Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/August 2008

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository

Jump to: navigation, search

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

Contents

[edit] Image:HerengrachtAmsterdamBrug.jpg, not featured

Herengracht, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

  • Info: created by Massimo Catarinella - uploaded by Massimo Catarinella - nominated by Massimo Catarinella -- Massimo Catarinella (talk) 13:32, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Massimo Catarinella (talk) 13:32, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
  •  Oppose regretfully because I like the place and the mood. I think it was taken a taaaad too soon ; buildings are too dark compared to the sky. Buildings are leaning outward as well. Benh (talk) 13:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Info: The buildings are leaning outward, because they were built in this manner. In Dutch we call it 'op vlucht staan'. The picture was taken with a Manfrotto tripod, which has a integrated leveling bubble, so there is no tilt present. I have taken pictures later on, but on those pictures the buildings were even darker. Canals in Amsterdam are not well lit. This is why its so hard to take a picture here at night.. Massimo Catarinella (talk)
  •  Comment I've seen that an Autoequalisation in Corel Photo Paint gives a better result. --Alex:D (talk) 14:49, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral, fifth-day rule => not featured. Lycaon (talk) 13:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Flower Impatiens.JPG

SHORT DESCRIPTION

 Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because it has insufficient DOF and a poor composition. 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 no contrary views are expressed within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

Lycaon (talk) 16:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I withdraw my nomination Silfiriel (talk) 16:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Khp.jpg

Kentucky Horse Park

 Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because lack of wow. 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 no contrary views are expressed within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

–Dilaudid 08:52, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Libellule sur roseau.JPG

Une libellule sur un roseau

 Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because it is not identified and not sharp enough. 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 no contrary views are expressed within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

Lycaon (talk) 09:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

  •  Oppose Subject is not in focus. Too much going on in this photo to bring the subject to immediate attention. - TheWB (talk) 12:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Chincoteague Pony Swim 2.jpg

Chincoteague Pony Swim July 30, 2008

 Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because poor overall quality. Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing FPX to FPX contested and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If no contrary views are expressed within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

–Dilaudid 22:55, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Hovering Gulls.JPG

SHORT DESCRIPTION

 Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because the topic is too small and not properly identified. Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing FPX to FPX contested and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If no contrary views are expressed within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

Lycaon (talk) 11:58, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

  • Question: What exactly do you mean by "the topic is too small"? I didn't identified the bird firmly because, it's not my field of expertise, although I am sure it's Mediterranean Seagull. How to fix this? But if the photo doesn't have what it takes to be a quality image, just say so, I like negative critics. Should I rename the photo to "A pair of hovering Mediterranean Seagulls" Am I boring you?-- Silfiriel (talk) 15:03, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
    The image is 95% blue sky, so the topic (gulls) is too small. Furthermore, though I'm no ornithologist neither, I'm not convinced by the id. It could as well be Larus ridibundus as L. melanocephalus. Lycaon (talk) 17:53, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I was considering the option that the seagulls are "Larus ridibundus", but their habitat even with migrations spans from Westernmost Europe to North America, while the photo is taken on the Balkan Peninsula, which is surrounded by the Mediterranean Sea, Eastern Europe.The City of Ohrid, about 150km far from the Adriatic Sea.
    • Thanks for this contribution! Not gaining the Featured Picture status doesn't necessarily mean it's not a fine photograph and as such, a valuable contribution. If the photo is cropped so that the birds take up most of the space, the size would drop below the recommended limit of 2 megapixels (see our image guidelines). We need to be sure (not only guess) what our Featured Pictures portray. Furthermore the images need to be categorized appropriately and accurately to reflect the sematics of the photograph. I now categorized this as Category:Unidentified subject so that others can help identify the birds. It's not always up to just one person to construct everything that consists a featured level picture – that's why we're a community :) –Dilaudid 18:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Bk parrot-2, Kristiansand Zoo, Norway.jpg

Parrot from Kristiansand Zoo in Norway.

 Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because there is heavy CA fringing on the beak and the bird is not identified. Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing FPX to FPX contested and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If no contrary views are expressed within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

Lycaon (talk) 12:30, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Bamberg Altes Rathaus BW 1.JPG, not featured

Old town hall

[edit] Original, not featured

  • I am not sure how that part of the bridge is called, its purpose is to break ice, so I guess it may be called icebreaker. I have never seen a house built on top of it. Maybe there are parts of the world where it is a common sight, and you have been there. Just my 2c. Barabas (talk) 18:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
  •  Oppose No wow--Sensl (talk) 19:08, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
  •  Oppose due to poor technical quality: Not sharp at full resolution. —αἰτίας •discussion• 21:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 09:59, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edit1, not featured

  •  Support -- Barabas (talk) 22:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
  •  Support -- interesting subject, good composition Ianare (talk) 05:04, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Certainly a "wow" from me, but the sky is quite grainy and it's not very sharp. Naerii (talk) 10:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Noise very low to my opinion, nice light, good exposition. J-Luc (talk) 13:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  •  Oppose no wow--Sensl (talk) 00:38, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
  •  Support Alvaro qc (talk) 02:29, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The subject is interesting, but I get no wow from this picture. Maybe you could try a night shot? Or at a different time of the day in order to use shadows to give a little more volume to the building? --S23678 (talk) 13:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
  •  Support I like it. --Estrilda (talk) 20:42, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
  •  Neutral Not much wow, but good quality... Can't decide. Leo Johannes (talk) 14:14, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 18:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Orange flower with water.jpg, not featured

An orange flower, with dew collected in the bulb.

  • Info: created by Rootology - uploaded by Rootology - nominated by Rootology -- rootology (T) 17:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
  •  Support -- rootology (T) 17:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Zero wow--Sensl (talk) 19:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
  •  Oppose distracting background, nothing special. —αἰτίας •discussion• 21:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
  •  Support Very colorful.--RekishiEJ (talk) 01:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Confusing composition + lacking crispness and detail --Richard Bartz (talk) 03:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
  •  Support Great! --Micha L. Rieser (talk) 12:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
  •  Support I like it. Alvaro qc (talk) 18:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Cannot be promoted as nothing is identified, and as such not properly categorized. Lycaon (talk) 05:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
    •  Comment White flowers look like some type of Chrysanthemum and the Orange flower could be a Chrysanthemum but reminds me of another bulb or daisy type flower but can't think of it's name. Bidgee (talk) 12:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sadly, i have to agree with Lyacon. Apart from that, this is IMO definietly a great picture which should be featured - it 'sparkles of life'; the colors is amazing, and it is good quality too.

Leo Johannes (talk) 13:17, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

result: 4 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 18:11, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Morelia-viridis.jpg, not featured

Morelia viridis

  • Info: created by Micha L. Rieser - uploaded by Micha L. Rieser - nominated by Micha L. Rieser -- Micha L. Rieser (talk) 23:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Micha L. Rieser (talk) 23:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Looks good in thumb and the tight crop plus the sober centrical composition is surely a matter of taste -but- the large washed out (slight OE caused by a harsh neon lamp light, I assume) area on the upper left part of the snakes back and the missing brilliance in quality and crispness is KO criteria here 4 me. --Richard Bartz (talk) 02:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Richard is right: good but not excellent. --Mbdortmund (talk) 10:38, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
  •  Support Technically maybe not perfect, but great WOW 4 me. --Karelj (talk) 20:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
  •  Oppose subject not rare enough to forgive technical issues as outlined above Ianare (talk) 05:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  •  Support. I like it. Thierry Caro (talk) 11:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
  •  Support Wash-out is borderline but doesn't seem blown. A little photoshopping could help with the graininess at full size, but encyclopedicness and wow make up for the technical problems. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 10:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Barabas (talk) 18:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unfortunate lighting advertises this as a zoo pic. Lycaon (talk) 05:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Lycaon. --S23678 (talk) 02:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
  •  Support Wow and encyclopedic (although it does not care that much whether the image is encyklopedic or not; remember that Wikipedia is just one of our projects; if an image would be good in a news article, I think it would be same important as it would be good in aqn encyclopedic article). Leo Johannes (talk) 18:22, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
  •  Support I agree with Leo Johannes. -- IvanTortuga (talk) 19:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
result: 7 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 18:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Gestreifte Quelljungfer01.JPG, not featured

Cordulegaster bidentata

  • Info: created, uploaded and nominated by -- Böhringer (talk) 20:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Böhringer (talk) 20:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
  •  Support nice --Mbdortmund (talk) 23:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
  •  Support -- would support but needs english description Ianare (talk) 04:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  • added basic english info
  •  Comment It needs a description, which in this case, is provided in 2 languages. The FPC page is available in 25 languages. English descriptions (even if practical for a lot of voters) are not mandatory, since it would restrict the use of FPC process to people fluent in English. Le multilinguisme de Commons est une richesse plutôt qu'un handicap! --S23678 (talk) 14:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm not asking for a full translation of the text, but at least some basic info. I'm sure there are plenty of users here that can do this. For this image I was able to do it, but it would be better if a speaker of the language were to do it. (maybe it's not really a dragonfly, but something that looks like one, for example). Je suis bien d'accord avec toi à propos du multilinguisme Ianare (talk) 17:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  •  Oppose not sharp enough--Sensl (talk) 00:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
  •  Support not sharp ? J-Luc (talk) 07:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
  •  Oppose the background distracts. Alvaro qc (talk) 17:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not sharp enough and yet somewhat oversharpened (pale haloes). Lycaon (talk) 05:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
  •  Support Really cool, and that is more important than quality, I think. Leo Johannes (talk) 13:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
  •  Neutral I wish the crop would be a little tighter it being an animal photo and all. But besides that I like it. --IvanTortuga (talk) 19:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 14:19, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Kobarid1.jpg, not featured

Kobarid

  • Info: created & uploaded & nominated by Miha (talk)
  • Info: Kobarid, Slovenia
  • Info: There is also a darker version with more visible light-shadows game...
  •  Support --Miha (talk) 08:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
  •  Neutral First of all the darker version is too dark. This one is the better version. The picture is well done. The composition is good. The trees in the foreground and the houses give a good feeling for the size of the mountain. But its is lacking wow. Maybe you should have done this picture later or earlier in the day when the light is not so harsh and the colours are little bit warmer. There are also a lot of dust spots visible --Simonizer (talk) 09:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
  •  Oppose, I agree with Simonizer about the quality of the light. --Aqwis (talk) 12:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

 Support It is nice and has lots of encyclopedic value (but the light could be better.) This is only a weak support. --MacMad (talk) 17:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

  •  Neutral as per above. MacMad
  •  Oppose not enough wow and rather dark. Also needs geo-coding, of course. Lycaon (talk) 05:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I agree with Lycaon. Well geocoding isn't nescessary I think, but the image is really too gray. Perhaps with sun lower on the horizon it would be better. And less clouds of course. --Aktron (talk) 13:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 2 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer (talk) 14:21, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Fire in kiuas.jpg

A fire in kiuas, a specialized stove used in Finnish sauna.

 Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because of over and underexposure, poor crop and unsharpness 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 no contrary views are expressed within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

--S23678 (talk) 00:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Sea of phones.jpg

SHORT DESCRIPTION

 Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because it is too small Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing FPX to FPX contested and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If no contrary views are expressed within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

Lycaon (talk) 17:58, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Dicepción Neonato.jpg

Photography very difficult to take. It is unknown origin and parentage of this newborn used for drug trafficking.

  • Info: Photography very difficult to take. It is unknown origin and parentage of this newborn used for drug trafficking. created by User:Wilfredor - uploaded by User:Wilfredor - nominated by User:Wilfredor -- libertad0 ॐ (talk) 18:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
  •  Support -- libertad0 ॐ (talk) 18:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Question: Can you please add a more detailed image description? And can you or someone else please translate it to en? I'm not really sure what is shown here (or better: If I see what I think I do). --norro 19:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 Comment Thaks you. That's ready --libertad0 ॐ (talk) 13:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because it has a very low overall quality (details, color, TV capture artefacts) 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 no contrary views are expressed within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
As we