Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/December 2005

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

Image:Peter and Paul's Cathedral Chandelier 2.jpg, Not Featured[edit]

Nominate

LoopZilla 22:42, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support LoopZilla 22:42, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Shizhao 06:48, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Avatar 09:45, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose seems boring to me, sorry --SehLax 17:54, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose You can't identify the subject, bad lighting, disturbing background, ... norro 08:50, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose composition – Rex 19:54, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Get_It (Talk) 02:18, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beny Shlevich 22:03, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

2 Support, 6 Oppose => Not Featured --Shizhao 14:22, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Hakone Owakudani dsc05302.jpg, Not Featured[edit]

Nominate

David.Monniaux 17:22, 15 November 2005 (UTC) (self-nomination)[reply]

Oppose sorry, but the foreground and the mountain are too dark for me --SehLax 18:58, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ACK SehLax norro 15:12, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Shizhao 06:48, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Avatar 09:45, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I could live with the large dark areas. But the white fog is blown out, no details to see there. --Ikiwaner 22:14, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Get_It (Talk) 02:16, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

6 Oppose => Not Featured--Shizhao 14:21, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Zalophus_californianus.jpg, Not Featured[edit]

Nominate

-- Sam916 3:34, 15 November, 2005 (UTC)

Support -- Sam916 3:34, 15 November, 2005 (UTC)
Support --FML 11:25, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Rex 21:12, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Urban 05:28, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Shizhao 06:48, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Avatar 09:45, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not that exceptional -- Gorgo 10:53, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Get_It (Talk) 02:15, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Neutrality 18:01, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --sherz.net 13:07, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- LoopZilla 22:32, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

5 Support， 6 Oppose =〉Not Featured--Shizhao 14:21, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:N2 zebra.jpg, Not Featured[edit]

Nominate

— Fabien1309 14:43, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support — Fabien1309 14:43, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose — I do not like it in black/white — YolanC 14:59, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Shizhao 06:55, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support ♦ Pabix ♮ 09:51, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -○rz 10:30, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - ditto to Yolan; also looks like a zoo - MPF 13:37, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Rex 23:48, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Cutter 00:44, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jon Harald Søby\^{no na} 10:42, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Get_It (Talk) 00:49, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like the composition and the fact, that it's black and white, but the background is overexposed and the post in the foreground is distracting. Otherwise nice shot norro 12:37, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --FML 00:17, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Urban 16:16, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -Aslak 09:14, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

7 Support, 6 oppose, 1 Neutral =>Not Featured--Shizhao 03:05, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Moraine Lake 17092005.jpg, Featured[edit]

Nominate

— Fabien1309 14:43, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support — Fabien1309 14:43, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Godewind 16:47, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --FML 17:50, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support — LoopZilla 23:23, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Rex 00:18, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -○rz 10:30, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support very great colours and composition (even if the contrast could be increased a bit and it's also a little bit blurry) --SehLax 16:07, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support, of course (how could I not??) - MPF 12:43, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support - talk about depth... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 03:12, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Stunning! - ADSR6581 13:19, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support if only I were there now! MartinD 21:55, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jon Harald Søby\^{no na} 10:43, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Tbc 16:05, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Get_It (Talk) 00:49, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support —FoeNyx 14:19, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support wallpapered ♦ Pabix ♮ 19:28, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --che 20:43, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Malene Thyssen 20:19, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

18 Support => Featured--Shizhao 03:03, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Handmade soap.jpg, Featured[edit]

Nominate

— Fabien1309 14:44, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support — Fabien1309 14:44, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support — I like the composition — YolanC 15:04, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Me too (: Tvpm 17:18, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --FML 17:44, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I'm glad you like the composition, since I worked a great deal with just that. Thanks for the nomination :-) Malene Thyssen 22:53, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Shizhao 06:56, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Godewind 07:56, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -○rz 10:29, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral What has this Buccinum undatum to do with the soap? Some Urtica dioica would have been better to illustrate that the soap was made of them as you say in the description. --SehLax 16:08, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Well you could also argue - was has a snail and a stone to do with the soap? I guess you could call it artistic freedom, I liked the blue color close to the yellow soap. Besides you are right that a couple of leaves of Urtica dioica would be illustrative, they are just a bit difficult to handle :-) Regards Malene Thyssen 11:58, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, the Buccinum undatum is the snail, I had just forgotten the English word snail :-) I have nothing against these little flowers, but the combination of the snail and the soap looks just too artificially to me. Or maybe it's the composition as a w= Thyssen]] 22:15, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
    - - I don't want to look like a smartass, but the shell is a Lambis lambis and definately not a Buccinum undatum. I used to collect shells so that's how I know this. Cheers, Tbc 16:09, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – sorry, I do not like the composition. Rex 23:55, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - either the soap or the shell would be fine, but they don't work for me toghether.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 03:11, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Agree with Piotr, but it is a very nice picture nonetheless! ADSR6581 13:21, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The photo itself is excellent, but what on earth do the shell and the soap have to do with eachother? Jon Harald Søby\^{no na} 10:44, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Apparently absolutely nothing - I just liked the shapes and colors together, and was trying to create a feel of bubbles, ocean/water, purity and nature :-) Its like when you write a poem and use funny words ;-) --Malene Thyssen 09:08, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support ♦ Pabix ♮ 09:12, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well I like it, very simple things put together but real art in photographing --Luke1ace 23:30, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

9 Support, 4 Oppose, 2 neutral => Featured--Shizhao 02:59, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Runestonetools.jpg, Not Featured[edit]

Nominate

And when you vote, please state a reason for why you vote that way, regardless if it's positive or negative. It would be nice with some feedback. // Liftarn

Support Well, obviously... // Liftarn
Neutral Reason: just does not make the mark, unclear about what it is about, but I like it LoopZilla 13:24, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Technically not bad, but the topic is unclear, the stone is cut, the shadows quite hard. It's a godd picture, but not a featured one for me -- Fabien1309 14:48, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose composition, lighting (hard shadows) norro 23:06, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Urban 05:16, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Shizhao 06:55, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1 Support, 4 Oppose, 1 Neutral => Not Featured--Shizhao 02:57, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Notre Dame Interior.jpg, Not Featured[edit]

Nominate

--Willtron 23:15, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Willtron 23:15, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Everyday shot, does not show how impressive the cathedral is. --SehLax 10:52, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose — Not exceptionnal Tvpm 17:18, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose norro 23:06, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Shizhao 06:56, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Get_It (Talk) 00:48, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --che 20:41, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Roger McLassus 09:44, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1 Support, 7 Oppose=> Not Featured--Shizhao 02:57, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Notre-Dame de Strasbourg.jpg, Not Featured[edit]

Nominate

and  Support --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 21:06, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose very strange composition. You can see some details but not how the whole building looks like. --SehLax 10:52, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Composition -- Fabien1309 14:50, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support - nice panorama-image which shows how tightly churches were integrated into town centers. It's a pity you can't see the street and the towers top - Janek 18:16, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose norro 23:06, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --○rz 10:29, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Nice work LoopZilla 09:17, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose bottom/top is cut, composition doesn't work for me -- Gorgo 23:49, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Urban 04:41, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support ♦ Pabix ♮ 13:49, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ygrek 17:27, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Fails to illustrate the cathedral main features, cut in all directions. Obviously the cathedral of Strasbourg is difficult to photograph, but this shot could be better. Rama 20:56, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Malene Thyssen 20:19, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -Aslak 09:15, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

7 Support, 7 Oppose => Not Featured--Shizhao 02:56, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:St_peter_1500px.jpg, Not Featured[edit]

Nominate

LoopZilla 09:00, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support LoopZilla 09:00, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral impressing church, but I'd like it better if it was symmetrical. --SehLax 14:01, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Rex 19:59, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Amazing, I think it is the biggest church I have ever seen. YolanC 20:07, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The pic itself might be excellent although it's a rather small resolution. But there are thousands of St. Peter churches and the only thing I know is that it's not the one of Zurich. Categorization would be useful though. --Ikiwaner 21:34, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - pro: the adventurous angle gives a feeling of its size con: blurry, grainy, not symmetrical norro 21:39, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Get_It (Talk) 02:16, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Urban 06:39, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --FML 19:55, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - It would be great if it was sharp and symetrical -- Fabien1309 14:51, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurry, noisy -- Gorgo 23:52, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- I really like the perspective --che 20:39, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

3 Support, 6 Oppose, 3 Neutral => Not Featured--Shizhao 02:55, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Hakone dsc05432.jpg, Not Featured[edit]

Nominate

(self nomination) —David.Monniaux 20:23, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- j'aime bien -- YolanC 21:56, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bad composition, boring norro 08:50, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sublime, subtle, evocative LoopZilla 09:11, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nice composition but a bit too dark and colourless because it's shot against the sun --SehLax 13:53, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Rex 20:00, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too strong camera-default contrast (black trees). My view is stopped by the branch in the middle of the picture and there is no other point where I could look at. Strong color aberrations in the corners (purple and yellow fringes by the trees) --Ikiwaner 21:51, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Get_It (Talk) 02:16, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Ditto to LoopZilla, I like it - MPF 12:56, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose bad lighting + composition -- Gorgo 23:51, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support ♦ Pabix ♮ 09:11, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Urban 16:17, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

4 Support, 7 oppose => Not Featured--Shizhao 02:54, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Tokyo Tower night panorama dsc05991.jpg, Not Featured[edit]

Nominate

—David.Monniaux 18:03, 17 November 2005 (UTC) (self-nomination)[reply]

Neutral the road looks like a very strange lit tower in the thumbnail. But the fullsize version is not bad (e.g. I can read "Volkswagen" :-) ;) --SehLax 13:56, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Rama 16:04, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Rex 20:05, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice picture, but not that exceptional norro 21:30, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Get_It (Talk) 02:16, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Urban 06:38, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I like it -- Fabien1309 14:52, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Shizhao 06:57, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - looks like someone bent the Eiffel Tower :-) - MPF 13:00, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I like the picture, but you need a good DSLR camera to do shots like this. ADSR6581 13:27, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation: during the stay in Japan, my camera lost its display. It was in full auto mode, so I had to shoot the whole stay in full auto mode because I could not adjust the settings! (In this case, I would have liked to set it to 100 ISO) David.Monniaux 20:33, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Malene Thyssen 20:13, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Roger McLassus 09:46, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

3 support, 8 Oppose, 1 Neutral => Not Featured--Shizhao 02:53, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Tabuleiro jogo da vida.jpg (1670x1313), Not Featured[edit]

Brazilian Game of Life (w:Game of Life (Hasbro) and pt:Jogo da vida (jogo de tabuleiro)

Brazilian Game of Life (w:Game of Life (Hasbro) and pt:Jogo da vida (jogo de tabuleiro)).

Nominate

--FML 20:53, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support --FML 20:53, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose lighting, skewed, blurry, poorly done cutting norro 22:54, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Shizhao 03:40, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Urban 05:26, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Get_It (Talk) 17:50, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Roger McLassus 09:50, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Gloumouth1 19:27, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1 support, 6 Oppose => Not Featured--Shizhao 01:30, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Iceland_Dettifoss_1972.jpg (1506x2078), Featured[edit]

Nominate

--Roger McLassus 14:16, 27 November 2005 (UTC) - self nomination[reply]

Support - MPF 01:33, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Shizhao 03:39, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really impressive ! -- Fabien1309 20:22, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support LoopZilla 21:38, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Godewind 11:12, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great view --che 20:46, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support / tsca ✉ 20:51, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral too dark for me ♦ Pabix ♮ 09:13, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The darkness is not a fault of the picture but truly represents the light situation there on 31 July 1972. --Roger McLassus 17:53, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support —FoeNyx 15:32, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Get_It (Talk) 17:49, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Malene Thyssen 08:28, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kessa Ligerro 15:57, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose quality. User:Darkone 19:38, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose quality Marcela 14:18, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 11:33, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - the image does not really show what I have seen at this place (see second last row at the gallery - feel free to tell me, if I should upload one of these images to WikiMedia) Andreas Tille 16:55, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My picture shows Dettifoss from the other side of the river. What is your problem? --Roger McLassus 17:47, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support Very impressive even if the photo is a bit too dark --Gloumouth1 19:25, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose quality, too dark, I'm sure there are better pictures of this impressive waterfall -- Gorgo 20:10, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

On a sunny day you could make a much brighter picture of this waterfall. But if you ever travelled in Iceland, you would know that clouds of the kind shown are quite typical for this area. This photo immediately makes you believe that Dettifoss is situated in Iceland, and not in Italy or Spain. --Roger McLassus 12:10, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Dettifoss was promoted to "favoured picture" by the English Wikipedia. --Roger McLassus 14:02, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

12 Support, 5 Oppose, 1 neutral => Featured--Shizhao 01:29, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Floppy disk internal diagram.svg, Featured[edit]

Nominate

– I don't know, I think this is fairly clear but I'm not sure what your diagram standards are. This is just a little drawing I made illustrating the major internal components of a 3.5" floppy disk. I tried to do it almost as a "film-strip" removing the cover of the disk. It is pretty simple, but maybe that is an asset for something like this — my goal was for it to be understandable by a small child, or someone who had no computer experience. Fastfission 19:07, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support Fastfission 19:07, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support LoopZilla 21:53, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --sherz.net 13:05, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very clearly explains the internals of a floppy disk. —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 22:56, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like it, because it's very clear, but i would like to see it in just one frame (You can describe all elements in the second one). Also i dont like the gaudy and distracting arrows/numbers norro 12:37, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support - MPF 01:31, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Shizhao 03:40, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support ♦ Pabix ♮ 22:50, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Get_It (Talk) 17:49, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Malene Thyssen 20:21, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like it, but it could be better. I agree with norro --Gloumouth1 12:32, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

9 Support, 2 Oppose => Featured--Shizhao 01:28, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Kelp candy.jpg (2304x1728), Not Featured[edit]

Nominate

—kahusi (會話) 06:26, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support —kahusi (會話) 06:26, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - Maybe a little dark.I prefer Image:Plastic-Dart.jpg to this.--○rz 10:14, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Dark and very noisy. ADSR6581 13:14, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose idem. Rex 21:26, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Cutter 00:44, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Urban 05:24, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- LoopZilla 09:58, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Jon Harald Søby\^{no na} 10:41, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Tbc 16:03, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Get_It (Talk) 00:49, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too noisy --Gloumouth1 19:21, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

2 Support, 8 Oppose, 1 neutral => Not Featured--Shizhao 01:27, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Phototaking.jpg (2048x1360), Not Featured[edit]

An example of the methods of photographic composition

Nominate

LoopZilla 08:44, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support LoopZilla 08:44, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose very dark – Rex 00:02, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - ditto to Rex - MPF 13:38, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral cool --FML 18:58, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Tak - nice contrast.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 03:13, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Urban 05:06, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Shizhao 07:22, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Cutter 00:44, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Jon Harald Søby\^{no na} 10:42, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Get_It (Talk) 00:49, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too dark --Gloumouth1 19:19, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

2 Support, 8 Oppose, 1 neutral => Not Featured--Shizhao 01:26, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ren_on_Disco-tour.jpg (1186x829), not featured[edit]

Nominate

 (self-nom) Ren on a small camping place in Lappland -- Godewind 20:04, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Godewind 20:04, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Neutrality 02:11, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Shizhao 06:24, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Background distracts (notably the oil drum) LoopZilla 11:02, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- You misunderstand: the combination of ren and disco is the joke -- Godewind 14:01, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - I see... LoopZilla 11:08, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Get_It (Talk) 17:50, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice combination —MRB 21:59, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Luke1ace 16:16, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Rex 21:33, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral --Gloumouth1 19:31, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice joke and well done. --SehLax 18:25, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't like the composition -- Gorgo 20:08, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not enought a good pictures to made a good Joke. Petrus 22:22, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ACK - really, no -- Mattes 19:02, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 5 support, 7 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured pfctdayelise 12:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Eye iris.jpg, Featured[edit]

Nominate

(self-nom) There isn't very much of these here, so I've decided to try my luck ;-) —che 18:45, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support norro 23:22, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Shizhao 06:31, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good try, but the patch of white lighting is rather distracting and emphasises the reflection of the eyelashes in one part rather. Justinc 09:46, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support —FoeNyx 15:32, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Get_It (Talk) 17:51, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the reflection of the eyelashes - IMHO our nicest pic of an eye. --Malene Thyssen 20:26, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Looks good, but the sharpness is not that great. (OK, I agree that it might be difficult ...) --SehLax 20:44, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support —MRB 21:52, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support A very nice image; the patch of white lighting is a bit distracting, but also convoys an affect of real, so I am left with the first positive impression. Rama 06:49, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice image. I like the reflection of the eyelashes -- Godewind 18:30, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Rex 21:32, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -Aslak 09:12, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Tbc 17:58, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Tak. The beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I had to say it :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 05:03, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -Beautiful eye ! - Fabien1309 10:16, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support MartinD 15:36, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose — A bit dark, visible noise, and the eye is off centre. ADSR6581 16:34, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Yongxinge 09:19, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support pfctdayelise 01:05, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very Good AgatheD 19:47, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice! - Janek 21:16, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I prefer the old black and white Man Ray's picture Petrus 22:24, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

14 support, 6 Oppose, 2 Neutral => Featured--Shizhao 06:07, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Cxlkjvldksjoieoiruoie.png, Not Featured[edit]

Nominate

--FML 13:39, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose blurred, grainy, bad lighting norro 23:23, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Shizhao 06:31, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose would like to have a better description; what is the meaning of the file's name? ♦ Pabix ♮ 09:15, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ack norro + weird filename -- Gorgo 09:39, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, it's a VGA + video out PCI board. What kind exactly? (Maybe I haven't looked close enough...) David.Monniaux 16:47, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Get_It (Talk) 17:51, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Urban 05:27, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --FML 23:46, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

2 support, 5 Oppose => Not Featured--Shizhao 06:05, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Shi hu shan.JPG, Not Featured[edit]

Nominate

--Shizhao 06:31, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Grainy LoopZilla 10:58, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Godewind 14:08, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Urban 04:45, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - too grainy, and (currently) not enough info about what the pic is (for those of us who can't read Chinese, anyway!) - MPF 14:23, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Get_It (Talk) 17:51, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

5 Oppose => Not Featured--Shizhao 06:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Laridae in Beijing Zoo.JPG, Not Featured[edit]

Nominate

--Shizhao 06:30, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support ♦ Pabix ♮ 07:59, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Too many pictures of gulls already? LoopZilla 11:00, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Every day shot norro 23:22, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Urban 04:44, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support - It is the only pic on commons of this particular species (Larus crassirostris), and (despite being photo'd at a zoo) is a wild bird, not a captive, with full wings and not close-ringed - MPF 14:13, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Get_It (Talk) 17:50, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Tbc 12:32, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Rex 21:33, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

2 Support， 5 Oppose， 1 Neutral => Not Featured--Shizhao 06:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ren_on_Disco-tour.jpg (1186x829), not featured[edit]

Nominate

 (self-nom) Ren on a small camping place in Lappland -- Godewind 20:04, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Godewind 20:04, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Neutrality 02:11, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Shizhao 06:24, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Background distracts (notably the oil drum) LoopZilla 11:02, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- You misunderstand: the combination of ren and disco is the joke -- Godewind 14:01, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - I see... LoopZilla 11:08, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Get_It (Talk) 17:50, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice combination —MRB 21:59, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Luke1ace 16:16, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Rex 21:33, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral --Gloumouth1 19:31, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice joke and well done. --SehLax 18:25, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't like the composition -- Gorgo 20:08, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not enought a good pictures to made a good Joke. Petrus 22:22, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ACK - really, no -- Mattes 19:02, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 5 support, 7 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured pfctdayelise 12:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Sihlseeli reflection.jpg, Not Featured[edit]

Nominate

—MRB 21:26, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose --Luke1ace 23:32, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Only a fraction of the image has nice colours, unfortunately. Rama 06:42, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Urban 16:15, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Rex 21:29, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Gwir 08:04, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Oppose -- Get_It (Talk) 22:44, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1 support, 5 Oppose => Not Featured--Shizhao 02:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Mandril.jpg (800x1200), Featured[edit]

Nominate

--Malene Thyssen 20:45, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Malene Thyssen 20:45, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Luke1ace 23:24, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Rama 06:43, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Godewind 07:17, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- che 11:54, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Urban 16:14, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support extremely nice shot, lowish resolution though (1 megapixel) -- Gorgo 17:40, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support —MRB 17:48, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- LoopZilla 23:06, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Fabien1309 13:00, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --flo 16:32, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - background (cage) - MPF 00:13, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -not all animals are able to live on there own in the wild, great shot! —JedOs 07:04, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support - --Roger McLassus 09:38, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --FML 01:33, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Get_It (Talk) 22:44, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Yongxinge 09:19, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support great colors and contrast --Gloumouth1 22:08, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The Cage! Petrus 22:19, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Calderwood 09:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support I had to turn my brightnes way up to even see the cage. And I don't think it distracts, honestly, even then. It may indeed even make more of a statement about the picture than it would have without it! --Fastfission 06:09, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose — Sassospicco 11:36, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

18 Support, 4 Oppose => Featured --Shizhao 02:24, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Gracula indica.jpg, Not Featured[edit]

Nominate

--Shizhao 14:31, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Shizhao 14:31, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose resolution, image quality norro 16:19, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Get_It (Talk) 17:52, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Luke1ace 16:04, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose resolution way to low -- Gorgo 17:41, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Rex 21:30, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose >> resolution... --flo 17:48, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support - wild bird. MPF 00:14, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Janek 21:27, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Sassospicco 11:36, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

4 Support, 5 Oppose, 1 Neutral => Not Featured--Shizhao 02:23, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Johann Peter Eckermann.jpg, Not Featured[edit]

Nominate

--Shizhao 14:30, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Shizhao 14:30, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support —FoeNyx 15:32, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Why is this better than other drawings? norro 16:19, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Get_It (Talk) 17:52, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- LoopZilla 20:25, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose —MRB 21:57, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Urban 16:15, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Rex 21:30, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Husky 13:04, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose who did it ? Petrus 22:29, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose — Sassospicco 11:35, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

4 Support, 7 Oppose => Not Featured--Shizhao 02:22, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:4-Stroke-Engine.gif, Not Featured[edit]

Animated four stroke internal combustion engine

Nominate

LoopZilla 11:05, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support LoopZilla 11:05, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Desperatly needs antialiasing. Jon Harald Søby\^{no na} 11:43, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like this animation in general, but there few things to improve. 1. Anti-aliasing if possible 2. Slow it down 3. The static parts should be brighter/transparent/less distracting norro 16:22, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Get_It (Talk) 17:52, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Malene Thyssen 20:24, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- I agree Norro, I would support if if was slower. -- YolanC 20:55, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Rex 21:31, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Tak - easy to understand. That works for me.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 05:02, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think this is an excellent animation, very instructive. MartinD 15:41, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support and please note - the speed of animated gifs can vary wildly between browsers, for example I believe gifs can often be a lot quicker in Firefox compared to IE. AFAIK there is no practical solution to this. pfctdayelise 01:09, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose aliasing -- Gorgo 20:05, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support excellente work! it's a grafic image, not a foto! - i prefer not waiting on a modem line than having smooth edges!!! - Janek 21:18, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support - coool! that was not done in one, two hours... Mattes 18:50, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support - good animation! - Godewind 08:41, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

8 support, 4 Oppose, 2 Neutral => Not Featured--Shizhao 02:21, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Bmi.a330-200.g-wwbb.arp.jpg, Not Featured[edit]

bmi Airbus A330-200 at London's Heathrow Airport

Nominate

LoopZilla 08:36, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support LoopZilla 08:36, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose bad quality (jpeg artifacts visible), composition is not that great -- Gorgo 09:42, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Shizhao 14:19, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not special in any way compared to our other airplane shots, composition not great. David.Monniaux 16:41, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Get_It (Talk) 17:51, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose —MRB 21:56, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agreed with David.Monniaux, the framing is too tight, especially on the front. And it is just yet another aircraft... Rama 06:46, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Rex 21:31, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose — Sassospicco 11:34, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1 Support, 8 Oppose => Not Featured--Shizhao 02:20, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Grand prismatic spring.jpg (1999x1277), Featured[edit]

Nominate

// Urban 05:48, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support impressive, really. ♦ Pabix ♮ 09:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral licence ? -- Gorgo 09:37, 1 December 2005 (UTC) Support great -- Gorgo 17:44, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support The license was there, Gorgo, but the template used (PD USGov) didn't exist. I put the right template in. Jon Harald Søby\^{no na} 12:04, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support - MPF 14:07, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support —FoeNyx 15:32, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support David.Monniaux 16:42, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Get_It (Talk) 17:51, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Malene Thyssen 20:25, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support —MRB 21:50, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Roger McLassus 09:41, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Tak - wow.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 05:03, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support great --Gloumouth1 19:38, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Petrus 22:26, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support - E rulez 08:33, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Calderwood 09:23, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

15 Support => Featured--Shizhao 02:17, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Antheren.jpg not featured[edit]

Nominate

--Luke1ace 16:00, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Luke1ace 16:00, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral DOF to low (it's difficult at short distance shots) -- Godewind 17:28, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Rex 21:29, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose —MRB 09:15, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Shizhao 11:03, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tvpm 15:28, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Get_It (Talk) 22:44, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured pfctdayelise 02:52, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Sharon Stone..jpg not featured[edit]

Nominate

. I think it would be nice to have a picture like this on the main page, to show that Commons also hosts pictures of famous people, and that it's possible to have copyleft images of celebs. This is just one of many pictures of famous actors by User:Nikita.
Husky 12:56, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support Husky 12:56, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral This is not one of the best photos of a celebrity, this photo is better. Thuresson 13:04, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support in my opinion, it's not just the celeb but the pose and the photographers in the background grading the picture up.. unfortunately the photo-quality is in my eyes a little bit too low --flo 16:48, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's nice, to catch her in this situation, but the resolution is to small, the picture is leaning and – most notably – this is an improper angle norro 17:26, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Yukk. - MPF 23:28, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -Aslak 09:11, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Roger McLassus 09:47, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Tvpm 15:27, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Rex 19:52, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Get_It (Talk) 22:44, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I am not that enthousiastic about this particular photo but I think that User:Nikita has other photos which are quite featureable indeed. Also, it seems that some of these photos are scans of analog photos, could higher resolution scans of the films be possible ? Rama 12:35, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose like Thuresson says. Petrus 22:31, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose — Sassospicco 11:37, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 2 support, 9 oppose, 2 neutral => not featured pfctdayelise 02:57, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Buegelbruecken Berlin Lehrterbhf (flo).JPG not featured[edit]

Nominate

--flo 16:40, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support --flo 16:49, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Shizhao 16:50, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose subject is very small so I even can't recognize the Bügelbrücken --SehLax 22:38, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -Aslak 09:10, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - It's a good composition but not an exceptionnal photo/quality of photo - Tvpm 15:27, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Urban 16:46, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Get_It (Talk) 22:44, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Tak - love the grassfield. And the construction in the distance just adds to the contrast.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 05:01, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 2 support, 6 oppose => not featured pfctdayelise 02:59, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ganesha statue from Andra Pradesh.jpg, not featured[edit]

Nominate

--Mtt 22:37, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Mtt 22:37, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Luke1ace 11:32, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't like the composition, the unsharp artificial flower and the overexposed wall. --SehLax 14:11, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- I agree with SehLax - Tvpm 15:26, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Urban 16:47, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - the books top right spoil the composition. The flowers look to be real, though (Nasturtiums) - MPF 01:17, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Shizhao 03:07, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Rex 19:52, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Get_It (Talk) 22:44, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 1 support, 8 oppose => not featured pfctdayelise 03:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hashish shop in Kathmandu, featured[edit]

Nominate

(picture taken by myself in 1973) --Roger McLassus 20:05, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support -Kessa Ligerro 10:33, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral good documentation, but the image quality also looks like 1973 ... Maybe you could sharpen it a bit? --SehLax 14:07, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Great subject, great effect of degraded image quality (volunteer?) - Tvpm 15:22, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The poor quality is the result of the fact that this picture is more than thirty years old. At that time I could not afford an expensive camera, and I used half-pictures to safe space on film. Three decades also have their effect on a dia. But I think this is not the point. I nominated this picture not because of its technical brilliance but due to its historical value and its display of oriental life. If it were made in 1873 instead of 1973 it would not even have colours - but so what? Of course someone could sharpen ist (I myself have no experience with photo-processing) but I think this would reduce its authenticity. --Roger McLassus 16:45, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support LoopZilla 21:55, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Husky 15:02, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Shizhao 03:07, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good, but not excellent. People seem to be off focus norro 16:03, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Get_It (Talk) 22:45, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support pfctdayelise 01:00, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't feel it. Nothing special for me. Petrus 22:34, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hein 10:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Calderwood 09:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 7 support, 3 oppose and 2 neutral => featured. pfctdayelise 03:22, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Acacia covenyi02.jpg, not featured[edit]

Self Nom. --fir0002 09:37, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I don't like the composition. --SehLax 14:09, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support - picture of a great quality - Tvpm 15:24, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Urban 16:46, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support - good sharp focus on the flowers in the centre - MPF 01:19, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Shizhao 03:07, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Rex 19:54, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Get_It (Talk) 22:44, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 2 support, 5 oppose => not featured pfctdayelise 13:38, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Helsingor_Kronborg.jpg, not featured[edit]

Nominate

Hamlets Castle. Basic thins like exposure should be OK – what do you think about the image as a whole? --Ikiwaner 23:14, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose--Shizhao 03:07, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose-- Urban 05:27, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think the wall destroys the composition. And the castle doesn't look that exceptional, from this position anyway. --SehLax 15:54, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rex 19:54, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Luke1ace 22:16, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Get_It (Talk) 22:45, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - the composition is not that great, eg. too much lawn and blue sky. Thuresson 06:24, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose and 1 neutral => not featured pfctdayelise 13:43, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Rainforest walk national botanical gardens.jpg, not featured[edit]

Self Nom. --fir0002 06:12, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support Exotical, good composition and outstanding sharpness+resolution --SehLax 15:51, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Great composition, but not the best lighting conditions. Dark tree in the foreground, pure white and overexposed sites in the background norro 16:07, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Rex 19:54, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Get_It (Talk) 22:45, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose — Sassospicco 11:39, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose FML ^hi 20:59, 18 December 2005 (UTC) good but bad sharpen[reply]

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose and 1 neutral => not featured pfctdayelise 13:47, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Le Louvre - Aile Richelieu.jpg (2048x3072), Featured[edit]

Self Nom --Gloumouth1 22:40, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral I'd have preferred a landscape view. ♦ Pabix ℹ 07:01, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice shot -- Fabien1309 10:17, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Great shot, I like the atmosphere. ADSR6581 12:39, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice atmosphere, great exposure, resolution and sharpness --SehLax 13:43, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Husky 15:01, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Malene Thyssen 18:20, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Godewind 10:25, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - nice pic, but spoilt by the ghosts in the foreground and that weird pyramid thing at the left - MPF 16:59, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

But the pyramid is an integrated famous part of Louvre! Without that it wouldn't be right. --Malene Thyssen 18:20, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral -- Get_It (Talk) 18:37, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Could do with some retouching to get rid of the long exposure "ghosts". Don't retouch away the pyramid though ;-).--Eloquence 23:44, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Petrus 22:39, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral if the ghosts are editted away, i'll change this to support Tbc 23:51, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Who cut the Louvre in half? ...gouly front -- Mattes 18:22, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think the composition is tremendous, because for once it's a different view of the Louvre than the wide head-on shots you always see. You also get a real feel for the pyramids, which are strangely juxtaposed but somehow harmonious. QuartierLatin1968 18:39, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

9 Support, 2 Oppose, 3 Neutral => Featured--Shizhao 02:36, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Viaduc de Passy - Paris - novembre 2005.jpg (1735x2604), Featured[edit]

Self Nom --Gloumouth1 22:44, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support ♦ Pabix ℹ 07:00, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Godewind 08:06, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support — ADSR6581 12:41, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Elgaard 17:19, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Get_It (Talk) 18:37, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Husky 15:01, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support schicke Langzeitbelichtung -Janek 21:56, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Petrus 22:36, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support - that's what I call excellent! -- Mattes 18:24, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Calderwood 09:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Sassospicco 11:33, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support — GerardM 12:33, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Tone 16:08, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support-beautiful- ignis* 17:12, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- classy Solipsist 19:10, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

15 Support => Featured--Shizhao 02:32, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Snle-snle-ng-svg.svg, Featured[edit]

Français : Missiles M45 et M51 dans des coques de SNLE (type Redoutable, à gauche) et de SNLE-NG (type Triomphant, à droite).

English: M45 and M51 intercontinental missiles in submarine hulls of a SNLE (Redoutable type, left) and SNLE-NG (Triomphant type, right).

Deutsch: M45 und M51 Interkontinentalraketen in den Hüllen der französischen Atom-U-Boote SNLE (Typ Redoutable, links) und SNLE-NG (Typ Triomphant, rechts).

M45 and M51 intercontinental missiles in submarine hulls of a SNLE (Redoutable type, left) and SNLE-NG (Triomphant type, right).

An example of vectorial work made by Dake in the "Atelier graphique" (Graphic Desktop). See M51 SLBM] and Category:SVG. ( Nominate

by Yug (talk) 19:36, 6 December 2005 (UTC) )[reply]

Support Yug (talk) 19:36, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral ~~Can we please have an english or german image description? I don't understand, what's shown there~~ norro 19:56, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Rama 00:12, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. norro 22:53, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support --FML 19:58, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I do not understand: what's it about? Janek 21:55, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We added description :] Yug (talk) 17:57, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support I copied description from the page GôTô 22:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Scoo 17:17, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice SVG ... Lyhana8 15:52, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

5 Support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => Featured--Shizhao 02:28, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Krakow Sukiennice.jpg, Not Featured[edit]

Nominate

and  Support --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 05:08, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral contrast is too sharp and size too little; but I love the picture ♦ Pabix ℹ 07:49, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Luke1ace 11:47, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Contrast is fine for me, but I'd suggest applying perspective correction, so the tower wouln't look as the one in Pisa :-) --che 12:28, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose due to resolution and image quality. I can see the JPEG-artefacts around the bulding. norro 14:07, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Get_It (Talk) 21:02, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Urban 05:21, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - nice pic, bad resolution, too much distorsion! Janek 21:58, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

2 Support, 4 Oppose, 2 neutral => Not Featured--Shizhao 02:26, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Krakow univesity of economics main building.JPG, Not Featured[edit]

Nominate

and  Support --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 05:06, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral I would support if the name was correct, ie university ♦ Pabix ♮ 07:44, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Damn, the composition is so perfect; the lighting, the resolution, even the weird object in the foreground ... but i can't support, because unfortunately the view is cropped at the top. What a bummer. norro 14:05, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support LoopZilla 15:01, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Get_It (Talk) 21:02, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

2 Support, 1 Oppose, 2 Neutral => Not Featured--Shizhao 02:25, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Amaryllis blossom (flo).JPG, Not Featured[edit]

Nominate

(self) flo 19:22, 7 December 2005 (UTC) (>> unfortunately species unknown!!)[reply]

Support--Yongxinge 08:45, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Shizhao 01:30, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - er, where's the stem?? Looks disembodied. - MPF 14:35, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Urban 05:28, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Get_It (Talk) 14:12, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Janek 21:51, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1 Support, 5 Oppose => Not Featured--Shizhao 01:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Morteratsch- und Persgletscher.jpg, Not Featured[edit]

Nominate

— Fabien1309 10:28, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support — Fabien1309 10:28, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support — ADSR6581 12:34, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose impressive landscape, but it needs noise reduction and IMHO more contrast --SehLax 13:47, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Wow!! MPF 16:52, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Get_It (Talk) 18:38, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support ♦ Pabix ℹ 21:16, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yongxinge 08:50, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, I prefer this one : Image:MonteRosaWestseite gesehenVomGornergrat.JPG Petrus 22:51, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I prefer the one we can see here, but both images have something in common: They need a histrogram normalisation. If you would try Gimp or your favourite image processing software I would support this image. Andreas Tille 16:54, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Colours, contrast norro 00:00, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Shizhao 01:29, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

6 Support, 4 Oppose, 1 Neutral => Not Featured--Shizhao 01:30, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Bruin-NY3.jpg, Not Featured[edit]

Nominate

— Fabien1309 10:29, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support — Fabien1309 10:29, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Husky 15:01, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Captures the movement of the train and the atmosphere of the New York Subway very well LoopZilla 09:25, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - nothing special - MPF 16:51, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - see above Mattes 18:32, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Get_It (Talk) 18:38, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Urban 05:25, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Roger McLassus 18:02, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose — Sassospicco 11:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

3 Support, 6 Oppose => Not Featured--Shizhao 01:28, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Cathedrale de Coutances.jpg (~ 800x1035 without the frame), Not Featured[edit]

Nominate

// Urban 05:54, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support // Urban 05:54, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support technically impressive, and the name of the photographer is very discrete ♦ Pabix ℹ 07:03, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Godewind 08:03, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Gloumouth1 08:25, 7 December 2005 (UTC) - but crop the frame and remove the signature... --Gloumouth1 22:18, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral — The white border makes the image bigger than it really is, plus visible copyright text. ADSR6581 12:38, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose with this white frame. It may look good on a dark background but it makes it difficult to use the image in Wikipedia etc. I'd voted pro without the frame --SehLax 13:46, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support - but yes, please crop that white frame! - MPF 16:54, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Elgaard 17:17, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Get_It (Talk) 18:38, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Shizhao 01:35, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, It has a giant white frame and a distracting author name in the bottom-right corner, there's no need for the latter since the license being used for the image guarentees atribution. —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 11:39, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support pfctdayelise 01:44, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thuresson 06:23, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. villy ♦✎ 08:29, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Janek 21:53, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. With or without the frame. No utilities, we can see nothing complete. A very bad composition for a interieur Church. Petrus 22:45, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ACK Petrus norro 20:06, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - E rulez 08:27, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I think it's stunning. Renata3 03:47, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - The author name in the right corner makes it clearly non-featured. Andreas Tille 06:27, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Perspective distortion at the bottom of the frame is probably unavoidable, but is too strong for my liking. -- Solipsist 09:40, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

12 Support, 8 Oppose, 1 Neutral => Not Featured--Shizhao 01:28, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Palenque 16.jpg, Not Featured[edit]

Nominate

// --Peter Andersen 18:34, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support // --Peter Andersen 18:34, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Shizhao 01:29, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The picture is good, But lack of Summary and information of the...the...the palace (or temple？)to understand what the building be uesd for.--○rz 10:52, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- The structure seems a little overexposed, plus compression artifacts in the background. ADSR6581 11:26, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I like it, good sense of the scale, and not too crowded with gawping tourists - MPF 14:42, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Urban 05:26, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose shadow norro 10:49, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Get_It (Talk) 14:13, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ack norro. An hour earlier, the shadow may have been on the meadow that now looks a bit as if it was cut every day :-) --SehLax 18:34, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. villy ♦✎ 08:26, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose shadow Rex 14:24, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the shadow bothers me too Tbc 23:52, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

3 Support, 7 Oppose, 2 Neutral => Not Featured--Shizhao 02:19, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:BlesiStrokkur.jpg, Not Featured[edit]

Hot spring "Blesi" in Haukadalur, in background geysir "Strokkur", Iceland

Self- Nominate

Andreas Tille 16:45, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

~~Neutral~~ changed my vote - The geysir and the blue spring look awesome, but what about sharpness? Could you please sharpen it (just a few klicks)?! --SehLax 19:01, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sparpening the steam of the hot spring??? BTW, please sign your vote. Andreas Tille 06:24, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please reconsider the newly uploaded image and don't forget to sign ... Andreas Tille 21:30, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, not the steam, why such sarcasm ;-) ? The composition and the colours are really outstanding. So at e.g. a width of 800px it looks really great, but in the fullsize, it still looks kinda unsharp or blurry or it's just wiggly, this can happen to anyone. I also tried to use a sharpening filter on your pic, but it didn't work. It's a pity for this really outstanding composition. --SehLax 18:18, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support many of other featured pics aren't better so why shouldn't this be featured. Maybe my criteria on sharpness were just too high. After the downsize and the resharpening, it seems to be ok. --SehLax 21:56, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral -- The whole picture needs sharpening. It looks much sharper when sized down a little. It is way too soft at 100%. ADSR6581 11:31, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please have a second look: I did "Unsharp mask" and sized the image down now. Andreas Tille 21:30, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - spoilt by the intrusive boardwalk at the right - MPF 14:39, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's a pity this one did not get one supportive vote till now. Exposure of the geysir is perfect, composition with the two lakes and the geysir builds an optical triangle. The broadway is part of the reality so don't hide it. --Ikiwaner 19:16, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Yes, you are right it is just reality. But more than this: I adjusted these "lines" in the direction of the motiv of the image on purpose. Andreas Tille 21:30, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose -- Urban 05:27, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Get_It (Talk) 14:12, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. great picture. villy ♦✎ 08:26, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fine picture LoopZilla 11:47, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Janek 21:45, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Tbc 23:54, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I've been there and this image does a great job of showing Geysir and the surrounding area. —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 23:02, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Godewind 08:25, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --FML ^hi 17:09, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurry, composition is good norro 19:49, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

8 support, 5 Oppose, 1 Neutral => Not Featured--Shizhao 02:18, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Emerald Tree Boa.jpg, Not Featured[edit]

Nominate

Danleo 14:50, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support Danleo 14:52, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- YolanC 19:34, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Shizhao 01:29, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Poor lighting and at 100% zoom, it is slightly out of focus. ADSR6581 11:19, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose lifeless zoo perch & background - MPF 14:38, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Urban 05:27, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Get_It (Talk) 14:12, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - nice shot but blurry (in need of post-processing: sharpness, resize, color) - Janek 21:50, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

2 Support, 5 Oppose, 1 neutral => Not Featured--Shizhao 02:16, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:sky0194effect.jpg, Not Featured[edit]

A picture of the Colorado sky I took outside my back porch on December 5th. it was near sunset

Nominate

-- ReeveP 05:50, 8 December 2005 (UTC) (signature completed by norro 09:17, 8 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Support -- ReeveP 05:50, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too many sunsets already featured norro 09:17, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice sky, but there are lots of these. --che 11:06, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Shizhao 01:30, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Urban 05:26, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Get_It (Talk) 14:12, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Janek 21:51, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose — Sassospicco 11:31, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1 Support, 7 Oppose => Not Featured--Shizhao 02:13, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Orchon-mongolei.JPG, Not Featured[edit]

Nominate

—Petrus 23:54, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support —Petrus 23:54, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Shizhao 01:24, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral good composition, but especially the sand at the bank is quite grey, needs IMHO more contrast and maybe also saturation espc. red --SehLax 13:35, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support - fascinating pic of an area with very few pics available - MPF 15:58, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good composition and a fascinating area. Yes and a little bit more contrast (anyway pro) -- Godewind 08:16, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Malene Thyssen 09:16, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Get_It (Talk) 18:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – wished the photo was as good as the subject, unfortunately it is rather dark – Rex 00:37, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose norro 11:15, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A little darkness --FML ^hi 14:34, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose dark and composition. --Erin (talk) 04:42, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

5 Support, 5 oppose, 1 Neutral => Not Featured--Shizhao 02:27, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Drei mongolische kamele.JPG, Not Featured[edit]

Nominate

Petrus 23:48, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support Petrus 23:48, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Shizhao 01:24, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose would prefer them not tied up. pfctdayelise 02:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Horrible, but that doesn't mean it's not feature worthy. No point pretending such things aren't happening. --Erin (talk) 04:30, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

2 Support, 2 oppose => Not Featured--Shizhao 02:26, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Six weeks old cat (aka).jpg, Featured[edit]

Nominate

norro. To meet the obvious needs for a featured picture of a house cat

Support norro 22:10, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Shizhao 01:24, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- YolanC 11:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support pfctdayelise 12:31, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support cute and good quality --SehLax 13:14, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --84.56.135.191 15:53, 12 December 2005 (UTC) Please sign in to vote. --SehLax 17:37, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- das einzige Bild dieser Liste, was mein pro bekommt...Marcela 16:15, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Luke1ace 22:48, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- A lot better than all the other cat nominations on this page. Cute shot! Husky 00:31, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support beste Muschi hier ;) Darkone 21:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Godewind 07:59, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Romeo Bravo 02:00, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Get_It (Talk) 18:06, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- better than most cat/kitten photos, but not too exceptional. Solipsist 19:06, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --FML ^hi 20:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC) I think have best alternatives.[reply]
Support --Erin (talk) 04:28, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

12 Support, 2 Oppose, 1 neutral => Featured--Shizhao 02:24, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Bauernkatze.jpg, Not Featured[edit]

Nominate

norro. To meet the obvious needs for a featured picture of a house cat

Support Great composition norro 22:10, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Shizhao 01:24, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, I don't like the composition, especially the overexposed roof.--SehLax 13:32, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support - the nicest of the submitted cat pics - MPF 16:09, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --FML ^hi 18:16, 12 December 2005 (UTC) too artificial[reply]
Support great photo Sassospicco 11:19, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Erin (talk) 04:28, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

3 support, 4 oppose => Not Featured--Shizhao 02:23, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Cat Male European 3 Years.jpg, Male European Cat (Walter 3 Years), Not Featured[edit]

Nomination by AgatheD
Oppose Blurred, low image quality, overexposed background, colour of background same as cat, ... norro 20:24, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - There's nothing interesting about this photo. It's just a very regular photo of a cat... Husky 21:17, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not featured at all! -- Luke1ace 21:20, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose poor - Janek 21:31, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Shizhao 01:24, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Blurry, low quality -- Fabien1309 20:05, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sassospicco 11:22, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Get_It (Talk) 18:06, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --FML ^hi 14:36, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Erin (talk) 04:28, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

10 Oppose => Not Featured--Shizhao 02:22, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Pocket microscope.jpg, Not Featured[edit]

Nominate

and  Neutral, since I am the photographer. --Roger McLassus 14:53, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose nice objects, boring picture. I'd like to see the cover open. A more neutral background would be better, too. - Janek 21:33, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - a usual pic -- Mattes 18:07, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose background --FML ^hi 14:38, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Erin (talk) 04:28, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

4 Oppose => Not Featured--Shizhao 02:22, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Eiffel tower and the seine at night.jpg, Not Featured[edit]

Support - But might need a crop, the tower itself seems too small. Husky 21:17, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Nominate

— (nomination by User:Samokk but he didn't create the template) -- Fabien1309 15:44, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral if I remember correctly the light-design of the Eiffel tower is protected by french copyright law and thus every picture of the tower at night being used for commercial purpose needs permission (and they charge you money for that). So this picture might have to be removed from commons. Also see Commons:Deletion_requests/Archives04#Image:Tour_Eiffel_nuit_Concorde.jpg Very nice picture though :) -- Gorgo 21:44, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't like the composition. Petrus 23:00, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Shizhao 01:24, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose-- Urban 05:29, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - ditto to Petrus. Don't see how they can enforce on the points Gorgo makes, if true it is an absurd law and I can't see a court upholding it - MPF 16:14, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support - excellent image. —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 08:02, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree it's an absurd law, but it has been discussed in the Village Pump and it does seem to exist. So my advice would be to delete this picture. If this is law, a court will have to uphold it. A judge is not allowed to set laws aside merely because he thinks they are ridiculous... But otherwise, I would support this picture. MartinD 10:22, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am french and I think this law only applies to the pictures where the eiffel tower is alone : here, there is Seine river, the bridge and some other buildings. --Fabien1309 20:07, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The Wikimedia Foundation is under the laws of the United States, Florida, and St. Petersburg. We are not under the jurisdiction of France; they have no authority to enforce their copyright laws here. Neutrality 04:17, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good night image. --FML ^hi 14:40, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too blurry. --Erin (talk) 04:35, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

4 Support, 6 Oppose, 1 Neutral => Not Featured--Shizhao 02:21, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Graz University-Library new-front.jpg, Not Featured[edit]

Nominate

and  Neutral, since I am the photographer. --Dr. Marcus Gossler 15:36, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support Kessa Ligerro 12:02, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral like it as a photo, but I find it hard to get a sense of the building from it. Justinc 23:42, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Shizhao 09:02, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support good photo, but maybe not one of "our best pictures". The overexposed cloud distracts me a bit and the building is quite unlit. --SehLax 18:39, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Agree with Justinc. ADSR6581 23:56, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ACK Justinc. Not very special norro 00:27, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. villy ♦✎ 08:19, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Urban 08:26, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Luke1ace 11:02, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - the cloud at sucks big time, not excellent quality reg. the rest. Mattes 18:11, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Erin (talk) 04:24, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

2 support, 7 Oppose, 2 neutral => Not Featured--Shizhao 02:20, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Chatte_européenne.jpg, Female European Cat, Not Featured[edit]

Nomination by AgatheD
Oppose nothing special, extremely small, blurry, not really the best composition --SehLax 18:20, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose like SehLax ♦ Pabix ℹ 18:48, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And it is a cat, not a car! ♦ Pabix ℹ

Oh, this was my typo. t and r are very close to each other. Sorry --SehLax 10:18, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! ♦ Pabix ℹ

Oppose unattractive picture norro 00:29, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Urban 08:27, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Luke1ace 12:48, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose haven't seen cat pictures as bad for a long time! please don't mix up a nice cat with a nice picture of a cat. - Janek 21:36, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sassospicco 11:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Get_It (Talk) 18:06, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Erin (talk) 04:24, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

9 Oppose => Not Featured--Shizhao 02:19, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:SnasavattenNorway.jpg, Not Featured[edit]

Nominate

 (self-nom) - Lake Snåsavatten in Norway before a thunderstorm comes up -- Godewind 11:44, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Godewind 11:44, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Luke1ace 12:42, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Get_It (Talk) 14:13, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice composition and technically well done --SehLax 18:27, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- composition would have been better if the oars weren't cut off. ADSR6581 23:54, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Too dark. villy ♦✎ 08:20, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Real evening atmosphere (18:30) near polar circle before rain falling -- Godewind 13:28, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Urban 08:28, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - to much symetry for my taste! - Janek 21:40, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Tbc 23:53, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral too much symmetrical Sassospicco 11:27, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -
Deutsch: auch wenn ich mal wieder gegen den Strom schwimme, ich finde es gut
Marcela 20:35, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Erin (talk) 04:24, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

3 Support, 6 Oppose, 3 Neutral => Not Featured--Shizhao 02:18, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:State_Hospital_Smoke_House.jpg, Not Featured[edit]

Smoke blowing across a building on the property of the Wernersville State Hospital in Wernersville, PA USA

Nominate

LogicX 02:14, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support LogicX 02:14, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Shizhao 09:03, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Get_It (Talk) 14:13, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose low contrast, kinda boring --SehLax 18:28, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Yes, not much contrast, not vivid. villy ♦✎ 08:23, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Janek 21:41, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose —Sassospicco 11:29, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support - interesting scene. --Erin (talk) 11:12, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

2 Support, 6 Oppose => Not Featured--Shizhao 02:17, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Mount Lushan - fog.JPG, Featured[edit]

Nominate

pfctdayelise 01:36, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support pfctdayelise 01:36, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Shizhao 09:03, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Husky 15:00, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Get_It (Talk) 14:13, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Blurry trees, very dark and grey. Would have been great if the sun has shone on the top or if at least the trees had been green rather than nearly black ... :-) --SehLax 18:31, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Nothing to see, not informative, just a nice picture of something uncertain ... villy ♦✎ 08:25, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Sorry, I should have given some context. Mt Lu or Mt Lushan is one of the five famous mountains of China (at least within China). It usually seems to be mythologised with misty shots like this (see w:Image:Lushan.jpg, which used to be on the en article, for a typical example). But you are of course entitled to your opinion. :) pfctdayelise 11:22, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - This image on the English wp you referred to is IMHO much better (but too small) --SehLax 17:35, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - That image is of unknown copyright status, and probably should have been deleted months ago. pfctdayelise 22:24, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Janek 21:44, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Of course. A happy shoot with the fog, a chance that the sun don't shine. Dark trees are perfect with the fog. A classic pic from a classic landscape. Petrus 22:58, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support The trees are little bit blurry, but due to the fact that they are not the center of the picture, i support, because the mood is so perfect (dark, grey, lonesome) norro 21:44, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Rex 17:48, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support - agree with Petrus, very atmospheric. The trees are Pinus hwangshanensis. - MPF 23:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sassospicco 11:30, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support - also agree with Petrus. -- llywrch 19:54, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support - also agree with Petrus. -- Godewind 15:27, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I LOVE this Chinese calligraphic pic. —the preceding unsigned comment is by Ananda (talk • contribs) 02:55, December 23, 2005
Support Serene. --Erin (talk) 04:23, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

11 Support, 4 Oppose, 1 Neutral => Featured--Shizhao 02:14, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ramaria stricta.jpg, Featured[edit]

Nominate

. There is no mushroom featured pics. And it's a cool mushroom too :). Originally uploaded by Algirdas to Lithuanian Wikipedia. —Renata3 23:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support —Renata3 23:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support - stunning pic! - MPF 00:26, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Dirgela 04:33, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Knutux 05:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support - quite a nice badger, badger, badger, badger, badger, badger, MUSHROOM! —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 07:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support - E rulez 08:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ Neutral --Shizhao 02:15, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Mind sharing why? Renata3 03:45, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Shizhao don't vote with comment :(( -- Godewind 07:49, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- field too low--Shizhao 09:02, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support Nice composition and colour contrast -- Godewind 07:49, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Malene Thyssen 09:54, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

8 Support, 1 Neutral => Featured--Shizhao 02:32, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ponte de Amizade of Macau.JPG, Not Featured[edit]

Nominate

Taken by User:Macanese馬交人. pfctdayelise 12:56, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support pfctdayelise 12:56, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Husky 15:36, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - don't care for the colour tones - MPF 15:53, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --FML ^hi 18:15, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Romeo Bravo 00:13, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose overexposed, colour tones -- Godewind 08:13, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- too much light or too much shadow...:p YolanC 19:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Shizhao 02:17, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Get_It (Talk) 18:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

4 Support, 5 Oppose => Not Featured--Shizhao 02:31, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Lemons photogram.jpg, Not Featured[edit]

Nominate

Taken by User:Cormaggio. pfctdayelise 12:37, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support pfctdayelise 12:37, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support interesting effect, looks good and I think we don't have something like that in FP. --SehLax 13:02, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Husky 15:36, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - sorry, doesn't do anything for me - MPF 15:51, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - don't see any practical usage of this image. E rulez 08:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why, to determine the effect the thickness of a lemon slice has on a photogram, of course! ;) pfctdayelise 11:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to challenge your vote, but be aware, that these are the commons, not the wikipedia. The pictures don't have to be of encyclopedic value. You just vote, if you think, that this is one of our best pictures. Kindly, norro 12:18, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support —norro 12:18, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Rex 17:44, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support (if I may!) I think that, to address the above point, this image should be looked at as an example of a w:photogram, not just any old image (though that too). Cormaggio 00:16, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Shizhao 02:17, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Looks like jellyfishes. Rama 07:58, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Romeo Bravo 05:37, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Malene Thyssen 09:51, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Tbc 14:30, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

8 Support, 5 Oppose => Not Featured--Shizhao 02:30, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Calopteryx splendens 20050729 504.jpg, Featured[edit]

Nominate

Taken by User:Georg Slickers. pfctdayelise 12:28, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support pfctdayelise 12:28, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support - MPF 15:53, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support - E rulez 08:24, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Disturbing background. Would like to see it little bit more from the front. There are better photos of dragonflies (see this for example). norro 12:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rex 17:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Godewind 07:55, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ditto to norro. --SehLax 17:02, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Get_It (Talk) 18:08, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Erin (talk) 03:47, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

6 Support, 2 Oppose, 1 Neutral => Featured--Shizhao 02:27, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Leaving Yongsan Station.jpg, Not Featured[edit]

Nominate

Danleo 03:59, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support Danleo 03:59, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Romeo Bravo 06:02, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fastfission 06:03, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Husky 15:35, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not particularly good I think ♦ Pabix ℹ 06:59, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose distracting spot at right bottom and IMHO too much motion blur --SehLax 13:06, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - agree with SehLax - MPF 16:20, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --FML ^hi 18:15, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Rex 17:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I like the speed effect -- Fabien1309 20:03, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Shizhao 02:17, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Sassospicco 11:21, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Tbc 14:36, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support ack Fabien1309 --Ikiwaner 19:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Brilliant photo, illustrates motion wonderfully! Neutrality 22:39, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Get_It (Talk) 18:08, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -Aslak 19:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- unusual Solipsist 19:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Impressive - Tvpm 21:24, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Motion effect is nice, but anyhow I could imagine nicer scenes that could illustrate this effect and that's why I think it is not really a featured image Andreas Tille 07:35, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ACK Sehlax, A. Tille norro 23:37, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- I don't like it -- YolanC 13:03, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

13 Support, 9 oppose => Not Featured--Shizhao 02:26, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Eastern long neck tortoise - chelodina longicollis.jpg, Not Featured[edit]

Self Nom. --fir0002 03:55, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful! Fastfission 06:04, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice face, but depth of field too low -- Godewind 08:05, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - agree with Godewind, needs more depth of focus - MPF 15:54, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --FML ^hi 00:39, 13 December 2005 (UTC) the face is very good![reply]
Support I like it in an artistic, poster-on-my-wall way. Too low depth of field for an encyclopedia, but the depth, the composition and the mood are great. Perfect for a wikibook about turtles norro 13:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support I actually like the low depth.--Bkwillwm 18:21, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Shizhao 02:17, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Malene Thyssen 09:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Petrus 17:57, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Get_It (Talk) 18:08, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Elgaard 00:48, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Cutted leg, cutted lower tortoise Andreas Tille 07:31, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Erin (talk) 04:38, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- the turtle's head is great but the pic is too blurry for me. YolanC 13:02, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

9 support, 5 oppose => Not Featured--Shizhao 02:25, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:IM000148.JPG, Snoqualmie Falls, Not Featured[edit]

Nominate

and  Support —Romeo Bravo 03:18, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Overexposed heaven, quite bad image quality --SehLax 13:07, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - those hideous buildings and wires above the falls - MPF 16:10, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Urban 05:24, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Does not meet my requirements for a featured picture -- Fabien1309 20:04, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Shizhao 02:18, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Get_It (Talk) 18:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Erin (talk) 04:38, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1 Support， 7 Oppose =〉Not Featured--Shizhao 02:25, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Valley of Fire Nevada USA.jpg, Not Featured[edit]

File:Valley of Fire Nevada USA.jpg

Nominate

—Urban 16:19, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support —Urban 16:19, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Fantastic landscape and nice composition - Godewind 16:27, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support great colours --SehLax 16:59, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Very nice. Husky 21:28, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Even if the colors are exaggerated I think it is done very artisticly - and nice composition too. Regards Malene Thyssen 17:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- YolanC 18:37, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Unequaled. villy ♦✎ 20:29, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too lurid; I agree with the comment on the pic page "The colors in this images seem to have been exaggerated from their real-life appearance, perhaps by overdoing contrast and/or saturation during image processing" - MPF 17:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Unbelievable image (literally!), but appreciable for this very quality. --Cormaggio 01:07, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Great composition ! -- Fabien1309 10:04, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support wow! --FML ^hi 00:19, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Petrus 17:55, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Tone 16:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Get_It (Talk) 18:10, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ -- superb Solipsist 19:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- but I agree with SPUI that it isn't licensed correctly. -- Solipsist 13:56, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Amazing composition. —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 05:47, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- I see that and I hear a "Hooray for for Photoshop" in my head... Rama 16:51, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The license terms are incompatible; the Flickr page shows it licensed under cc-by-nd. --SPUI 08:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A blue road? No, I don't believe the colours. Calderwood 17:20, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

14 Support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral, This file has usage restrictions not compatible with Commons:Licensing.=> Not Featured--Shizhao 06:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Gemeine Heidelibelle (Sympetrum vulgatum) 4.jpg, Featured[edit]

Nominate

a Vagrant Darter by User:Darkone -- aka 08:47, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- aka 08:47, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Calderwood 09:22, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Shizhao 09:34, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support-- they are hard to catch, great work. Dake 09:39, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support ♦ Pabix ℹ 10:14, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Romeo Bravo 15:57, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --che 16:12, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Godewind 16:29, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support ACK Dake. --SehLax 17:00, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support - One more! - MPF 17:27, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Zapping 17:37, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Gloumouth1 19:05, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --—Kobako 13:17, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Petrus 17:55, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Get_It (Talk) 18:10, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- though there are quite a few good dragonfly pictures around. Solipsist 19:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support FML ^hi 20:55, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Rama 16:51, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Girish 8:19, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Support--Mikel 11:50, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Calderwood 17:13, 29 December 2005 (UTC) Oh - I already voted before. A vote can get lost in so many pros. Calderwood 17:15, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

20 Support => Featured--Shizhao 06:44, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Map-of-human-migrations.jpg, Not Featured[edit]

Nominate

 --  Zanimum 20:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Good image, but the orientation of the map is unusual, which makes it difficult to read at first glance. Rama 21:50, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - not too clear, and some errors - humanity is thought to have evolved in the Horn of Africa, not tropical west Africa, and the ice coverage line is inaccurate in places; also ditto to Rama's point - MPF 23:32, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Romeo Bravo 01:56, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Urban 05:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ditto do Rama and MPF --SehLax 17:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I would definitely support a version of this image that had been improved in response to the remarks above. pfctdayelise 23:53, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral ditto pfctdayelise. But the orientation is perfect for the map's purpose. QuartierLatin1968 18:28, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Dr. Marcus Gossler 09:20, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't see any point in having the orientation in that way and not the usual one -- Gorgo 22:26, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Mikel 11:51, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Calderwood 17:12, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

8 Oppose, 3 neutral => Not Featured--Shizhao 06:43, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Hagia Sophia in harbin.jpg, Not Featured[edit]

Nominate

--Shizhao 06:05, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Shizhao 06:05, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't like the perspective -- Godewind 07:52, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ACK Godewind. --SehLax 13:31, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it --FML ^hi 17:06, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - ditto to Godewind - MPF 23:36, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - ditto Godewind. --Romeo Bravo 01:57, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Get_It (Talk) 18:10, 18 December 2005

(UTC)

Oppose --Roger McLassus 20:14, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Tatoute
Oppose Calderwood 17:11, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

2 Support, 6 Oppose, 2 Neutral => Not Featured--Shizhao 06:43, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:FlorenceSantaCroceUp.JPG, Not Featured[edit]

Nominate

(self-nom) I think this turned out well, so I'm nominating it.  Feel free to edit.  Some more balancing may help, but I'm not too good at photoediting--Bkwillwm 17:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support voting my support (if I'm allowed to)--Bkwillwm 17:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Shizhao 02:15, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Good picture quality, nice sky but the bottom of the church is cut. -- Fabien1309 19:54, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Husky 00:28, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Get_It (Talk) 18:10, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ditto to Fabien1309 --SehLax 13:44, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Dr. Marcus Gossler 09:22, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

2 Support, 4 Oppose, 1 Neutral => Not Featured--Shizhao 06:42, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:NYC Top of the Rock Pano.jpg, Featured[edit]

Nominate

—Dschwen 16:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support —Dschwen 16:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Fantastic image! ADSR6581 17:21, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- nice ! -- YolanC 19:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Stunning ! -- Fabien1309 19:55, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Really great -- Godewind 20:57, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support fantastic. Sundown + great city pano. That's what FP should be like ... --SehLax 21:24, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Gloumouth1 21:49, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Amazing! pfctdayelise 00:59, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --FML ^hi 03:13, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support —- Urban 06:00, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wow. Definitely one of the best things i've seen in a while here. Husky 00:29, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Romeo Bravo 01:57, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Malene Thyssen 09:57, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mattes 15:49, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Petrus 17:56, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Get_It (Talk) 18:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- superb Solipsist 19:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Awsome! —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 05:46, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MarkSweep 12:21, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mikel 11:53, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

20 Support => Featured--Shizhao 06:40, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ponte di San Rocco 2.JPG, Not Featured[edit]

Nomination by User:Zapping, but he didn't create a template - 14:25, 13. Dez 2005
Oppose too bright, not really the best composition, not outstanding --SehLax 16:18, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Overexposed sky and composition -- Fabien1309 19:56, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Shizhao 02:16, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Romeo Bravo 01:58, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose —Sassospicco 11:40, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Zapping 13:31, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose —MRB 10:31, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Wikimol 15:27, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Dr. Marcus Gossler 09:21, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I like the ducks, but the rest of the picture is not really great --Buchling 17:11, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

2 Support， 8 Oppose =〉Not Featured--Shizhao 06:39, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/December 2005

Image:Peter and Paul's Cathedral Chandelier 2.jpg, Not Featured[edit]

Image:Hakone Owakudani dsc05302.jpg, Not Featured[edit]

Image:Zalophus_californianus.jpg, Not Featured[edit]

Image:N2 zebra.jpg, Not Featured[edit]

Image:Moraine Lake 17092005.jpg, Featured[edit]

Image:Handmade soap.jpg, Featured[edit]

Image:Runestonetools.jpg, Not Featured[edit]

Image:Notre Dame Interior.jpg, Not Featured[edit]

Image:Notre-Dame de Strasbourg.jpg, Not Featured[edit]

Image:St_peter_1500px.jpg, Not Featured[edit]

Image:Hakone dsc05432.jpg, Not Featured[edit]

Image:Tokyo Tower night panorama dsc05991.jpg, Not Featured[edit]

Image:Tabuleiro jogo da vida.jpg (1670x1313), Not Featured[edit]

Image:Iceland_Dettifoss_1972.jpg (1506x2078), Featured[edit]

Image:Floppy disk internal diagram.svg, Featured[edit]

Image:Kelp candy.jpg (2304x1728), Not Featured[edit]

Image:Phototaking.jpg (2048x1360), Not Featured[edit]

Image:Ren_on_Disco-tour.jpg (1186x829), not featured[edit]

Image:Eye iris.jpg, Featured[edit]

Image:Cxlkjvldksjoieoiruoie.png, Not Featured[edit]

Image:Shi hu shan.JPG, Not Featured[edit]

Image:Laridae in Beijing Zoo.JPG, Not Featured[edit]

Image:Ren_on_Disco-tour.jpg (1186x829), not featured[edit]

Image:Sihlseeli reflection.jpg, Not Featured[edit]

Image:Mandril.jpg (800x1200), Featured[edit]

Image:Gracula indica.jpg, Not Featured[edit]

Image:Johann Peter Eckermann.jpg, Not Featured[edit]

Image:4-Stroke-Engine.gif, Not Featured[edit]

Image:Bmi.a330-200.g-wwbb.arp.jpg, Not Featured[edit]

Image:Grand prismatic spring.jpg (1999x1277), Featured[edit]

Image:Antheren.jpg not featured[edit]

Image:Sharon Stone..jpg not featured[edit]

Image:Buegelbruecken Berlin Lehrterbhf (flo).JPG not featured[edit]

Image:Ganesha statue from Andra Pradesh.jpg, not featured[edit]

Hashish shop in Kathmandu, featured[edit]

Image:Acacia covenyi02.jpg, not featured[edit]

Image:Helsingor_Kronborg.jpg, not featured[edit]

Image:Rainforest walk national botanical gardens.jpg, not featured[edit]

Image:Le Louvre - Aile Richelieu.jpg (2048x3072), Featured[edit]

Image:Viaduc de Passy - Paris - novembre 2005.jpg (1735x2604), Featured[edit]

Image:Snle-snle-ng-svg.svg, Featured[edit]

Image:Krakow Sukiennice.jpg, Not Featured[edit]

Image:Krakow univesity of economics main building.JPG, Not Featured[edit]

Image:Amaryllis blossom (flo).JPG, Not Featured[edit]

Image:Morteratsch- und Persgletscher.jpg, Not Featured[edit]

Image:Bruin-NY3.jpg, Not Featured[edit]

Image:Cathedrale de Coutances.jpg (~ 800x1035 without the frame), Not Featured[edit]

Image:Palenque 16.jpg, Not Featured[edit]

Image:BlesiStrokkur.jpg, Not Featured[edit]

Image:Emerald Tree Boa.jpg, Not Featured[edit]

Image:sky0194effect.jpg, Not Featured[edit]

Image:Orchon-mongolei.JPG, Not Featured[edit]

Image:Drei mongolische kamele.JPG, Not Featured[edit]

Image:Six weeks old cat (aka).jpg, Featured[edit]

Image:Bauernkatze.jpg, Not Featured[edit]

Image:Cat Male European 3 Years.jpg, Male European Cat (Walter 3 Years), Not Featured[edit]

Image:Pocket microscope.jpg, Not Featured[edit]

Image:Eiffel tower and the seine at night.jpg, Not Featured[edit]

Image:Graz University-Library new-front.jpg, Not Featured[edit]

Image:Chatte_européenne.jpg, Female European Cat, Not Featured[edit]

Image:SnasavattenNorway.jpg, Not Featured[edit]

Image:State_Hospital_Smoke_House.jpg, Not Featured[edit]

Image:Mount Lushan - fog.JPG, Featured[edit]

Ramaria stricta.jpg, Featured[edit]

Image:Ponte de Amizade of Macau.JPG, Not Featured[edit]

Image:Lemons photogram.jpg, Not Featured[edit]

Image:Calopteryx splendens 20050729 504.jpg, Featured[edit]

Image:Leaving Yongsan Station.jpg, Not Featured[edit]

Image:Eastern long neck tortoise - chelodina longicollis.jpg, Not Featured[edit]

Image:IM000148.JPG, Snoqualmie Falls, Not Featured[edit]

Image:Valley of Fire Nevada USA.jpg, Not Featured[edit]

Image:Gemeine Heidelibelle (Sympetrum vulgatum) 4.jpg, Featured[edit]

Image:Map-of-human-migrations.jpg, Not Featured[edit]

Image:Hagia Sophia in harbin.jpg, Not Featured[edit]

Image:FlorenceSantaCroceUp.JPG, Not Featured[edit]

Image:NYC Top of the Rock Pano.jpg, Featured[edit]

Image:Ponte di San Rocco 2.JPG, Not Featured[edit]

Navigation menu

Search