I'm a little unsure about the colours, but they are the sort used in modern biology textbook illustrations, so... Adam Cuerden 19:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Böhringer 21:13, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - Maybe I'm too picky, but I don't like the apparently random orientation of the segments. For example, why aren't the "Cecum" and "Appendix" segments horizontal? Yes, this is not the first time I make this kind of comment... Alvesgaspar 23:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
- True, it is not the first time you make this coment, it is also true i have already changed the image several times acording to your sugestion. but sorry to say this time i do disagree in your apreciation and that is the reason why i have not changed the image. the reason why the line is not horizontal is becouse none of the other lines are horizontal.-LadyofHats 23:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support ~ trialsanderrors 06:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- um... how does he breath? His liver is up at his armpits.
- there is a propositive increased space between the organs so that the Pancreas is visible as well as the bile duct. this change of place has as a result a decreased space in the chest, yet this is something you can also find in many other images about the subgect. it is also something allowed in a diagram, since what stays of interest right now is the digestive track and not the respiratory organs, if i was to add the lungs i would have to lower everything to their usual place wich would mean the bile duct would be hardly visible-LadyofHats 23:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose --Chrumps 00:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC) A liver is too high.
- explained above why. the real place of the liver would be on top and infront of the stomach, covering the gallblader and the bile duct -LadyofHats 23:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- It takes a hell of lot more effort to produce this kind of artwork than it does to make a small microscope image... ;) Lycaon 11:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- Yes it does, but also it is easy to correct little mistakes and be perfectionist. Alvesgaspar 20:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- this diagram is nothing special, actually is a quite usual diagram, it is used in more than 20 pages in 7 diferent projects, and has been translated to 7 languages. and still i think you are right...on the other hand , diagrams are not done to be special, but to be usefull.-LadyofHats 23:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- True, very useful. But it just falls short on wow factor for me. I guess there are two ways a diagram like this could work: it could show accurate spatial relationship, or it could show a functional relationship, what feeds into what for example. I'm not sure about the first, but I don't think it achieves the second. I agree it's useful, I just think it might be a little more beautiful as well. The colors seem chosen to distinguish the differences between the organs, which they do, but the resulting image, it, well, I just think it could be prettier without detracting from its usefulness. And such a diagram could show flow, if desired. Add a little whitespace between organs that don't 'communicate' with each other in some meaningful way. And/or add little arrows showing the passage of food, and/or the passage of bile, and/or whatever else is of interest. It's not bad. I just think it could be better. My apologies for not explaining my vote more fully earlier. Regards, Ben Aveling 12:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- I Don't think that would improve the picture. As the Lady has stated above this is a schematic representation of the digestive system not a real life reproduction. The aim is to show all organs involved and their connections. It is NOT meant to be an anatomical correct drawing. Lycaon 09:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- Info:- here is a picture of the actual arrengment of organs in the human body,it is in fact a picture of an actual body. and still half of the liver in this picture was removed to have some view in the stomach. if you can understand what is there , how they concet to each other, and where a organ ends and the next starts. then i will do you a diagram that looks this way. Increasing the size of the surrounding outline would result again in organs that are far too small for the body.so it is not the solution... if this is not enough to convince you, then i sugest you google an image on the digestive system. and tell me how this : [11],[12],[13],[14], [15], [16],[17],[18],[19], [20],[21] people can breath.. I mean couldnt you at least make a little bit of research before giving your opinion on a diagram?. (ok the last one was a chiken but wanted to see if you were looking all of them :P)
- i really dont want to be agresive nor pushy, but sometimes you really seem to have no idea what you are talking about. Isnt there a doctor in between you? havent you at least look for your high school book and double check? arent you at least a bit curious? Making this diagrams takes a hell of a lot of work, and time. To come and simply kick it back with a "is nothing special" is more than just ofensive. if it is really nothing special then ok with me, next time i make it with 2 hearts surely you will think it is special then. the point here is that some things doesnt need to be special, diagrams must be simple, clear and illustrative. they should Explain something. the reason why people uses diagrams now a days, even when they require far more work than a picture is becouse in many cases they are more clear, more simple and more illustrative than a picture....I just dont understand you. really-LadyofHats 10:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- Info: I'm very close to supporting this, and I don't underestimate how much time and skill it has taken, nor do I think it 'not special'. My point is a narrow one: that the outline of the body down both sides gives a misleading impression of where the organs actually go, and suggests a physical position which - as LadyofHats points out - was never the intention. Could you not simply remove the body outline, so that there's no implication of where the organs fit - as for example with [22] ? I would happily then support. But in any event, even if this does not pass, I for one very much appreciate the high level of skill that's been dispayed here. --MichaelMaggs 16:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
result: 5 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 17:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Werdau - townhall (aka).jpg, featured
.jpg)
- Info: created, uploaded and nominated by aka 10:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support A few slight luminance stitching artefacts in the sky, but only distracting if looking at the sky only at full resolution. -- Klaus with K 12:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support Great technical condition and resolution. --Beyond silence 17:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support Vassil 23:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Lucas Löffler 11:50, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support Lovely detail, love the carvings. Adam Cuerden 16:35, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support a good work --Böhringer 21:27, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support Lycaon 13:42, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support Nice! -- MJJR 20:16, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support Technical quality. Borderline wow factor. I'm only supporting because it's better technically than other equally boring existing FPs of similar subjects. -- Ram-Man 03:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry, wow factor is missing. If a picture like mine which has high enough technical quality (here) can't become a featured picture just by being a) architecture and b) technically good, then this can't either. It needs that wow factor, and the extremely sharp image isn't enough for a FP. For me, that tilted clock tower is very distracting. -- Ram-Man 03:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Merikapteeni 17:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support I just took the time to have a look at it at pixel size : It's amazingly detailed, clean and sharp ! WOW ! I would have loved the framing slightly less tight, but this won't detract me from supporting it -- Benh 22:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support -- Paulo Juntas 23:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose technically great, but aesthetically it does not please me at all. Super tight crop. --Dschwen 22:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- More space on the right side is not possible due to another building. -- aka 08:03, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support, looks great. Wizardman 19:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
result: 12 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 17:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Vespa crabro germana with prey Richard Bartz.jpg, featured
- Info: created & nominated by --Richard Bartz 17:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Info: A hornet with the upper torso of a honeybee, which she gathers for her breed.
Trenching the bee in a Bat-like posture lasts less then 20 hectic seconds. Adult Hornets just eat plants-juice.
- Support --Richard Bartz 17:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support Now we're talking again! The quality has returned. Lycaon 17:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Like our highly respected Alvesgaspar said: "The best wine should never offered at the beginning", or something like that :-) --Richard Bartz 17:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support - Wow! (our insignificant status, compared to WP:FPC, allows me these candid exclamations) - Alvesgaspar 20:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Digon3 talk 20:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Simonizer 21:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Lestat 21:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Pimke 22:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Böhringer 22:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Digitaldreamer 22:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support Vassil 22:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support Yuval Y § Chat § 12:03, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support --AM 22:10, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Luc Viatour 08:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Chrumps 18:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support After a string of insect picture oppositions, I like this one. And please nominate your good pictures. There are times when nominating a couple less-good pictures first is ok, but if you do it too much, it just gets tedious. -- Ram-Man 03:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support ♦ Pabix ℹ 06:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support Gorgeous --Bergwolf 16:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support spot-on sharpness. --Dschwen 22:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support--Archivaldo 14:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support Basik07 10:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support --LucaG 21:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Thank you very much for the huge motivating support <3 <3 <3 --Richard Bartz 09:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
result: 21 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 17:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:USA Höhle.JPG
[edit] Original, not featured
- Info: created by User:Lucas Löffler - uploaded by User:Nyks - nominated by User:Lucas7777 --Lucas7777 20:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Lucas7777 20:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support Regardless of the noise. --Digon3 talk 20:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Because of the noise. Should be fixed first. Oh and BTW, when fixing the noise, could you please give the file a better name? -- Lycaon 21:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- I´m not very adept at fixing pictures. Could anyone do this, please?--Lucas7777 21:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support very beautifully --Böhringer 21:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Mbz1 22:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- I´d like to stop the choice of this picture, because I want to nominate it with a new Nickname! Please stop it!--Lucas7777 22:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- you can replace it with badname template, ask a Admin. Regards Richie --Richard Bartz 22:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- no I want to CANCEL the choice of THIS picture. I nominated a new version of this picture. --Lucas Löffler 23:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination because i nominated another version Lucas Löffler 23:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
result: Nomination withdrawn => not featured. Simonizer 07:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] The Antelope Canyon in the USA,Arizona, featured
- Support Now, here is my new version of this picture. With a new name. And furthermore, I fixed it a little bit.--Lucas Löffler 22:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support Vassil 23:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Good picture, but too noisy to FP, sorry. --Beyond silence 23:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support Yuval Y § Chat § 11:59, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Dezidor 14:07, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support very beautifully --Böhringer 21:16, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose too noisy, oversaturated and too much contrast. Lycaon 22:04, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support yes, it is noisy, but very beautiful. --Christoph Michels 17:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Noisy. -- Ram-Man 03:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support Although noisy, it is spectacular IMO. -- Slaunger 01:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Urban 04:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Karelj 15:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose --Lestat 16:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- Please state your reason of opposition as a courtesy to the author. Lycaon 09:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose ack Lycaon, oversexed edit, the softness of the tones in the original is way better. --Dschwen 21:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support --LC-de 09:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, I had forgotten that. -- Slaunger 10:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support Basik07 10:48, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support--Mbz1 15:57, 19 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- Support--Atoma 08:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support--Seeder 18:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
result: 14 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 19:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Edit 1, not featured
- Support Time3000 fixed the picture and reduced the noise. Now it is better than the first one.
- Oppose It still too noisy to FP, for me. sorry. --Beyond silence 20:02, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- OK, I withdraw my nomination of "Edit1" the difference between the two versions is too small.--Lucas Löffler 21:41, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
result: Nomination withdrawn => not featured. Simonizer 07:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Tibia insulaechorab .jpg, featured
- Info: Tibia insulaechorab, from the Indian Ocean. Created, uploaded and nominated by Lycaon -- Lycaon 21:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support high quality --Böhringer 21:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support--Mbz1 22:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- Support Amazing quality Vassil 22:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support Very good design --Richard Bartz 23:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support good design --Beyond silence 23:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support Very good --Thermos 09:00, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support Great! --Lucas Löffler 18:29, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support - Alvesgaspar 18:45, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support--Luc Viatour 08:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support--Chrumps 18:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Digon3 talk 19:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support although it's a bit of a pity there's no sense of scale Tbc 20:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support ♦ Pabix ℹ 06:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support Very good --Lestat 16:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support Excellent --Bergwolf 16:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support Very good --Machiavelli talk 18:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support Basik07 10:51, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support yep, no too bad ;-) —— Lycaon 18:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 20:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Krajina mezi Herálcem a Boňkovem.jpg, not featured
- Info: Countryside of Vysočina Region near Boňkov. --Dezidor 21:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Underexposed. (Englisd description is a good thing...) --Beyond silence 23:45, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Needs some brightening and more wow factor. --Digon3 talk 19:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Karelj 22:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose I agree on the wow factor. A very good image nevertheless. --Ikiwaner 22:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Poromiami 5:28 14 August 2007 (UTC) This picture isn't special in any way.
- Oppose Looks too dark and unnatural. — D V S 12:34, 19 August 2007 (UTC).
result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral =>not featured. Simonizer 20:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Pere lachaise detail.jpg, featured
- Info: created, uploaded and nominated by Nattfodd --Nattfodd 21:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Nattfodd 21:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support I like the composition. Aso good quality. --Jacopo 19:12, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support Some very minor purple fringing on the top of the gravestone. Besides that, this a very good shot. Vladsinger 23:45, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - The whole figure of the child-angel should be shown Alvesgaspar 09:26, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I disagree. Adding more of the bottom of the chérubin would break the symmetry with the cross, and the composition wouldn't be as effective. --Nattfodd 09:43, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support ♦ Pabix ℹ 06:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose ac Alvesgaspar --Lestat 16:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- Question: I may be wrong, but I'm not sure you may publish a picture taken inside Le père Lachaise... --Ravenala
- PourRomary 19:34, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
result: 5 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral =>featured. Simonizer 20:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Chrysotoxum cautum Richard Bartz.jpg, featured
- Info: created by Richard Bartz - uploaded by Lycaon - nominated by D-Kuru --D-Kuru 22:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Info:: Flies in the Diptera family Syrphidae are commonly known as hoverflies, flower flies, or Syrphid flies. As shown a (Chrysotoxum cautum)
- Support --D-Kuru 22:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support--Mbz1 22:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- Support --Richard Bartz 22:58, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Question: Richard Bartz' vote counted?
- |Author= Richard Bartz, Munich aka Makro Freak -> two aurhors? --D-Kuru 11:53, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Flash, composition. --Beyond silence 23:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Voor -- Lycaon 06:42, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support Good colour, nice details --Thermos 08:57, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- Neutral Nice details, but too yellow photo. --Dezidor 14:00, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- Neutral Good photo, but not sure that's the best angle, since it leaves out all details of the mouthparts and legs. Adam Cuerden 19:20, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - Bad framing (or crop). I'm with the classical rule. Alvesgaspar 23:34, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support Poromiami 5:26 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support Very nice colors. --Atoma 06:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Oversharpened. -- Ram-Man 11:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Question: Could you explanin me (and probably many others), what you mean with word oversharpened? And from which did you recognize, that picture is oversharpened? --Karelj 22:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Both the highlights and the small hairs appear oversharpened. The highlights are very bright relative to their surroundings. The pixel to pixel contrast is appears too high. It's hard to put it into words, but it doesn't look natural. Most natural subjects have much smoother transitions from pixel to pixel. The image was processed in photoshop, as per the EXIF information. -- Ram-Man 23:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- I think, that more than 90% snaps in this section was processed by photoshop or similar programs and I dońt mind. The reason of this pictures is to show visitors of wikipedia, how some subject look like and this is also case of our picture here, I believe. To say, that insect looks annaturally could enthomologist, but that is not case of another of us, isn´t it? --Karelj 15:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- Both the highlights and the small hairs appear oversharpened. The highlights are very bright relative to their surroundings. The pixel to pixel contrast is appears too high. It's hard to put it into words, but it doesn't look natural. Most natural subjects have much smoother transitions from pixel to pixel. The image was processed in photoshop, as per the EXIF information. -- Ram-Man 23:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Karelj 15:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Lestat 16:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support Very nice colors. --Bergwolf 16:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support--Machiavelli talk 18:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Good sharpness/colors but very poor composition. The "backside" view is not appealing at all. Should have been taken front on with the insect --Fir0002 www 23:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support I like the composition and the detail, and I believe the back side is worth watching, too. --Digitaldreamer 21:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support Basik07 10:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Not very impressive. Too monotone: not enough color contrast. Metoc 19:24, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Composition. Sorry. --MichaelMaggs 06:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
result: 13 support, 5 oppose, 2 neutral => featured. D-Kuru 17:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Portulaca grandiflora 0003.jpg, not featured
- Info: Moss-rose Purslane created by Atamari - uploaded by ~~ - nominated by --Atamari 16:51, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Atamari 16:51, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Sharpness, noise. --Beyond silence 18:18, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose As above. --Derbeth talk 08:43, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Noise --Chrumps 18:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Composition and background isn't the best. --Digon3 talk 19:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 20:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Circulation in macroeconomics.svg, not featured
- Info: Unique diagram about macroeconomic system, created by Beyond silence & LadyofHats - uploaded by LadyofHats - nominated by Beyond silence --Beyond silence 23:32, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Beyond silence 23:32, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - Come on! I'm sorry, but the diagram seems carelessly done, it is not self-explanatory (what is the meaning of the symbols?) and it is not even beautiful! - Alvesgaspar 23:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
-
- Which symbol's meaning don't you find? There is on the picture! (T=Tax, TH from household=household's tax, isn't logic?)--Beyond silence 00:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose --Econt 01:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose For a diagram, it is too simple IMO to be a FP. FP is suppose to be the best of the best. --Digon3 talk 19:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose -- IMHO, a diagram is good if it is suitable for printing, including in grayscale. Color gradations are inessential. ♦ Pabix ℹ 06:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment It looks like a businesslike "concrete gray" Powerpoint chart to me, which i saw very often in my business career. Can you please explicate to me why you think this should be a FP, and where you see the big WOW on this illustration --Richard Bartz 00:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Can be strange but can be WOW for me the working of economy. --Beyond silence 01:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination --Beyond silence 03:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
result:' Nomination withdrawn => not featured. Simonizer 19:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Calopteryx virgo F.jpg, not featured
- Info: created, uploaded and nominated by Chrumps --Chrumps 18:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Good picture, but I think need lesser noise and more sharpness to be FP. Sorry --Beyond silence 18:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Lighting. --Digon3 talk 19:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - It's a beautiful damselflie. Pity that the image is so noisy. Alvesgaspar 20:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Too unsharp for an insect FP. -- Ram-Man 04:52, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
result: 0 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 20:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Aragonite rose.jpg, not featured
- Info: Aragonite
- Info: created ,uploaded and nominated by Mbz1 --Mbz1 23:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Not sharp --Mbz1 23:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose yep, depth of field is too shallow --che 00:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Copying me, huh? :) --Digon3 talk 00:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- Yes. Let's have some fun.Which one you like better?--Mbz1 00:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- Question: Has it been cleaned? It has scattered particles on its surface in full-scale. Are they an integral part of the mineral sample? -- Slaunger 01:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- Good question. Maybe I'll retake the picture in few days--Mbz1 01:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- I withdraw my nomination
result: Nomination withdrawn -> not featured --Simonizer 19:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Petrified pine cone.jpg, not featured
- Info:Petrified Pine Cone(Araucaria sp);Age: Jurassic (210 mya);Location: Patagonia, Argentina
- Info: created ,uploaded and nominated by Mbz1 --Mbz1 01:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support because it is a rare and interesting fossil --Mbz1 01:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support Superb details, excellent light, fascinating subject, deep DOF. I could only wish for a slightly larger resolution and the exact date in the image page description (although with a fossil this age it isn't that relevant). -- Slaunger 01:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose The black background still has a few non-black parts that you may want to edit out. Also the lower half of the outside piece is in shadow. Maybe a different lighting arrangment?--Digon3 talk 01:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Size, expose. --Beyond silence 01:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Can we have the inside view from the original (suitably cleaned) next to the outside view from the new image (rotated to be in the same orientation? I think that would look best. I think this is going to be an FP, but it'll need a little work. - consider running it by en:WP:GL/IMPROVE or another graphics lab? Adam Cuerden 18:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination
result:' Nomination withdrawn => not featured. Simonizer 19:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] edit, not featured
- Support because it is a rare and interesting fossil--Mbz1 03:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- Oppose Expose --Beyond silence 22:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination
result:' Nomination withdrawn => not featured. Simonizer 19:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Mount Hood timberline alpine meadow in bloom P1709.jpeg, not featured
- Info: created by EncMstr - uploaded by EncMstr - nominated by EncMstr --EncMstr 20:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support --EncMstr 20:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Very blurred and overexposed sky. --Digon3 talk 20:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose strange overexposure artifacts --Ikiwaner 21:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Good composition, but technicaly weak to FP. Sorry --Beyond silence 00:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- Question: Thank you for the feedback—I greatly appreciate it. If someone wouldn't mind, here is the raw photo: what tweaks would you suggest? I have Photoshop CS2, but don't mind using another program. EncMstr 05:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I would try increased contrast, downsampling, and maybe a crop to get rid of the yellow flower in the corner. --Digon3 talk 13:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- Question: This is cropped and has increased contrast and slightly increased brightness to balance the histogram. What is the goal of downsampling? EncMstr 01:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
- Downsampling increases sharpness and may get rid of the artifacts. --Digon3 talk 21:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose --Lestat 11:31, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- Please state your reason of opposition as a courtesy to the author. Lycaon 09:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 20:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:SaniyaSyona.jpg, not featured
- Info: created by swapnildalvi - uploaded by swapnildalvi - nominated by swapnildalvi --Swapnildalvi 17:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Swapnildalvi 17:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Usefulness of image could be improved by adding information on where this was taken on the image description page. -- Infrogmation 17:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose that portrait isn't above average to me... which is enough for me to oppose featuring it. And that plastic cup on the right doesn't help in my mind... Benh 20:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - I love photos of children (... and children) and we need more high quality portraits in Commons. But this one is not good enough due to some technical and artistic flaws. The crop is unfortunate and the lighting is wrong, with the faces in the shadow (note that the eyes have no detail). And the cup, of course... - Alvesgaspar 21:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose The portrait isn't natural. Technicaly not too strong. --Beyond silence 23:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Lighting and especially the composition are not good... - Noumenon talk 10:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination 12.3.226.126 15:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
result:' Nomination withdrawn => not featured. Simonizer 19:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Unformatierten Text hier einfügen
[edit] Image:Healy Pink.jpg, not featured
- Info: created by Patrickneil - uploaded by Patrickneil - nominated by Patrickneil --Patrickneil 03:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Patrickneil 03:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose IMO The colours looks nice, but at full res there is a lot of noise in the image and a strange, thin white line at the edge of the tall tower. A processing artifact? -- Slaunger 03:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
-
- Understandable, while part of the original photo, the white line was made more noticeable after leveling the image.--Patrickneil 05:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Very noisy, sorry. --Beyond silence 07:14, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
|
|
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because too noisy. -- Lycaon 08:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC) | Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed. |
- Oppose Just to say that I love the colours, lighting and atmosphere on that picture. Unfortunately, it is too weak on the technical side (noise and softness) and there is that unfortunate tree right in the middle of the foreground... so bad... Benh 13:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose normal quality. ----ßøuñçêY2K 00:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:orthotrichum anomalum kalyptra.jpeg, not featured
- Info: created by Fabelfroh - uploaded by Fabelfroh - nominated by Fabelfroh
- Support the calyptra (something like a cap) that sits on the capsula of a moss. Fabelfroh 07:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
|
|
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because too small. Lycaon 08:14, 19 August 2007 (UTC) | Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed. |
- Comment We've had a lengthy discussion about image sizes in QI. In this case composition, subject and rareness (a such detailed photo of the calyptra of the moss Orthotrichum anomalum is pretty unique on the internet) outweighs image size. Fabelfroh 09:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- Question: What size is the moss? How was the image taken? The metadata says it was with a Canon PowerShot A80? If so, why isn't it possible to get a larger image? Regards, Ben Aveling 09:36, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment The capsulas of the moss we're about 1 mm. The photo already shows a 80% crop. I could upload a full version with about 900 x 650 pixel. But the resulting image will have high noise levels which I have removed in the version above. As I recall correctly the image was taken with ISO 200 which is a lot for a compact camera from 2003. Fabelfroh 14:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- That's indeed why there are size restrictions. Almost anything can be made to look good at this size. Q.E.D. Lycaon 15:40, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- Would it help that I upload the noisy 900x650 version? Fabelfroh 05:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- No. It's no big deal. Some photos are good without being great. If this had been nominated in 2003, it might have been an FP for a while. But I don't think this one cuts it in in 2007. Better luck next time. Ben Aveling 12:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- Would it help that I upload the noisy 900x650 version? Fabelfroh 05:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- That's indeed why there are size restrictions. Almost anything can be made to look good at this size. Q.E.D. Lycaon 15:40, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Paris by night.jpg, not featured
- Info: created, uploaded and nominated by Nattfodd --Nattfodd 12:35, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Nattfodd 12:35, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose blurry and too dark. Try a longer exposure time and a tripod. -- Gorgo 13:43, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Dark is on purpose, to make the lights 'pop out'. Tripod is impossible to use on the top floor (there's a grid through which you have to pass the lens, and besides it's forbidden and there are usually too many people to be able to unfold it). I'm not sure I could have done much better. --Nattfodd 20:19, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- I know, it's really hard to take good pictures at night, but maybe it's possible to use the railing to stabilize the camera (with longer exposure and smaller ISO value)? -- Gorgo 21:33, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose ditto to Gorgo --Jacopo 19:10, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support For me, it's a good night picture: good composition, sharp details (columns, obelisk) and good colours too (the river and the sky). Vassil 21:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Good but not FP. --Beyond silence 01:08, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Bad quality. Look at the picture on full size. --Derbeth talk 08:42, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry I copied the wrong template las 13th --Javier ME 14:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Poor technical quality and too dark. --Digon3 talk 19:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose --Karelj 22:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC) Too dark.
result: 2 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 10:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Henry-Longfellow.png, not featured
- Info: created by ST - uploaded by ADuran after two half-images by nominator Adam Cuerden --Adam Cuerden 19:17, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Adam Cuerden 19:17, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support Great detail. --Beyond silence 01:11, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose And obvious moiré patterns in full resolution - Alvesgaspar 23:30, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Not Moire, I fear: It didn't print particularly well so the background is heavily artefacted. But, despite the funny printing - which does not, thankfully, affect Longfellow himself - it's better than any other image of Longfellow we have. Adam Cuerden 01:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose The head is overexposed. This look like a scanning error though it must not be one. --Ikiwaner 22:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
-
- It is not a photo, I think that is an only empty part as top of hand. --Beyond silence 23:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- Ay, that's just how they did engravings, though it was probably similar in the photograph: One of the reasons I like engravings for Victorian subjects is that photographs of that time are often in pretty bad shape by now, but the engravings keep very well, and often have more detail. Adam Cuerden 15:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- It is not a photo, I think that is an only empty part as top of hand. --Beyond silence 23:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose --Dezidor 21:28, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- Please state your reason of opposition as a courtesy to the author. Lycaon 09:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 10:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Bruggewasser.jpg, not featured
- Info: created by Richardfabi - uploaded by Richardfabi - nominated by Richardfabi --Richardfabi 08:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- Neutral (selfnomination). I like the composition and the light very much. --Richardfabi 08:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Technicaly isn't enough good (noise, expose). Sorry --Beyond silence 23:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment It would have been better if the lighting was reversed, e.g. the white building was in the shadows and the dark building had the sun reflection off of it. --Digon3 talk 13:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- Neutral That's a picture of my town! I like the light and especially the sky. Composition is very 'classic' but good. Some noise however, and a strange impression of unsharpness, although actually sharp at full res. Contrast in the lighting of the left and right buildings: yes, but 'reversing' the lighting by choosing another moment of the day is not possible. The buildings on the left are lit by the sun only on late summer evenings in june and july, and then the tower is only a silhouette because of the sun behind it... Conclusion: nice picture, but just not good enough for FP nomination, I'm afraid. -- MJJR 21:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- Neutral Sorry I'm biased too, I used to live 150 m from there at some time... But I agree with MJJR. Let's try to make a better one of this place, Marc. Lycaon 08:15, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
result: 0 support, 1 oppose, 3 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 11:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Ile-madame.jpg, not featured
- Info: Created by Kaw-Djer - uploaded by Kaw-Djer - nominated by Kaw-Djer --Kaw-Djer 13:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment "Carrelets" (fishing huts) on Madame Island, Charente-Maritime, France.
- Neutral (selfnomination) --Kaw-Djer 13:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose I'm unable to figure out what is on this picture. --che 14:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Seriously tilted. Nice topic anyway. Lycaon 12:08, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
result: 0 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) --Simonizer 14:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Centre Pompidou Facade HDR.jpg
File:Centre Pompidou Facade HDR.jpg
- Info: created,uploaded and nominated by Benh -- Benh 12:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- Info: This is a HDR version of a picture I nominated for QI a few days ago. Alvesgaspar thinks it will not be enough for FP (hope he isn't right this time ! ;)) but I would like to give it a try because I think it's technically good, and has a nice mood. According to a lot of people, this building doesn't look as "good" at day time, which is why I shot it at night (they say Paris shows its best at night). Also, there still isn't a "WOW" picture which illustrate the subject on commons.
- Support -- Benh 12:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support It's technically OK (little noise) and it's got wow for me. -- Lycaon 15:44, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Luc Viatour 17:31, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Mbz1 18:55, 19 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- PourRomary 19:36, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Böhringer 21:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support good picture of an important piece of architecture. --Christoph Michels 22:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support - Noumenon talk 13:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- Info: Sorry to have to strike a negative note here. France has no Freedom of Panorama, unfortunately, and as an image of a building on which copyright still subsists, I'm afraid it is a copvio. Otherwise, I would most certainly support. --MichaelMaggs 16:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- Info:
There is, but for buildings which are less than 20 years old as far as I know, and Centre Georges Pompidou was built before 1987. Benh 19:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC). Hmm, I should ask my colleague who told me about the 20 years, but I checked more carefully, and actually, rights apply until 70 years after the architect's death. I now wonder if this picture should be kept here ??? Is the copyright warning enough ? Benh 20:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support There is a category for this building, with a copyright warning, so I think that we may support this picture. Vassil 18:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support--Seeder 18:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Richard Bartz 19:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Jeses 22:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose --Mihael Simonic 09:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
- Info: Sadly, file was deleted by D-Kuru because of potential copvio (in that case, all pictures of the same category should be deleted too). After several checks and talks, I came to the conclusion that this picture was well a copyright violation, (it's in a public place, but the focus is too much on the building, and the picture permits recognising the building easily even though it's a small part of it) so for now I won't upload it again. I wrote an email to the appropriate person to try to solve this issue. Still thanks anyone for the supports. Benh 20:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Hoverfly.jpg
- Info: It's a good photo, but is it still good enough? Not any more, I think. (Original nomination)
- Delist --Ben Aveling 22:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delist Appears to be a color cast and it's noisy. Resolution is also too low. -- Ram-Man 11:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep Yes good enough (sharp). --Beyond silence 23:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)- Keep Good enough to me. the subject is very nicely taken : nice composition, good DOF, and sharp. Please keep ! Benh 06:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep for sure good enough. Great composition. --AngMoKio 19:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delist Agree with Ram-Man. -- Slaunger 21:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep I like it --Richard Bartz 19:07, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Basik07 08:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Sharp enough to keep until we get a better picture of the same species (of hoverfly, daisy still remains unidentified :) --Javier ME 16:02, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
result: 6 Keep, 3 Delist, 0 neutral => not delisted. --Simonizer 14:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Darter August 2007-13.jpg
[edit] Original (left), not featured
- Info: Female red-veined darter (Sympetrum fonscolombii). I thought the darter season was over for me, but then I saw these two gorgeous ladies and I couldn't resist. Created and nominated by Alvesgaspar --Alvesgaspar 19:42, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Alvesgaspar 19:42, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support nice --Böhringer 22:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support Yuval Y § Chat § 12:01, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support very nice --Lucas Löffler 14:41, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose too much loss of detail due to processing (USM?). Lycaon 09:17, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support nice --Beyond silence 02:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC) Oppose Good looking, but an FP can be more sharp. -- Beyond silence 22:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - I have to accept the votes from Beyond silence like any other contribution, those are the ways of the wiki world. But I don't feel obliged to respect his opinions for they often demonstrate rudness, bad faith and a considerable igorance on the matters under evaluation. Fortunately this kind of behaviour is not too common here and normally doesn't last long. - Alvesgaspar 23:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- I am curious about it when he will contribute a picture to this list, and if, i guarantee, we will look veeeeeeeeery closely. :-)) --Richard Bartz 23:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment
- Just a Comment This looks like a vector graphic for me, sowhat postprocessed, I would say this is cheating, sportsmanlike. If this is your definition of your thrown in "raised bar", na servus. --Richard Bartz 17:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - I don't know the reason for this "painted" look, it is in the raw file also! I will have to verify if there is some noise reduction process active in the camera. Alvesgaspar 18:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
-
- I'd be surprised it's due to some noise reduction process if it's already in the RAW file. As the name suggests, RAW files contain unprocessed datas from the sensor. -- Benh 22:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- For me it looks like a heavy manipulation with Capture NX's unsharp mask --Richard Bartz 00:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Loss of any detail/structure, due very excessive postproduction. I hold it with the classic style and see this very sportsmanlike, sorry. But indeed a very nice picture. --Richard Bartz 00:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Ack Richard. Might not have been intentional, but you only got your camera very recently, maybe you'll find out what happened. --Dschwen 22:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose I've changed my vote to raise the bar. I originally evaluated this image at 2MP, and it is indeed acceptable at my standard viewing requirements. I didn't even notice and/or care about the overprocessing. But an exception to my standards should be made for insect photos: they should look better at higher resolutions based on the quality body of work that we already have. -- Ram-Man 00:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
result:' 4 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. --Simonizer 19:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Alternative (right), notfeatured
- Info: - Alternative improved picture added. Alvesgaspar 19:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support - Alvesgaspar 19:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support Of course! -- Lycaon 19:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Simonizer 09:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Luc Viatour 13:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Wings are distracting. -- Ram-Man 03:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Composition, wings are distracting. --Beyond silence 21:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Loss of detail/structure, due postproduction. I would prefer slight noise rather than this, cause for me it looks like a rubberlike darter, especially on the eyes, sorry. --Richard Bartz 00:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Ack Richard. Might not have been intentional, but you only got your camera very recently, maybe you'll find out what happened. --Dschwen 22:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- Info: - A cropped version of this picture has been promoted to FP in the en:WP :-) - Alvesgaspar 06:21, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
result:' 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. --Simonizer 15:23, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Cetonia-aurata.jpg, featured
- Info: created and uploaded by Chrumps - nominated by Lycaon -- Lycaon 08:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support -- Lycaon 08:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Lucas Löffler 12:44, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support Vassil 12:50, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Böhringer 21:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Simonizer 08:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support -- Benh 11:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Javier ME 16:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Digon3 talk 19:51, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Dschwen 22:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
-
- Why can not I see the picture? --Beyond silence 00:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- There is /ad/ in your anti-banner blocking list (KAV?) --Chrumps 17:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- Why can not I see the picture? --Beyond silence 00:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Isis4563 14:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Insect quality is only average. Background is noisy, murky, and soft. Minor color fringing. Overall composition isn't that great. This isn't raising the bar. -- Ram-Man 04:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support Basik07 10:54, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support--Seeder 18:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
result:' 12 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. --Simonizer 15:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Israel - Haifa - Bahai Gardens 004.jpg, not featured
- Info: created by EdoM - uploaded by EdoM - nominated by Tomer T --Tomer T 18:02, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Tomer T 18:02, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Wide angle lens distortion, uneven composition, and tilt. --Digon3 talk 19:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support Beautiful picture!--Mbz1 23:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- Support --Karelj 15:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose distortion is just too much -- Gorgo 22:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Quality is average at best and the distortion could probably be fixed, although it might not be good enough anyway. -- Ram-Man 04:47, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
result:' 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. --Simonizer 15:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Enallagma cyathigerum Luc Viatour.jpg, featured
- Info: created by Luc Viatour - uploaded by Luc Viatour - nominated by --Luc Viatour www 08:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Luc Viatour www 08:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Simonizer 08:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Nice colours, but very low quality at full res --Fir0002 www 10:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Agree with Fir0002, but again, nice catch ! -- Benh 11:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support -- Ianare 06:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Lestat 16:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- Neutral This is better than others, but I'm not quite as picky as Fir0002. -- Ram-Man 04:48, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support Basik07 10:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry I'm as picky as Fir0002. -- Lycaon 18:36, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support--Seeder 19:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
result: 6 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Simonizer 21:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Aegypius monachus.jpg, not featured
- Info: created by JuliusR - uploaded by JuliusR - nominated by JuliusR --JuliusR 12:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support --JuliusR 12:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - Impressive shot. Unfortunately the quality is not good enough (exposure, noise) and the extreme crop ruins the composition. Alvesgaspar 13:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Good picture, but need more sharpness and less noise. Sorry --Beyond silence 18:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose As Alvesgaspar. --Digon3 talk 19:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Bergwolf 16:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support Compositionally, I like this type of shot. Sharpness is good enough. Noise is fine-grained and not distracting. -- Ram-Man 04:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support per Ram-Man. Ben Aveling 09:43, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support--Seeder 19:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Borderline case for exposure and noise. Lycaon 05:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Lestat 08:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
result: 6 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 21:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:gentiana_pneumonanthe_korseby.jpeg, not featured
- Info: created, uploaded, and nominated by Fabelfroh 09:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC). has a "wow" effect on me. --
- Oppose Good detail, but a composition so isn't presenting well. Sorry --Beyond silence 14:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Then what can be done with the composition or view to make it more interesting? --Digon3 talk 18:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment there is sth wrong with this nomination (technically). It seems to be created within the following nomination. Can also be that i don't get it currently... :)--AngMoKio 20:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- Fixed. -- Ram-Man 05:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose It's got a certain charm, but more DoF is needed. -- Ram-Man 05:05, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose It's probably QI although I find the composition a little boring. Sharp and good DOF, but not enough wow for me. -- Slaunger 02:07, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose --Poromiami 06:02, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- Please state your reason of opposition as a courtesy to the author. Lycaon 09:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
result: 0 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 22:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:SSUnited StatesMP.Jpg, not featured
- Info: created by Mpftmead - uploaded by Mpftmead - nominated by Mpftmead --76.114.192.215 22:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support --76.114.192.215 22:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Nice lighting effect, but very noisy - sorry. --Beyond silence 02:26, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose The lighting is interesting, but there are too many other problems, such as noise. -- Ram-Man 05:03, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 22:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Aitutaki sunset 1.jpg, not delisted
- Info: Doesn't meet the standards --Beyond silence 03:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC) (Original nomination)
- Delist --Beyond silence 03:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep No rationale for delisting offered. ~ trialsanderrors 06:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- Size, value. --Beyond silence 12:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- Both have been approved in the original nomination 5 months ago. I see no radical change in criteria or error of judgement that would supercede that decision. This is a borderline troll nomination. ~ trialsanderrors 19:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- Size, value. --Beyond silence 12:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep This is not wikipedia FP, so no value is not valid IMO. This is also large enough for me not to delist, and nobody had a problem with size when it was promoted in march. --Digon3 talk 14:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delist Both quality and size are sufficient reasons to delist. -- Ram-Man 02:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - Ridiculous nomination! This picture was promoted some months ago and it is superb. - Alvesgaspar 11:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment It has been 5 months since the original nomination. Is that enough time? -- Ram-Man 23:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep I can only agree to Alvesgaspar. I still hope for the day when people give more importance to a composition. --AngMoKio 19:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delist IMO not enough resolution - and I find no mitigating reasons. -- Slaunger 21:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep I can only agree to Alvesgaspar. --Christoph Michels 21:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep --Richard Bartz 19:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Basik07 08:40, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep--Mbz1 02:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- Keep --Seeder 18:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep for now -- Lycaon 05:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
result: 10 Keep, 3 Delist, 0 neutral => not delisted. Simonizer 15:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Aerogel nasa.jpg, not delisted
- Info: Doesn't meet the standards --Beyond silence 03:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC) ( (Original nomination)
- Delist --Beyond silence 03:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep No rationale for delisting offered. ~ trialsanderrors 06:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
-
- SIZE...? --Beyond silence 12:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Aerogels of any size are almost strictly limited to NASA and JPL use (due to rarity), so it would be impossible to make a better shot for some time in the future. Adam Cuerden 20:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delist Rarity or not, it's not high enough quality and not special enough to compensate for the size, despite the difficulty of a shot. A lot of shots are difficult, but this one isn't special enough. -- Ram-Man 02:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Reluctant Keep. The resolution is really low, but the photo is still awesome. -- Slaunger 22:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Size should not be the only reason to delsit unless its only a thumbnail. --Digon3 talk 16:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep --Richard Bartz 19:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep --Seeder 18:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Even encyclopaedic value alone can make an image excellent, despite some technical flaws. This one is a fine example! --Herbert Ortner 16:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep --Vladsinger 02:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC) This user needs to stop being so trigger happy on delist nominations that he doesn't have the time to provide a decent rationale for deletion before considering the inherent value of an image. This image is fine.
result: 8 Keep, 2 Delist, 0 neutral => not delisted. Simonizer 21:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:African penguins.jpg, not delisted
- Info: Doesn't meet the standards --Beyond silence 03:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC) ( (Original nomination)
- Delist --Beyond silence 03:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep No rationale for delisting offered. ~ trialsanderrors 06:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delist The penguins are so tiny that the usefulness of this image is severely curtailed, and the composition is very poor. Adam Cuerden 20:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delist Resolution not up to current standards. Fir0002's pictures are the benchmark for ~2MP images, and this one doesn't cut it. -- Ram-Man 02:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - Why do we insist in killing the history of FP? This was not an error of judgement, just the result of quick technological advances. Alvesgaspar 11:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
-
- Because it is not enough good. What do you like in that history? Some weak picture was been one of best? What are you talking about! If anybody thinking about my technical possibilities then I will thinking about it. --Beyond silence 13:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delist IMO the subjects are too small. -- Slaunger 22:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Agree with Alvesgaspar --Christoph Michels 21:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delist very boring composition --Simonizer 16:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep --Richard Bartz 19:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Basik07 09:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep--Mbz1 02:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- Keep --Seeder 18:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delist --Herbert Ortner 15:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC) Too much useless foreground, the penguin's legs cut off.
- Keep -- Still a good shot Madmax32 11:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
result: 8 Keep, 6 Delist, 0 neutral => not delisted. Simonizer 21:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Common snail.jpg, not delisted
- Info: Doesn't meet the standards --Beyond silence 03:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC) (Original nomination)
- Delist --Beyond silence 03:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep No rationale for delisting offered. ~ trialsanderrors 06:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delist Not the best we have. Lighting and background are not good enough for FP IMO. --Digon3 talk 19:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delist Too low resolution, ack Digon3. Also, the DoF may be too shallow. EXIF information should be provided with FPs if possible. -- Ram-Man 02:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delist Too low resolution and no mitigating reasons. -- Slaunger 22:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Basik07 09:13, 18 August 2007 (UTC) Yes, it is small but should it be the reason for delisting?
- Yes, small images are unsharp and blurry at larger magnifications, which affects their usefulness. They do not qualify as "best we have to offer" for that reason. -- Ram-Man 14:54, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Lycaon 16:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep --Seeder 18:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delist --Vladsinger 02:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC) This one should go. Simply doesn't cut it anymore for a reasonably reproducable image.
- Delist ack Digon3 -- אx 06:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
result: 4 Keep, 6 Delist, 0 neutral => not delisted. Simonizer 21:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Crepuscular ray sunset from telstra tower edit.jpg, not delisted
- Info: Size, noise. --Beyond silence 03:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC) (Original nomination)
- Delist --Beyond silence 03:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delist Noise, size, and lack of details. Very beautiful though. --Digon3 talk 20:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delist Noise and size. -- Ram-Man 02:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, although an edit might be worth considering. ~ trialsanderrors 04:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - Why do we insist in killing the history of FP? This was not an error of judgement, just the esult of quick technological advances. Alvesgaspar 11:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
-
- Because it is not enough good. What do you like in that history? Some weak picture was been one of best? What are you talking about! --Beyond silence 13:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Its not allways the technic things --Richard Bartz 19:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- Because it is not enough good. What do you like in that history? Some weak picture was been one of best? What are you talking about! --Beyond silence 13:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep agree with Alvesgaspar --Christoph Michels 21:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep agree with Alvesgaspar --Richard Bartz 19:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Basik07 09:08, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delist Noise, size the subject is not represnted well. There's nothing special in this picture.--Mbz1 02:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- Keep Lycaon 16:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
result: 6 Keep, 4 Delist, 0 neutral => not delisted. Simonizer 21:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Edit 1
- Keep Still a great image IMO --Fir0002 www 07:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- What? You're back to commons! So fast? We even have not had a chance to miss you yet. Oh, an btw
Delist Noise, size the subject is not represnted well. There's nothing special in this picture to keep a picture with the resolution less than 2 mega pixels.--Mbz1 12:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- Keep --Seeder 18:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - Have anyone noticed that this image is not a FP? SO, what's the point in nominating it for delisitng? Alvesgaspar 09:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
- I'd say nobody nominated it for delisting, rather fir000002 nominated it to be kept--Mbz1 09:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- Nomination withdrawn (not a FP) - Alvesgaspar 20:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
-
- It is an FP - this is an edit of the FP above (reduced noise) --Fir0002 www 22:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
- Only one edit of picture can be FP, I think. --Beyond silence 01:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:LilacBreastedRollerCropped.jpg,not delisted
- Info: Low quality and resolution. Color fringing. original nomination. 01:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delist --Beyond silence 03:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delist for reasons stated. NOTE: This image was recently listed for removal, but failed to achieve a quorum. -- Ram-Man 02:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - Why do we insist in killing the history of FP? This was not an error of judgement, just the esult of quick technological advances. Alvesgaspar 11:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delist - noise, chromatic aberration, resolution Madmax32 08:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep--Mbz1 02:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- Delist per nom -- Lycaon 16:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep --Seeder 18:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delist --Vladsinger 03:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC). This is tiny.
- Delist Sorry, too low res. It was taken with an 8mpx camera (The Rebel XT) and cropped. Freedom to share 17:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
result: 4 Keep, 6 Delist, 0 neutral => not delisted. Simonizer 21:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Ring tailed lemur and twins.jpg, delisted
- Info: Size, noise, sharpness (isn't nominated?) --Beyond silence 03:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC) (Original nomination)
- Delist --Beyond silence 03:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- Neutral It's not fantastic, but the twins somewhat makes up for this due to rarity of getting such a good shot. Also, the nomination is here - User:Adam Cuerden
-
- Ok, I found it already. Only I don't know on the pict.'s page why is it unavaliable? --Beyond silence 22:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- Because, frankly, the featured picture template is broken. If an edit is proposed, and is the one that makes FP (not uncommon) the template links to the nomination as if it was nominated under the new filename. Adam Cuerden 23:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, I found it already. Only I don't know on the pict.'s page why is it unavaliable? --Beyond silence 22:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delist Rarity is not a sufficient to mitigate both very poor focus and low resolution. -- Ram-Man 02:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Big enough and rare enough to mitigate low tech score. ~ trialsanderrors 04:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delist ack Ram-Man. -- Slaunger 22:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep--Mbz1 02:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- Delist ack Ram-Man. -- Lycaon 16:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delist poor perspective. The image should haven been photographed from a lower position. -- אx 06:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
result: 2 Keep, 5 Delist, 1 neutral => delisted. --Simonizer 21:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:PetrifiedWood.jpg, delisted
- Info: Resolution, harsh lighting, blends into background, shadow in upper left, no "wow" factor. Just looks like a snapshot to me. Compare with Image:Petrified forest log 1 md.jpg and Image:USA 09788 Petrified Forest Luca Galuzzi 2007.jpg, which is not featured. (Original nomination; Archive of previous delisting attempt)
- Delist – flamurai 04:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delist per nom. --MichaelMaggs 06:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delist per nom ... compared to this i think we can unconsidered delist this picture --Richard Bartz 10:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delist -- Ram-Man 11:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delist --Beyond silence
15:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC) - Delist --Karelj 18:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delist per nom. -- Korax1214 19:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delist Know Nothing (talk) 15:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delist —αἰτίας •discussion• 01:20, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delist as per above Booksworm (talk) 11:36, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-2){kind=link}
_-_The_Shepherdess_(1889).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
![[1]](http://www.mamlambo.com/writing/articles/shark_article1/img/SharkBait.jpg){kind=link}
![[2]](http://mitsloan.mit.edu/mba/images/studentlife/zhiying-02.jpg){kind=link}
![[3]](http://www.destinationelsewhere.com/images/articleimages/shark3.jpg){kind=link}
![[7]](http://www.ultimate-animals.com/img/research_breach2.gif){kind=link}
![[8]](http://www.naturalhistorymag.com/1006/images/1006feature3.jpg){kind=link}
![[10]](http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Pieris_rapae_total_Richard_Bartz.jpg){kind=link}
![[11]](http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/images/ency/fullsize/8710.jpg){kind=link}
![[12]](http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/images/ency/fullsize/1090.jpg){kind=link}
![[13]](http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/anatomy/digestive/color.GIF){kind=link}
![[14]](http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/anatomy/digestive/label/label.GIF){kind=link}
![[15]](http://www.teachnet.ie/farmnet/images/Digest3.gif){kind=link}
![[16]](http://www.westhoughton-high.bolton.sch.uk/primary%20science%20network/mission2files/digestive_system4.gif){kind=link}
![[17]](http://www.bbc.co.uk/health/images/300/digest.jpg){kind=link}
![[18]](http://www.proctitispages.co.uk/digestive%20system.gif){kind=link}
![[19]](http://www.free-ed.net/sweethaven/MedTech/NurseCare/fig91801_01.jpg){kind=link}
![[20]](http://www.cudahychamber.com/images/digestive_system.gif){kind=link}
![[21]](http://library.thinkquest.org/15873/media/chooken.gif){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
result: 10 Delist, 0 Keep, 0 neutral => delisted. --Simonizer (talk) 11:14, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Walls of Dubrovnik-3.jpg, not featured
- Info: created by Beyond silence - uploaded by Beyond silence - nominated by Beyond silence --Beyond silence 03:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Beyond silence 03:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Not enough wow with all the (maybe unavoidable) cut cars at the bottom. Snapshot composition. Lycaon 05:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose per Lycaon. --MichaelMaggs 06:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose The cars really disturb me which give the picture a unfortunately holiday/touristic touch, plus I was in kroatia often, and think there would be more impressive locations to show the walls of dubrovnik, without tourists/visitors and in a more encyclopedic fortification context.--Richard Bartz 08:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I think either more cars or fewer cars would make for a better pictures. All the bright colors attract the eye. Calibas 00:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
- A wall of cars could be interesting, yeah! --Richard Bartz 00:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination Beyond silence 04:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
result: Nomination withdrawn -> not featured. --Simonizer 21:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Hylidae cinerea.JPG, not featured
- Info: created, uploaded, and nominated by Ianaré Sévi
- Support --Ianare 07:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose blown highlight on the frog --che 12:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Lighting, most of the frog is in shadow. --Digon3 talk 14:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose as above --Chrumps 15:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose, I had to double-check to make sure the frog was the focal point of the image, I wasn't sure at first glance. Wizardman 19:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support I like a frog in a shadow much,much better than a frog on the white paper.--Mbz1 01:14, 19 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
-
- And yet you felt it was worth nominating... or perhaps that was just another example of misuse of this page --Fir0002 www 06:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- How did you guess I was talking about your image? Maybe because it is the only one image of a frog on a white paper? As I mentioned earlier I nominated your image with the only reason, which is to learn, if it gets promoted or not. I have many encyclopedies of animals and bugs, but none show a bug, or a frog, or any life creature for that matter at a white paper. In my opinion it is just boring and not encyclopedic. Yet I guess I'd like to learn how you do it. I mean how you take a bee or a wasp or a frog and put them on white paper?--Mbz1 04:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- And yet you felt it was worth nominating... or perhaps that was just another example of misuse of this page --Fir0002 www 06:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 22:25, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Aragonite Mineral Macro.JPG, not featured
- Info: created and nominated by --Digon3 talk --Digon3 talk 19:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Digon3 talk 19:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Sharpness, noise. --Beyond silence 21:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Me neither --Richard Bartz 00:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- Actually I do see a bit of what I believe to be noise, or some kind of artifact which are not desired. Maybe it's the kind of noise more due to compression than sensor. -- Benh 09:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Support Not as good as I would expect (macro shots of still subjects is much easier and should deliver the very best of sharpness and details) but good enough, especially the lighting, and I guess we don't have better pic of similar subjects for now. -- Benh 09:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose ac Beyond silence --Lestat 16:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose a reproducible macro shot like this should be perfect, this is off center has soft focus, the light could come a little more from the front etc. Good QI but not excellent. --Dschwen 21:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- Info:When you re-take, use a much smaller aperture, and a tripod, to get a greater depth of field.--MichaelMaggs 06:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support ----ßøuñçêY2K 00:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
- Info:When you re-take, watch at en:CombineZM. It could be interesting. --Kolossos 12:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 22:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:MuseeDOrsay.jpg, featured
- Info: created by Sanchezn - uploaded by Sanchezn - nominated by Benh -- Benh 22:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support To change from the insects/flowers pictures a bit. Maybe this picture misses a bit of colour, maybe we can see the effects of rectilinear projection at the left and right borders (stretched pixels), but the building itself is beautiful, lighting is good, stitching is nicely done and it's sharp. Also, we don't have pictures illustrating the subject better than this one -- Benh 22:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support and agree with Benh. Paulo Juntas 23:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Beyond silence 01:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support nice and detailed... --Christoph Michels 20:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support Good picture of the subject. Technically great, nice flat perspective.. Good description.. Geocoded. --Gmaxwell 23:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support It looks good technically. Compositionally it is a still just a relatively boring building, but it lacks any major distracting elements, so I'd say it's good enough. I also prefer this type of projection, even with a little stretching. It seems more natural to me. -- Ram-Man 04:55, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support --D-Kuru 17:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 22:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Fossil shrimp.jpg, not featured
- Info:Fossil Shrimp (cretaceous) was found in Lebanon created, uploaded and nominated by Mbz1 --Mbz1 21:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Mbz1 21:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Hard to see the fossil well (shine). Sorry --Beyond silence 23:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Hard to see the fossil well??? Oh well, this is one of those pictures that downsampling will help get rid of the unsharpness. --Digon3 talk 13:51, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- Not sharpness the main problem, the lighting is that. --Beyond silence 13:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- I wonder how you could judge the sharpness of the image, if you have not seen how it looks in a real life. You see, it is kind of very, very old and the sharpness tend to erode with the time.--Mbz1 17:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- I withdraw my nomination
result: Nomination withdrawn => not featured. Simonizer 22:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] edit 1, not featured
- Support--Mbz1 17:43, 18 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- Oppose low sharpness, sorry --Beyond silence 20:36, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination
result: Nomination withdrawn => not featured. Simonizer 22:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Rio de Janeiro - Pão de Açucar - Cablecar.jpg, not featured
- Info: created by Wutzofant - uploaded by Wutzofant - nominated by Tomer T --Tomer T 10:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Tomer T 10:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Too much noise to an FP. Sorry --Beyond silence 18:11, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose ack Beyond silence. -- Slaunger 02:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose sorry, not enough wow even if you ignore the noise. -- Ram-Man 14:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 22:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Eastern banjo frog white bg.jpg, not featured
- Info: Eastern banjo frog created by Fir0002 - uploaded by Fir0002 - nominated by mbz1 --Mbz1 19:20, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose The context is completly wrong. A white box and a frog. It may be nice for lots of other subjects but not for a frog. Show me mud, dirt and nature! But not a sterile white box. Metoc 19:33, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
- be gentle, please. After all the picture is FP picture and was selected as a picture of the day just few days ago.--Mbz1 19:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- note this is an encyclopedia, not a art gallery. For enc reasons objects are very often photographed on a neutral background, allowing the viewer the best uninterrupted and objective view of the subject. For example, take a look at the CSIRO factfiles... --Fir0002 www 23:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
- Also compare with Image:Pobblebonk in mud.jpg - mud and water do not a good picture make --Fir0002 www 23:44, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
- note this is an encyclopedia, not a art gallery. For enc reasons objects are very often photographed on a neutral background, allowing the viewer the best uninterrupted and objective view of the subject. For example, take a look at the CSIRO factfiles... --Fir0002 www 23:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
- be gentle, please. After all the picture is FP picture and was selected as a picture of the day just few days ago.--Mbz1 19:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- Comment - I do not intend to vote on this picture because I don't agree with the reasons for nominating it. If the nominator really wants to get it promoted, please begin by supporting it. Alvesgaspar 20:56, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
- Not all nominators support the nominated pictures. You could find quite a few pictures at that very page that were not supported by the nominators. I'm not sure what my reasons for nominating the picture have to do with your vote. If you like the picture, then support it. If you do not like the picture, then oppose it or skip the vote. By the way my only reason for nominating the picture was to see, if it gets promoted.--Mbz1 21:33, 18 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- Support Good sharpness (may it resized), and lighting. Clear composition. --Beyond silence 00:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose IMO the white background makes the frog look artificial - like plastic. I just does not look right to me. -- Slaunger 01:36, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose due to white background. This is the type of shot for an obvious and unashamed QI and easily has lots of encyclopedic value. My own FP frog has a natural background that compliments the frog and is a better example than the one above. -- Ram-Man 03:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose I don't mind the white background. It has wow and is valuable (and it is an unashamed QI attempt). The only thing that bugs me though for an object this size is the limited DOF. Lycaon 08:26, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- Well, in my opinion the size alone cannot be the reason. The rulls are: "Resolution - Photographs of lower resolution than 2 million pixels (e.g. 1600 x 1200 = 1.92 million) are typically rejected unless there are 'strong mitigating reasons'." The nominated picture is displayed at Wikipedia Main Page. Few days ago it was a picture of the day. Isn't this enough 'strong mitigating reasons'?--Mbz1 12:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- Oppose --Lestat 11:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- Please state your reason of opposition as a courtesy to the author. Lycaon 09:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
result: Nomination withdrawn => not featured. Simonizer 22:36, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:FouDeBassan10.jpg, not featured
- Info: created by Ajor933 - uploaded by Ajor933 - nominated by Ajor933 --Ajor933 04:50, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support--Mbz1 05:00, 19 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- Oppose Massive overexpose - sorry. --Beyond silence 07:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Overexposed, noisy. Lycaon 08:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 22:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Mulyanka Pedestrian Bridge.jpg, not featured
- Info: created by D V S - uploaded by D V S - nominated by D V S --D V S 12:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- Info: This is a pedestrian bridge over Mulyanka River with Parkovy microdistrict (Perm) on background. View from the new bridge at Stroiteley Street. — D V S 12:54, 19 August 2007 (UTC).
- Comment I',m not sure - there's a mist that makes it seem a little undersaturated, but on the other hand, it does give the picture a nice sense of depth. Adam Cuerden 16:40, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Noisy, fog. Sorry --Beyond silence 19:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Rather uninspiring subject. Vladsinger 03:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Overexposed and somewhat noisy Madmax32 06:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
result: 0 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 22:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Sž series 711 train (05).JPG, not featured
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.JPG)
- Info: created, uploaded, nominated by --Orlovic (talk) 17:09, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Orlovic (talk) 17:09, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose some CA problems. -- Lycaon 18:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose quality is good but not high. ----ßøuñçêY2K 00:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose The railcar's undercarriage is hidden in the dark, there's a half hidden car on the rigth side. A useful image indeed, but nothing special. --Herbert Ortner 16:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 22:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Head of dragonfly.jpg, not featured
- Info: The head of Darner Dragonfly (Basiaeschna janata) created ,uploaded and nominated by Mbz1 --Mbz1 00:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- done.--Mbz1 12:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- Oppose Frons, labrum and clypeus are overexposed. Lycaon 07:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose as Lycaon --Beyond silence 09:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose overexposure Freedom to share 15:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- CommentThanks for the comments, everybody. I agree the image is overexposed. I've just nominated it because it shows some interesting(in my opinion) details in the eye that other images of a dragonfly eye do not.--Mbz1 16:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)mbz1
- Comment The detail is very nice --Richard Bartz 00:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you, Richard. --Mbz1 01:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- I withdraw my nomination
result: Nomination withdrawn => not featured. Simonizer 22:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Libellula saturata close up.jpg, not featured
- Info: A male Libellula saturata (Flame Skimmer) created ,uploaded and nominated by Mbz1 --Mbz1 01:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Technicaly may can better or may it's enough - but with bright stick I can support this. Sorry --Beyond silence 01:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
- The stick is very easy to correct, but what is the point?--Mbz1 02:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- Oppose This picture has no value. sorry. 123 -Fcb981 02:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
- You could be right. That's why I did not support it myself.--Mbz1 02:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- I withdraw my nomination
result: Nomination withdrawn => not featured. Simonizer 22:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Snow in Holland.jpg, delisted
- Info: Resolution, detail (Original nomination)
- Delist --Beyond silence 01:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delist Unsharp, low resolution, uninteresting composition. -- Ram-Man 02:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - Have you ever read George Orwell's "1984", the part about permanently revising History? Where is the original nomination? Alvesgaspar 11:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
-
- Orwell's book inn't in this case. --Beyond silence 13:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)