Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/December 2007

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search


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


Contents

Image:Holy Basil.jpg, not featured[edit]

Flower of the Holy Basil

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I think it's the flash rather than overexposure that is causing the effect you are talking about. Freedom to share 22:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Do you want me to photoshop out the other stem? And while I am at it to remove the spiderwebs as well? Muhammad Mahdi Karim 03:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Yes, some colour correction would be good as well. Freedom to share 07:16, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Lighting is too harsh. I'd also recommend cloning out the background objects to remove the distractions. It should be easy with the uniform background. -- Relic38 08:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Don't like the lighting especially the lower part of the stem. Some kind of diffusor or lighting from an angle could be helpful. --Lerdsuwa 10:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 11:42, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Wrightflyer highres-edit.jpg, not featured[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by John T. Daniels - uploaded by CarolSpears - nominated by CarolSpears. It is bigger and better than the current FP version, and I am sorry about that.--carol 04:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
FP Version
Original version
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It makes beautiful prints, even through color print kiosk. --carol 04:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Good job editing all the damage out but now there's too much contrast. Compared to the original, it's lost detail in the shadows and highlights. See the man's suit and the wings. Calibas 05:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I disagree, but my mind might have problems from having seen so many mid-20th century b&w prints. The original untouched print was almost just a gray rectangle -- so everyone is just guessing, aren't they? Me and everyone who saw the prints disagree with your evaluation, btw. -- carol 06:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It seems to me that the new, higher res version is a bit noisier than the FP version.
    Although to be honest, I think my favourite is the original, slightly damaged one.
    But if this new one prints better (I haven't tried) then there is real value in having all three of them. Regards, Ben Aveling 10:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support exceptionnel! --Luc Viatour 16:54, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I have to agree with Calibas, the contrast causes a clear loss of detail. Cpl Syx 17:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

detail[edit]

Which will print on paper better and will reduce for web display better? Grain is not noise to the best of my understanding of those words. -- carol 03:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 11:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Hochtannbergpass 1.JPG, not featured[edit]

Hochtannbergpass in Austria

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by - uploaded by - nominated by --Böhringer 16:11, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Böhringer 16:11, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Fantastic foreground composition that encompasses elements of minimalism and interesting complexity in the background (house and mountains). Good juxtaposition (juxtaposition: put two different things next to each other) Freedom to share 19:41, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, sky looks unnaturally undersaturated and dark; the picture is unsharp. --Aqwis 23:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment nice photo, but I think that it could do with some tweaks. To my eyes upping the exposure by 0.75-1 stop, applying some extra sharpening, adjusting the curves slightly, and applying a little burn to the clouds enhanced the image dramatically. I also think that you might try cropping ~250 pixels of the bottom of the photograph. —JeremyA 17:48, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 11:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Wind Point Lighthouse 071104.jpg, featured[edit]

Wind Point Lighthouse

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded, and nominated by JeremyA --JeremyA 17:53, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --JeremyA 17:53, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support top --Böhringer 22:31, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Was thinking of nominating it myself type Symbol support vote.svg Support. Ben Aveling 06:43, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --[[Anonymous Dissident]] 10:15, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Urban 14:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I love the colours --Simonizer 14:58, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Very beautiful composition and colours, which mitigate the less-than-perfect sharpness of the house - Alvesgaspar 18:55, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Fine, pleasant picture. --LucaG 19:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support like Alvesgaspar --Chmee2 20:24, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Soothing. Dori - Talk 23:11, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Boffo. --Calibas 03:56, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very nice --Chrumps 00:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very well composed; lovely sky. — RedCoat 14:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Have tried to fix this image. Didn't fully manage to fix the chromatic aberration. But I have hcanged the white balance and ran a selective sharpening on it: Wind Point Lighthouse.png AzaToth 19:18, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 11:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Manhattan Bridge Construction 1909.jpg, featured[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info uploaded by Balcer - nominated by MichaelMaggs --MichaelMaggs 22:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Currently nominated as an FP on the en.W, and doing well. --MichaelMaggs 22:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Böhringer 22:31, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Seeing this makes me realize that all our fancy new technology doesn't make us better photographers. --Calibas 02:09, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Urban 14:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great historical photograph; though possibly the contrast could be enhanced a little. —JeremyA 17:32, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I agree with JeremyA with historical value. I like it --Chmee2 20:20, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support great photo --AngMoKio 22:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Cpl Syx 14:55, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Luc Viatour 16:55, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support EvanS 21:39, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support For real B/W, as well as for quality and historical value. Obviously, there ARE sizeable, good quality pictures available of that age! Lycaon 23:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 11:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Hradschin Prag.jpg, not featured[edit]

A view of Prague from the River Vltava

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Stefan Bauer - uploaded by Ferras - nominated by Animum 21:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportAnimum 21:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Quality no mitigation for small size. Lycaon 23:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Lycaon. Calibas 01:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too small. --MichaelMaggs 07:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I can see why you picked the shot - it looks nice - but not FP material. Sorry. --[[Anonymous Dissident]] 11:16, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, too small. I'd ask for a larger version, but it appears to be unsharp even in this tiny version; uploading a larger version without any more detail would be pointless. --Aqwis 19:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 12:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC) (Rule of the 5th day)

Image:Juan Carlos I of Spain 2007.jpg, not featured[edit]

Juan Carlos I, King of Spain

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by me. Thank you for your opinions. --אx 10:19, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Where is the wow in this Picture? Plus, I find the shoulder-crop unfortunate. --JDrewes 10:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC)Symbol support vote.svg Support Yes, you are right. --JDrewes 17:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Please show me another photograph of Juan Carlos, which is as up-to-date, has such a high resolution, is as sharp and – last but not least – is under a free licence as well. However, I don't think there can be any kind of great wow-effect in a portrait of a king, neither should there be. -- אx 13:55, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I think it is a good image, quite illustrative. One question: is that dandruff over his left shoulder? --Al2 14:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support א, you are now the master of portraits on Commons, like Richard Bartz is the master of macro and LucaG is the master of landscapes. Just one question: how do you get so close to all of those important people whose portraits you take? Freedom to share 16:03, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. Please note that I used a rather long lens on a DSLR with a crop factor of 1.6. So I was not that near, maybe about 15 metres. The occasion was the International Charlemagne Prize in Aachen. It takes place once a year and a lot of (serious) celebrities turns up. -- אx 18:58, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Are they open to the public? If not, how do you get in? Freedom to share 08:21, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
The ceremony is not open to the public, so I cannot take photos there. But afterwards, the prize winner is presented to the public. One day before the ceremony, the prize winner is invited to the university of Aachen for a discussion with students. This part is open to the public, too. But you have to be there very early to be able to take good photographs. You have to be fast and so you have to know your equipment. You need some good telephoto lenses as well. Thank you for your interest. If you have further questions, feel free to ask on my discussion page. -- אx 15:55, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great photo of a king is enough wow for me -- Lerdsuwa 16:41, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - The white balance is off, please notice the bluish tone of the shirt collar. Also, I don't think this is the best expression of Juan Carlos - Alvesgaspar 18:17, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
In fact the shirt is blue. The bright stripes on the tie are white, and this is where I set the white balance. You can see that the white of the eyes is displayed properly, too. -- אx 18:58, 23 November 2007 (UTC) PS: You can see this more clearly here, if you compare to the shirt of Mr. Solana for example. -- אx 19:23, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose A quite bold portrait. Quality is with some minor correction good...so it could be a QI. But the sole reason that it is the only high-res photo of this person is no reason to promote it to FP. --AngMoKio 18:43, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I think it's distracting with the white field on the left and the missing shoulder on the right. /Daniel78 00:51, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good, natural portrait of not so easily available subject. I do not mind the crop on the shoulder. Had the shoulder been there, the composition would have been a less interesting centered portrait. -- Slaunger 22:42, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral A difficult to acquire subject, but something about the picture doesn't do it for me, but I can't put my finger on it. Perhaps the lighting? -- Ram-Man 23:06, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Kjetil r 22:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Something is not right: colour? lighting? Lycaon 23:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
result: 6 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 15:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Juan Carlos I of Spain 2007-Edit.jpg[edit]

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info photographed, uploaded and originally nominated by אx. . --אx. This version edited, nominated and supported by --Thermos 19:32, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Illustrative image of a subject hard to photograph. --Thermos 19:32, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment isn't it a bit oversharpened? --AngMoKio 22:15, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes. I uploaded a new version with less sharpening. --Thermos 06:38, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I think it's distracting with the white field on the left and the missing shoulder on the right. /Daniel78 00:51, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I like the original version more. This color balance of this version looks weird and unnatural. --Lerdsuwa 15:30, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Pictogram voting delete.svg Thermos 11:24, 25 November 2007 (UTC) --Thermos 11:24, 25 November 2007 (UTC) Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Common Frog in Norway, 2007.jpg

Image:Park fence 2726.jpg, not featured[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by Dori. I like the colors and composition of this one, I'd like to see if it's enough for FP. --Dori - Talk 23:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Dori - Talk 23:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Excellent DOF, artistic composition--Szilas 06:36, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As is noted above, it is very artistic, but it lacks the quality of something truly stunning, and the image strikes me as less than clean. Sorry. --[[Anonymous Dissident]] 06:39, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support What lens did you use? 22mm was a good choice. I feel that this photo deserves FP status due to its usage of perspective. Freedom to share 08:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks, it was with a Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L. Dori - Talk 15:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I agree with Anonymous Dissident: a nice picture but lacking wow and quality (especially sharpness is too low). Lycaon 12:57, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, quality image, perhaps, featured image, not at all. --Aqwis 19:46, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like the composition, colors, lighting. As stated above, the wow is on the weak side and the sharpness seems weak at 100% (but is fine at 2MP), but I think it is is good enough. It's aesthetically pleasing. -- Ram-Man 22:59, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Very common scene - nothing special. EvanS 14:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Very nice, certainly a QI, but not special enough for a FP. -- MJJR 21:10, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose not sharp enough and too ordinary. A bit closer would be good.Rlevse 22:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
result: 4 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 15:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Pavlosk park field 13 statue girl with flowers fragment flowers.jpg,not featured[edit]

Sculptural stone flowers.

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by AKA MBG - uploaded by AKA MBG - nominated by AKA MBG --AKA MBG 21:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --AKA MBG 21:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I really like the composition but the hand is overexposed and, for that, hardly visible. Jacopo 21:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Nuvola apps important yellow.svg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because overexposed. Sorry. Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

--MichaelMaggs 09:15, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Ammersee herrsching.jpg, not featured[edit]

The Ammersee in Herrsching

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by Lucas Löffler --Lucas Löffler 13:08, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Lucas Löffler 13:08, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I am painfully close to supporting, but there are some minor details in the picture that ruin the simple quality of the piece. Overall, too noisy, and slightly distracting from main focus. --[[Anonymous Dissident]] 13:36, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The colors and the view is very nice, but the image quality is not good, it looks like it has been heavily processed for noise which has smoothed the image too much. /Daniel78 14:50, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Something wrong with the processing in the water. Also halo around the birds near the middle of the frame. --Lerdsuwa 11:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Next time consider using the rule of thirds. -- RedCoat 14:59, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Poor technical quality and a weak composition, as above. -- Ram-Man 22:55, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like it EvanS 17:08, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Certainly a QI, but not special enough fo FP. BTW, I disagree with RedCoat. The rule of thirds is not a law of the Medes and Persians: the horizon in the middle of the picture does not automatically mean a bad picture! -- MJJR 21:07, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 2 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Hotel de ville de montreal from n-w.jpg, not featured[edit]

Hotel de ville de montreal from n-w

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Acarpentier - uploaded by Acarpentier - nominated by Acarpentier --Acarpentier 04:44, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Acarpentier 04:44, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support By the way what is the green strip at the bottom? I guess it's a spotlight. --Lerdsuwa 11:42, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Good, but not so wow to be featured I think (have a look at Image:Montreal_City_Hall_Jan_2006.jpg), Disturbing green strip on the foreground, and unbalanced lighting of the building (bright left side, dark right side) -- Benh 22:18, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Clearly not up to the standard set by the other image. It takes a lot to do a nighttime shot properly. Taken at dusk would be more useful. -- Ram-Man 22:54, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral, sharp and well composed. However, the building is too poorly lit for an optimal night shot. As Ram-Man mentioned, shooting the building at dusk would be better. --Aqwis 08:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Would support were it not for the green light. Dori - Talk 17:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Even with green light, which adds some color balance to light of dome, from my point of view. AKA MBG 21:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Basik07 11:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose That green stripe is too distracting. Poromiami 04:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 08:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Djerba el mouradi menzel hotel pool-2.jpg, not featured[edit]

Djerba, in Tunisia

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Emmanuel.boutet - uploaded by Emmanuel.boutet - nominated by Cimoi --Cimoi 17:52, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like it at all --Cimoi 17:52, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The technical quality is sufficient and the composition is nice. The wow factor may be a little weak for me, but I think it's just good enough. -- Ram-Man 22:52, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It is a beautiful picture Moumou82 10:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Maybe a QI, but I don't believe it should be featured. IMO it's a very casual holiday swimming pool shot. Benh 23:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Benh, lacking wow factor. Cacophony 23:21, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, shots lacking wow but with sufficient technical quality is what QI is for. --Aqwis 08:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose "meh" is what I think when I look at this image. --[[Anonymous Dissident]] 15:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Might have some "wow" but it's the kind of picture I could take at any nice costal hotel with a good camera. EvanS 17:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 08:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Bypass Theory.png, not featured[edit]

Comic strip illustrating the Detour Theory

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Coyau (this set was made from six originals pictures by Coyau) - uploaded by Sémhur - nominated by Sémhur --Sémhur 18:40, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info This strip illustrate with two animals behaviors the Detour Theory (or Bypass Theory), a psychological theory of human being's development.
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Sémhur 18:40, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Walké 19:23, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Coyau 20:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Nice illustration but not special enough or sophisticated enough to be FP - Alvesgaspar 21:55, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Yugiz 00:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Aqwis 08:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I learned something new today from FPCs. That should be the purpose of a Featured Illustration. Freedom to share 16:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose ack Alvesgaspar -- Lycaon 19:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support le Korrigan bla 22:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose ack Alvesgaspar and Lycaon. --MichaelMaggs 21:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I don't get what that thing the chicken is trying to get is (a worm probably but doesn't look like one), and why is the banana sparkling? Dori - Talk 17:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as Alvesgaspar --Karelj 21:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tomascastelazo 22:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I am close to support this because it's a nice illustration, but something is missing. It still has a slight "homemade" look to it. /Daniel78 16:48, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. No pizzaz. MapMaster 06:06, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Poromiami 01:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
result: 9 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 08:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Balanced Rock.jpg, not featured[edit]

Balanced rock in Colorado

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Created by EvanS; Uploaded by EvanS; Nominated by EvanS 19:33, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Personally I like this photo because it isn't some man-made rock in a theme park, but it is a natural rock formation. The people in the picture make the photo interesting and make the rock look bigger. EvanS 19:33, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This image combines too many problems to be a FP, such as color fringing, distracting elements (people and left-side rock), and typical Kodak digital camera smudged detail in broad daylight. -- Ram-Man 22:51, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Ram-Man. Cacophony 23:24, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The lighting is very distracting. Try doing it earlier or later in the day. Freedom to share 07:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, poor composition, colours, lighting, no wow. --Aqwis 08:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - I wish I could afford a better camera. Too bad I don't live in Colorado to go back and retake the picture. EvanS 14:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - If only Evan had a better camera at the time. --[[Anonymous Dissident]] 15:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Technically not excellent, but great impression.--Karelj 20:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support as per Karelj, there is a wow. IPod fanatic 21:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose shadowy--Beyond silence 12:13, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
result: 3 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 08:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Copper Beech Fagus sylvatica f. purpurea Autumn Leaves Closeup 3008px.jpg, featured[edit]

Copper Beech Autumn foliage

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Ram-Man 22:48, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info The fall foliage of the Copper Beech (Fagus sylvatica 'Purpurea')
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The autumn color of this tree is amazing. Standing under this tree was blindingly bright. -- Ram-Man 22:48, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - I agree. This is different and beautiful. - Alvesgaspar 23:24, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very nice. --LucaG 23:32, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, no wow -> QI. --Aqwis 08:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose no big deal EvanS 14:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - see up at the top where it says beautiful does not always mean valuable. EvanS 14:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Is value really in doubt here? This clearly has project value in addition to being beautiful. -- Ram-Man 22:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Lycaon 18:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Relic38 22:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This one is also a bit too dark, but I like it enough to support. Dori - Talk 17:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as EvanS --Karelj 21:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Beyond silence 12:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support beautiful and valuable to illustrait the species depicted. --Lerdsuwa 04:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- MJJR 20:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
result: 9 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 08:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Saturn's rings in visible light and radio.jpg, featured[edit]

Saturn's rings mosaic

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by NASA/JPL/Space Science Institute - uploaded by User:WolfmanSF - nominated by User:WolfmanSF --WolfmanSF 23:45, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --WolfmanSF 23:45, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Aqwis 08:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- EvanS 17:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --MichaelMaggs 07:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support despite compression artifacts being slightly too visible to my taste. -- Benh 12:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - It is an interesting and valuable image, yes. But I can't hear the bells ringing -- Alvesgaspar 18:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Well that's becuase sound waves do not propagate in vacuum :). /Daniel78 16:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Very good that one, lol ! -Alvesgaspar 20:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as Alvesgaspar. Lycaon 22:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support bells --Karelj 22:02, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
result: 7 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 08:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Castle Plessis Bourre 2007 02.jpg[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created and uploaded by Manfred Heyde - nominated by Lycaon 15:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support A bit on the small size, but nice colours, good composition and sharp. -- Lycaon 15:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support There is just "something". Nice. --Thermos 16:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Yes, it's beautiful. -Theklan 16:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral, there's lots of noise in the water - run it through de-noise software and I will support the image. --Aqwis 16:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Poromiami 20:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC) Very beautiful.
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Only complaint is the size; I would prefer 6MPx or even more. -- Relic38 20:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- MJJR 21:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Pretty good shot considering the camera, but I don't like the light. Dori - Talk 22:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It lacks a bit on detail (top of the towers) and it's noisy --Richard Bartz 00:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Let me be so free to express that I don't like my photo to be discussed this way. My shots are intended to illustrate my texts, not to be a matter of criticism. --Manfred Heyde 08:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
You are free to express that, but the licenses you put on the image allow it to be nominated and discussed like this. Just relax and enjoy the pack mentality here is my suggestion. -- carol 11:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

reduced noise version[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info noise reduced large version. Lycaon 07:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Aqwis 09:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Pictogram voting delete.svg  (sadly, but on the author's request, I have to withdraw both nominations). Lycaon 10:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Maple Leaf Red Stump 3008px.jpg, not featured[edit]

Red Maple Leaf

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Ram-Man 03:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I love Autumn colors: red leaf, warm side light. -- Ram-Man 03:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, like on your Copper Beach Fagus picture, no wow -> QI. --Aqwis 08:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This is the best of your three autum pictures. The red leave is a good eyecatcher and the life circles of the tree are very pleasant. Sharpness is good and I like the colours and the light very much. --Simonizer 20:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral - The colouring of the leaf is superb and I like the background. But the minimalism of the image would be emphasized by a more symmetrical composition, without the distracting part at left and the shadow at right - Alvesgaspar 23:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Wowee! a leaf. Like I've never seen one of them. EvanS 17:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I don't like the composition and the lighting, colors are pretty good. Dori - Talk 17:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as per Dori IPod fanatic 21:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Works for me. --Lerdsuwa 07:13, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose light, deail, --Beyond silence 12:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 13:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Panicle Hydrangea Hydrangea paniculata 'Limelight' Deep DoF 2600px.jpg, not featured[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Created, uploaded, and nominated by Ram-Man 04:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Dried flowers of the Panicle Hydrangea (Hydrangea paniculata 'Limelight')
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Ram-Man 04:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I feel that the background is a bit distracting and a larger aperture could have been used. Please correct me if I am wrong but I feel that it would be more effective if the background was completely washed out. Freedom to share 07:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
    • At f/5.6, the aperture is already fairly large and the background is not overly distracting. The DoF is just deep enough that 90% of the flowers are sharp. The background is more blurred than many other FPs and any less DoF would result in too few sharp flowers. -- Ram-Man 22:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Thanks, but I still consider the background quite distracting, but that's just my opinion. Let's see what the others think. Freedom to share 18:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, i like the colours. As an illustration of autumn colours, the background adds to the picture. --Aqwis 08:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Wrong background colouring - Alvesgaspar 13:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Actually, I like the background Muhammad Mahdi Karim 14:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - As per Alvesgaspar, otherwise very good. -- Relic38 22:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - As per Alvesgaspar EvanS 17:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Main subject doesn't stand out much. Probably a retouch to turn down background saturation or to B&W will work. --Lerdsuwa 07:07, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The image that is nominated here on November 26, 2007 was a disappointment to me because of the image that appeared as the POTD for November 21, 2007. Noted are the different species and different season and more; it is still a disappointment, several days later. -- carol 23:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Beautiful, maybe not to everybodies taste --Richard Bartz 00:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
result: 4 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 13:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Golden Gate bridge pillar.jpg, not featured[edit]

Pillar of Golden Gate Bridge

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created + uploaded + nominated by Calibas 05:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Calibas 05:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Impressive --Thermos 08:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The odd positioning can't disguise the flaws in quality, I'm afraid. --[[Anonymous Dissident]] 15:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question The colours appear very saturated to me. Is the bridge really so colourful or have you pushed the saturation slider to a quite high value? -- Slaunger 22:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Didn't touch the colors at all. International orange is the name of the color, quite intense. --Calibas 01:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
      Symbol support vote.svg Support OK, I take your word. Strong composition and eye-catching international colour. -- Slaunger 21:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support At the risk of calling all images of this bridge FPs just by being an interesting subject, I like this picture. -- Ram-Man 23:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Like it. EvanS 17:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support An unusual, albeit striking perspective. RedCoat 18:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I don't like composition and no Wow. Benh 21:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm just realizing that my comment is a bit harsh... I hope you won't take it too personaly and apologize in advance :) Benh 21:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate the honesty.  :) Calibas 00:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Lerdsuwa 10:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as Benh --Karelj 21:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - I like the colour and quality is good enough. But the composition seems unbalanced IMO -- Alvesgaspar 18:34, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- MJJR 20:52, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose not too keen on the composition. Lycaon 00:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I like that you're going for an unusual composition, but I don't like this one. Lighting is bothering me as well. Sorry. Dori - Talk 19:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
result: 8 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 13:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Fly November 2007-10.jpg, featured[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info A small fly of the Anthomyiidae family (about 4mm body length) with a bubble of regurgitated fluid in its tongue. It is uncertain the reason for this behaviour which occurs with flies and also with wasps and bees. The prevailing theory asserts this is a way of heating up the food so that it can be better digested. For more info on the subject please see here. Because of the small size of subject to the 100mm macro lens was attached an extension ring and a 2 dpt close-up lens. Created and nominated by Alvesgaspar -- Alvesgaspar 14:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Alvesgaspar 14:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Böhringer 15:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support great image. Perhaps a crop would make it better? Muhammad Mahdi Karim 18:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Acarpentier 18:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Aqwis 21:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Relic38 22:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It looks almost like a space alien. Nice catch. -- Slaunger 22:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I understand that this is very small and that most people consider that to be a mitigating factor, but it isn't that sharp, it has color noise, and I don't care for the uninspiring crop/composition. It has educational value, but lacks the wow that many other insect photos possess. -- Ram-Man 23:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Sémhur 09:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose (Just !) Per Ram-Man, it still about the quality issue to me, because the subject and the moment is extraordinary to me. Benh 21:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I'm too tired and need resting :) Benh 21:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like this one. --Tomascastelazo 03:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Photographic perfection/excellence should comes first. This picture is much 2 harsh lighted (unfortune use of flashlight) and not very sharp 4 my taste. Taken at high noon it looks like it's taken at midnight regarding the background. To point out what i mean with harsh lighted you should drop a eye on this or that to see the use of propper light and resulting plasticity --Richard Bartz 00:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
result: 10 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 13:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Engelberg 01.JPG, featured[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created and nominated by Simonizer 19:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Simonizer 19:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Interesting. I can Symbol support vote.svg Support that. Ben Aveling 20:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very strange and original, I like. Romary 20:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I really enjoy mountain pictures, and this one is very good indeed. Not one created for an easy wow but something that was truly well composed. I like the way you show the farm and mountain all in the same frame. Excellent image, Freedom to share 22:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Böhringer 11:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support WOW! EvanS 17:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support as I did at QI. Lovely shot, very postcard-like. RedCoat 18:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Karelj 21:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very nice composition. Cpl Syx 17:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I love the composition. Dori - Talk 17:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support as per everyone else IPod fanatic 21:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Nice work, Simonizer! IPod fanatic 21:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Winiar 20:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Maybe I'll be the only one, but I do not like the composition with the 'topic-changing-cloud' in the middle. Lycaon 22:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I love the unusual composition ... -- Fabien1309 14:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Absolutely excellent composition! -- MJJR 20:47, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice composition. -- Laitche 15:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Basik07 11:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I think the cloud makes it great! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Theklan --Simonizer 17:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Poromiami 20:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
result: 18 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 13:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Emmanual Church of Boston steeple.jpg, not featured[edit]

The steeple of Emmanuel church in Boston, MA

  • Pictogram voting info.svg InfoTaken, uploaded, nominated by: User:Fcb981
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -Fcb981 22:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose due to artifacts in the sky such as dust, and is that a circular ring? -- Ram-Man 23:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
    • sorry, the dust can be cloned out, and I'm not sure what you are referring to by circular ring. -Fcb981 23:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
      • There is a visible arc of light-dark blue around the tip of the steeple. It's easier to see at 100%. -- Ram-Man 12:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, composition. --Aqwis 08:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support EvanS 17:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Basik07 13:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 13:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Scrub Pine Pinus virginiana Cone Closeup 2000px.jpg, featured[edit]

Scrub Pine cone

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Created, uploaded, and nominated by Ram-Man 23:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Cone of the Scrub Pine (Pinus virginiana)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Ram-Man 23:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Technically impressive, although the DOF could be a bit wider. Freedom to share 07:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment, some noise in the image, easy to get rid of. --Aqwis 08:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose no wow. EvanS 17:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Looks oversaturated to me. Can't have been late evening or early morning according to Exif... ?? Lycaon 23:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Picture taken at 2:49pm less than two hours before sunset. There was a strong warm autumn sidelight as in this image. Same camera settings as my other nominations, such as this one, which shows the clearly warm sidelight and the very cool shadows. -- Ram-Man 03:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Strange artifacts around the shadows, has this been upsampled? Calibas 00:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
    • No, it was not upsampled. I would never do that. What artifacts? -- Ram-Man 03:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It seems too dark to me. Dori - Talk 17:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Good, but not enough for FP --Karelj 21:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - I actually really like this image. It's technically quite good as far as I can see, and I am fond of the light. Calliopejen 11:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support like the up close sharp detail.Rlevse 22:49, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice lighting, noise reduction on bg would be good though. Benjamint 05:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Basik07 22:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Lycaon 06:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
result: 7 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 13:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Red-capped plover chick444.jpg, featured[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Benjamint 08:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Benjamint 08:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Wisnia6522 09:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question Did the chick survive the disturbance? Lycaon 11:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, it's proper feathers already starting to come through, and none of them (birds from previous clutches and adults) were bothered about people as it's a fairly well visited beach. The chick had been up and running around with its parent when a couple of crows flew over and I got a few shots while it sat down to avoid being seen. Benjamint 12:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Lycaon 12:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Cute shot. Dori - Talk 17:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support cute :) --Winiar 20:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support like it.Rlevse 22:48, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Basik07 13:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The exposure seems a little too bright. He's cute, but beyond that the composition is not extra special. -- Ram-Man 04:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Lycaon 22:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Plastic- and Nylonzipper.jpg, featured[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Rabensteiner - uploaded by Rabensteiner - nominated by --Rabensteiner 11:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Rabensteiner 11:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support For nice, muted colour palette, well controlled reflective highlights and good detail. In addition, informative. --Thermos 16:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Aqwis 16:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Acarpentier 16:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose What are you trying to hide with this monochrome tint? Unsharpness, overexposure, noise,... ? Lycaon 18:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment opposition is not because of being monochrome, but for the obvious quality defects that are trying to hide behind it. Lycaon 22:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I don't think a picture should be faulted for being monochrome if it doesn't take any of the value out of the image. Most of the pictures here should be in color but ones like this should be the rare exception. Assuming de:Bild:Profil und spiralreissverschluss.jpg is the original color I sure don't blame him/her for changing it. Calibas 00:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose That is true there are some unsharpnesses in the pictures. Quality of an image is a must, and changing the color range to monochrome only shows that the original image is flawed. -- Felipe Aira 10:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support We are not nominating the original image, so it doesn't matter if that one was flawed.. this one for sure isnt. Yzmo 18:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good graphic photograph. Black and white photography is as valid now as in the first day. Color photography hides a lot of faults in photography in general. Black and white photography presinds of this variable, thus when it is good in the absense of color, it is indeed a good photograph. --Tomascastelazo 21:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral - Very good graphic composition but quality is not good enough: lack of detail and visible noise. As for being B&W that is not a valid reason for opposing IMO - Alvesgaspar 21:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I think it's a good use of monochrome. /Daniel78 00:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Lerdsuwa 07:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Romary 08:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Monochrome works well IMO, and noise is only minimal. RedCoat 16:34, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Sharp at high resolution, monochrome works quite well here.--Sandahl 19:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Javier ME 23:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Huskyoog.jpg Husky (talk to me) 22:50, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Shouldn't the Category 'Black and white images' be filled with grayscale images? -- carol 10:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
    • One would hope so :) RedCoat 15:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
      • This is not BW, BTW, it is monochrome. Lycaon 15:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose this is not the best --Richard Bartz 00:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like this, quite good. I love the tone and the texture. There is nothing wrong with this picture. -- Ram-Man 04:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I dont think this image is special. /Ö 16:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Black and white would do the job. --AM 21:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
result: 15 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Lycaon 22:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Eristalis September 2007-3a.jpg, not featured[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info A drone-fly (Eristalis tenax) collecting nectar from a Lantana camara flower. I have taken hundreds of shots of this fascinating hoverfly (including today) and I believe this one is among the best both aesthetically and technically. Created and nominated by Alvesgaspar --Alvesgaspar 13:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Alvesgaspar 13:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Quality is ok. I like the colours very much and the background fits. But I dont like the "nearly from behind the fly" perspective. And the light could be a bit more diffuse --Simonizer 16:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Quality wise it's good, but at this point it's not anything special. Dori - Talk 17:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support IPod fanatic 21:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Composition.... perhaps rotating it so that the fly points in an upward diagonal. --Tomascastelazo 21:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Lerdsuwa 07:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose average, sorry --Beyond silence 12:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose A year ago maybe, but it's not exceptional enough with today's standards. It needs to be like this recent FP. -- Ram-Man 04:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I think this one has the same quality (maybe a bit better) than the recent one, but i dont like both because they are harsh flashlight pictures which looks strange/flat --Richard Bartz 18:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Lycaon 22:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Dent de Vaulion - 360 degree panorama.jpg, featured[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Alexandre Duret-Lutz (Flickr) - uploaded by File Upload Bot (Mgnus Manske) - nominated by le Korrigan bla 19:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • A quite unusual panorama, but well executed in my opinion.
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --le Korrigan bla 19:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment This is art work. It is a good example of a polarized mapping of pixels and after writing this, I am going to be looking for where at wikipedia this sort of art work is described. The reason for that is that an article like that would be the only way to consider this an encyclopedic image, in my opinion. To just vote favorably here for an image like this would really be opening the doors to a potential profusion of such images and in my opinion, it would be better to start with some of the first instances of this work especially using the GNU software that can make it rather than starting with the first one randomly chosen by an upload bot -- if you are going to start to do that at all. -- carol 04:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the upload bot did a pretty good job with finding one of the first authors and image sharers. -- carol 04:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
There is no need for an image to have encyclopedic value to get FP. --AngMoKio 08:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Ah, that is interesting. The encyclopedic thing is only for the Quality Images then? I think that I will never be able to determine exactly what it is that is being looked for here and there. -- carol 10:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
And actually it is a Common(s) misunderstanding that Quality Images needs to have encyclopdiec value too. They just have to be valuable for Wikimedia projects which is broader than encyclopedic. -- Slaunger 21:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
This is an encyclopedia for goodness sakes, but a Feature Picture doesn't need to encyclopedia?? Unfortunately, without the need for encyclopedic value, this just becomes another "pretty boy" photography competition. MapMaster 06:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Commons isn't an encyclopedia. I hope we don't need a What Commons is not page. ;) Rocket000 00:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
When it makes sense that one image is declined for not being encyclopedic it is difficult not to use the same sense with other images, at least for me. I don't want to be 'dogmatic' however or 'beat that dead horse' or whatever the best catch-phrase for this situation would be. I 'took a gander' at the computer art pages at english wikipedia -- they seem to be disorderly, not very definitive, ambiguous and mostly chaotic in their presentation with no clear outline and more. I was looking specifically for Mapping; Pixel Mapping or something along that line as this image is the product of a simple polar mapping -- the not simple parts are getting the image into the panarama and making it so the seam will not show. Making it round is so easy compared to getting it there.
Another question that I have regarding images like this is very simple. If there is a place here for images like this and perhaps other types of mapped images, what reason is it that commons photographers do not download their images which have been mapped and put on other web sites and upload them here for similar consideration? -- carol 02:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Lerdsuwa 10:02, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Realy interesting, but I'll go neutral since I share Carol opinion plus the picture (on post-production) could have been better. One thing is that I have to try this for myself ;) Acarpentier 14:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question Do we have other pictures like this one, using the same technique ? I haven't found any so far, I have looked in Category:Panoramic and sub-categories. There should be others, maybe of higher quality, but I haven't found them. Regarding the "encyclopedic interest", this image is already used on an article on fr. and en.wikipedia. I would happily support a better picture, if you find one :-) le Korrigan bla 14:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
This picture orginates from the Flickr-Account that is linked in the pictures summary. There you can find a lot more...also better ones. It might be worth to upload them to Commons if the license allows it. --AngMoKio 15:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support For purposes of illustrating this photographic technique --Thermos 15:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Interesting, but I find the dark band at "half past twelve" distracting. What is the origin of that band? -- Slaunger 21:18, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
    ... It's the Sun, shining from the right of the picture, and not shining on the left-hand side as we are on top of a mountain :-) le Korrigan bla 22:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
    That seems like a reasonable explanation. It is still distracting though IMO, so I keep the neutral vote. -- Slaunger 23:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like it, I think the stitching is good considering that 120 images was used. /Daniel78 00:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I like this image alot and would support a version that was stitched a bit better, I'm sure it was a big job even if it was automated but there's a couple of clouds that have been cut up at 3 O'clock and the banding is bad the whole way round, shame about the bit of ground where the photographer was standing as well. Still, looks pretty cool. Benjamint 08:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not centered composition, not high detail, different exposes' joinig mistake. --Beyond silence 12:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Groovy. Calibas 06:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose insufficient quality. Lycaon 20:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. I had found this photo while wandering through Commons and put it on the frwp Village Pump and the article on the Dent de Vaulion. I like it very much and have no problem with it being artistic as well as encyclopedic. The quality is better than I thought it would be given all the stitching involved. Arria Belli | parlami 23:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose MapMaster 06:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support As far as I know, we don't have another FP like it, so it is in its own category. I think the quality is fine, and I think encyclopedic value (which this has) is of critical importance. -- Ram-Man 04:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Intriguing and original. --[[Anonymous Dissident]] 06:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I think this photo was retouched. j/k carol's right. This is just artwork; no use I can see. Even a Wikipedia article on this type of art wouldn't (or shouldn't) use this. Something by a notable artist would be more appropriate. Rocket000 00:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC) voting was finished. Lycaon 22:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
    P.S. Better images here, but please don't nominate them. Rocket000 00:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
    "I think this photo was retouched" : well, yeah, it doesn't come straight from the camera... But there are loads of stitched panoramas and HDR images which have been featured, which mean they have been effectively "retouched". If it has no use, how do you explain it is actually used on some Wikipedia articles ? And why shouldn't an article on this type of art use this photo ? Also, asking for something "by a notable artist" is maybe a luxury on Commons, given that we ask for free content. I know we have some excellent artists here already, but a featured picture doesn't have to come from a "notable" artist to be judged so. le Korrigan bla 01:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
    First of all, that "photo was retouched" was just a joke (see the "j/k"). Sorry. :) It is used on Wikipedia articles, but it shouldn't be. Have you looked at what articles it's used in? Completely inappropriate (see en:Dent de Vaulion, fr uses it too, but Wikipedias just copy off each other). Once a few more people see those and they move beyond stubs, I'm sure that picture will be gone. Someone just picked it because it looked cool or because there's nothing better. I hope you know what I meant by notable. It was not a comment on the artist's skill or talent. When comes to works of art that are highly stylized, abstract, distorted, etc. there's not much use for it in any of Wikimedia's projects. There's a lot of great (free) artwork out there, this just isn't the place for it. Unless the artist is notable. For example, let's say I create an amazing piece of pop art, should it go in that Wikipedia article? Even if it's FP quality? No, because I'm not notable. Imagine what would happen if that that was the norm. Everyone would be spamming their artwork all over trying to get it on Wikipedia. Artwork is too subjective. You may like this picture (personally, I think it's cool), but FP's should be more than a personal preference. They should have at least some encyclopedic value. Rocket000 08:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
    Sorry about the misunderstanding with your joke... it was late for me :-) Anyway, I still disagree about the need for notability when it comes to art. While I agree that Art for itself should not be on Commons (where pictures should have some interest for WMF projects), I would think that if you create a pop-art picture, it has some use here, because Category:Pop art is a bit... well, empty for copyright reasons, and it would be useful for the casual reader to have an idea of what Pop art is like. Anyway, I understand that this picture is controversial FP material :-) le Korrigan bla 10:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
    There is no need for an image to have encyclopedic value to get FP. Commons is for many projects not just wikipedia - also for projects that might not exist by now.--AngMoKio 11:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Adam Cuerden 21:11, 9 December 2007 (UTC) voting was finished. Lycaon 22:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
result: 7 support, 3 oppose, 2 neutral =>  featured. Lycaon 22:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Girls crossing a river (Zambia).jpg, not featured[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by Lycaon 08:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Quality is not top notch as it is a 1995 Kodak Photo CD scan of a 1988 slide, but I think wow and rarity warrant a shot at FP. Lycaon 08:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Lycaon 08:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support "but I think wow and rarity warrant a shot at FP." I'm inclined to agree. Cpl Syx 17:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, not enough wow for me to make up for the quality. Dori - Talk 17:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, wow? Where? --Aqwis 18:16, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The relative size of the children is too small, and I find the centered composition uninteresting. Also, the face of the walking girl is in shade which is a pity as you do not get a clear idea of her emotional state. Valuable yes, but not exceptional. -- Slaunger 21:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose If it a picture of the children, they are too small and centered; if it is a picture of the river, uninteresting. Now WOW, no action. --Tomascastelazo 21:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Don't like it. I think a closer shot would be better. --Lerdsuwa 06:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I'll go back ASAP ;-) Only with local demographics as they are, chances for a a reshoot are dire :-(. Lycaon 07:32, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Too bad the quality isn't enough for further processing :( --Lerdsuwa 09:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 2 neutral =>  not featured. Lycaon 22:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Cunningham's skink444.jpg, not featured[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Benjamint 11:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Benjamint 11:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment, am I right that you've artificially blurred parts of the image? --Aqwis 12:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Not sure about the blur on the bottom... you could have smoothed it? But anyway, great picture! ;) -- Acarpentier 14:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Thermos 15:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support nice shot --Simonizer 15:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I don't like the oof area at the bottom, and I'd like to see more of the animal. Dori - Talk 17:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - I actually like the composition but the quality is not exceptional: sharpness and detail could be better and there are blown areas - Alvesgaspar 21:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Karelj 21:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tomascastelazo 21:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose for mediocre quality (blurring). And are you sure about the identification? What are the references? I can only find dark individuals with pale spots for Egernia cunninghami ... Lycaon 22:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Artificial synthetic blur. --MichaelMaggs 22:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Lerdsuwa 06:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • The ID is correct, I just looked it up in the book Reptiles and Amphibians of Australia by Harold Cogger to make doubly sure, it says the species is "subject to considerable geographic color and pattern variation." The blur at the bottom was another log a bit closer to me. The log was at an angle to me causing the areas to the left an right to be OOF, I did blur it a bit more - because the out OOF areas on the main log had a funny texture like heat-haze or something - but not noticeably so, just naturally looks a bit odd. Thanks for your interest everyone :) Benjamint 07:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Aqwis 13:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose detail, composition, dof --Beyond silence 16:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose sweet composition, 2 harsh lighting for me --Richard Bartz 00:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
result: 8 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral =>  not featured. Lycaon 22:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Grapes during pigmentation.jpg, not featured[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by --Tomascastelazo 01:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Grapes from the Guadalupe Valle, Baja California, Mexico during the pigmentation stage.
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tomascastelazo 01:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose highly repeatable, noisy picture, FP unworthy. Lycaon 01:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
As someone once said... "De beste stuurlui staan aan wal" --Tomascastelazo 02:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Not bothered at all with the noise, actually has a pleasing film grain look. -- Lerdsuwa 06:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, there's no reason at all to have noise in such an easy-to-take picture. The composition and lighting aren't very good either, and there's a lack of "wow". --Aqwis 08:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. I like it. If it's so easy take such a picture then, well, I just wish that I found such pictures easy to take.  :-) Regards, Ben Aveling 10:34, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment True, not a difficult picture to take, but here's the story. Grapes are hidden from direct sunlight most of the time because of plant configuration, so the only time you can take sun lit grapes is early morning, as you can see from the sun direction. Another common way to photograph grapes is either before the sun comes out or after it sets, in total shadow, which render a very uniform type of soft lighting. In this case I chose a back lit position in order to appreciate the transparency of the grape, which is very, very rare to see, as well as the texture structure of the leaves, in fact, none can be found in Commons. Digital photography has a very limited dynamic range, and yes, some areas are burned, but that is ok, it acts as a specular reflexion if you wish, like the one given off by chrome surfaces. But even considering the limitations of the image itself, I think that the dynamic range is well managed despite the limitations of the medium itself. Lastly, we are used to seeing either green or red grapes, but not during the pigmentation stage. None can be found in Commons other than mine. Those are the considerations of this image. --Tomascastelazo 16:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I think you misunderstand me. What I meant to say is that I would not find this picture an easy one to take. Regards, Ben Aveling 22:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
As someone once said... "a picture is worth a thousand words, but if you need a thousand words to explain a picture, well, maybe it is not accomplishing its objective" -- Lycaon 17:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, this is a 199 word explanation, so I guess the image is at 80%. --Tomascastelazo 18:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose noise, detail

Sorry, you should try Commons:Quality images candidates first! --Beyond silence 16:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose the noise doesn't bother me as much as the lighting. This is a very repeatable photograph and should be held to the highest standards. Cacophony 06:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Cacophony - How would you have handled the lighting in this case? --Tomascastelazo 20:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
  • The usual objective in a close up is to show the subject. In that sense, if you notice the lighting, then that suggests that the lighting may be a distraction. In this case, I like the lighting. I like it because I react emotionally to it - to me, this photo captures the passage of time: the grapes are passing from young to mature, the light is passing from night to day. It's all very en:Memento mori. Regards, Ben Aveling 22:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I think it would be improved if the sun was at a 45 degree angle in front of the grapes, rather than slightly behind them. I think half the grapes should be in sunlight, rather than just a couple of them. I would also have framed more of the grapes on the right. That is just my humble opinion though. You can certainly feel free to disagree. Cacophony 07:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
What you say is what everyone does, and it is exactly what I did not want. I chose a backlit position in order to get the transparency of the grapes and leaves, which would have been imposible with the other sun position. The grapes go flat in transparency. And I welcome your opinion, that is why I asked. --Tomascastelazo 19:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The colors and the light mix perfectly. Poromiami 20:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- MJJR 21:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC) voting was finished. Lycaon 22:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral =>  not featured. Lycaon 22:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Hawkweed 2007-3.jpg, not featured[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Back to minimalism. A flower of a common Yellow Hawkweed (Hieracium vulgatum) opening to the sun rays in the morning, like many other species of Asteracea. Taken close to my house, in the city of Lisboa, Portugal. Created and nominated by Alvesgaspar -- Alvesgaspar 17:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Alvesgaspar 17:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment, it's very noisy, despite having been shot at ISO 100. Did you increase the exposure in a RAW converter afterwards? If so, why didn't you go back to reshoot the picture with a higher exposure setting? --Aqwis 20:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting info.svg Info - The noise is minimized now. It is almost inevitable to have some noise in the dark background of macro shots (this is little flower). There is the possibility of using the flash to lighten the background a little but I don't like it - Alvesgaspar 20:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Not really, according to your info "manual, f/18, 1/125, ISO 100, fill in flash" you did use flash - meaning to get a well exposed background you should have used no flash and relied on natural light. --Fir0002 www 22:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Modern Nikon flashes have the capability to control the exposure of both the focused subject and the background, but I did not use that mode. But of course you are aware of all these possibilities. -- Alvesgaspar 22:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
        • No I was not aware of such a capability and struggle to see how it would work - as surely flashing with the output required to expose the background will blow out the subject matter. Have you got a link or something which explains this? --Fir0002 www 22:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
        • "Autofocus Speedlight SB-600". There shouldn't be difficult to find some info on the so-called "Automatic Balanced Fill-Flash (TTL-BL)". As you surely know, lighting is a critical factor is macro photography mainly because of DOF problem. That is why the flash was used. - Alvesgaspar 22:34, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
        • Fir0002 is correct. Fill flash in this case would not be able to distingish the foreground from the background and would have burned out the flower. It would have to creat a "digital mask". Fill flash works on subject that are on the same plane and using light metering capabilities stop the flash output in order to avoid washed out areas. The use of flash in this case actually darkened the background the background and flattened the image. --Tomascastelazo 23:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - And now that all of us have shown how much we know about photo technique can we please proceed to voting? The picture is under reviewing, not my phtographic knowledge. (for a moment I thought I was in WP:FPC but that was only a nightmare) - Alvesgaspar 23:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like the minimalistic composition. Freedom to share 07:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I think it is an image of good technical quality, but I do not find it sufficiently exceptional to acheive FP status. The lightning is not that interesting, I do not find it particularly valuable, and the front-most petals are too unsharp for my taste. -- Slaunger 11:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As above --Karelj 21:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Dust spots in a FP? If you choose to use an SLR, you have to correct the sensor dust spots, especially on flat areas. -- Ram-Man 04:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I don't think this image is exceptional enough to be FP material the preceding unsigned comment was added by Tbc (talk • contribs) 22:02, 5 December 2007(UTC)
result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral =>  not featured. Lycaon 23:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Migrant.jpg, not featured[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by --Tomascastelazo 21:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Photo taken at the Tijuana-San Diego US-Mexican border of aspiring migrant. The crosses represent the deaths of failed crossing attempts since Operation Guardian was established. This site is used for demonstrations against the measure. --Tomascastelazo 21:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Poor quality shot: dust spots, halos (oversharpning = light, as well as reddish). Lycaon 22:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
*...there are some things that can beat smartness and foresight. Awkwardness and stupidity can. The best swordsman in the world doesn't need to fear the second best swordsman in the world; no, the person for him to be afraid of is some ignorant antagonist who has never had a sword in his hand before; he doesn't do the thing he ought to do, and so the expert isn't prepared for him.:::- A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court, Mark Twain. --Tomascastelazo 23:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support because I think it shows situation in Tijuana quite well; on the other hand, I would appreciate if the author didn't respond to opposing users with quotations about stupidity and ignorance. --che 02:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
che - just a little fun rivalry between two users, no harm done... I cannot call it a battle of wits, one is missing!--Tomascastelazo 02:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I cannot help me, but when i read the comments of Tomas and Hans i get the impression of a kindergarten. The only difference is that the kids are quite eloquent ;-) --Simonizer 08:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Lyacon. Cacophony 06:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, at least get rid of the dust spots before nominating an image for FP! --Aqwis 08:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality, chilling when you see the crosses, not enough such images. Dori - Talk 17:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, no anonymous voting allowed. -- Lycaon 20:27, 1 December 2007 (UTC) like Lyacon --90.22.89.120 17:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support me likey --Richard Bartz 00:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose tooo.... subject confused. --[[Anonymous Dissident]] 06:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral =>  not featured. Lycaon 23:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Crocodylus acutus jalisco mexico.jpg, not featured[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by --Tomascastelazo 22:34, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Photo taken at swamp in La Manzanilla, Jalisco, Mexico. I tried to get the other one to say cheese. What can I say... I like crocs --Tomascastelazo 22:34, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Sorry, no anonymous votes allowed. -- Lycaon 20:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC) nice shot!
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support A few minor problems but the crocodiles easily make up for it. Calibas 06:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, composition. --Aqwis 08:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This is a good photo, but I think your previous croc FPC was better. The composition is a bit messy on this one - especially I find the tail of the croc in the lower left corner distracting. Not good enough to become one of the top fraction 0.05% photos on Commons, which are FPs. -- Slaunger 11:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Basik07 22:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose composition -- Lycaon 22:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Composition, Exposure. -- Ram-Man 23:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Merlijn 10:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral =>  not featured. Lycaon 23:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:New River Gorge Bridge.jpg, featured[edit]

The New River Gorge Bridge

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info everything by JaGa. The New River Gorge Bridge near Fayetteville, West Virginia, is the longest (3030 ft), highest (876 ft) steel-arch bridge in the Americas. This bridge (and almost this same angle) is featured on the WV quarter. --JaGa 04:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support BTW I won't be around for the voting, so if you have a question, please leave something on my talk page. --JaGa 04:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I like it but I think it would have been a much better picture without the bridge. Calibas 06:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, sharp, good composition. --Aqwis 08:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeChanged my mind- -- Slaunger 21:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC) The composition is so close to being dead on that it distracts me that it clearly isn't dead on (non-horizontal upper line). However, I guess this would be hard to acheive as the river below seems to be curved under the bridge. Under those circumstances I would (if possible) have chosen another view, which was clearly not dead on. Otherwise a very fine photo with good value, colours, lightning and sharpness, just not exceptional enough for FP (for me) due to the composition. It may be improved though - maybe you should discuss it with User:Klaus with K. He is very proficient regarding bridge photos. -- Slaunger 11:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I should probably answer these here. I didn't want a horizontal upper line - it really does climb from left to right. You can even see it in the West Virginia state quarter. --JaGa 19:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support Oh, I was unaware of the fact that the bidge actually has a significant slope in real life. That coin convinced we. That changes my opinion. -- Slaunger 21:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question How many photos did you use for this stitched image? Regarding Slaunger's comment, I think in this case you do not need to choose a different projection, as you were fortunate enough to be far enough away from the imaged object. You probably could use a different orientation of your rectilinear projection to align the bridge deck horizontally, if you wish to try this out. Here I just could not go further backwards without a drastic change in the foreground, but the piers look just too fat, that is why I thought this cylindrical projection better suited. -- Klaus with K 18:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I used a total of 25 images for this one, in 3 rows. I checked out the cylindrical projection, but it made my bridge look more like the Gateway Arch than the New River Gorge Bridge. I think the distance helps me get away with the rectilinear. --JaGa 19:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Thanks for the info, good photo. -- Klaus with K 23:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Love the rusty colors of both bridge and nature. By the way why is it that you use so many images ? I have also seen other recent nominations that use a lot of images. Just curious. /Daniel78 16:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I can see Slaunger's point, however, the small diagonal makes it, for me, dynamic. --Tomascastelazo 13:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Simonizer 14:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support ack Aqwis --Thermos 14:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Damn! can't fault this picture. Even straightening it does not improve it. Lycaon 21:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support ack Lycaon. --LucaG 22:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --MichaelMaggs 22:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very nice, realistic perspective (gives 3D to the bridge IMHO, unlike Lycaons demo version below) --JDrewes 19:22, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Rlevse 22:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support ack JDrewes --Cpl Syx 19:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Richard Bartz 00:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Every element is beautiful. -- Ram-Man 23:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- MJJR 21:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Simonizer 12:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Straightened version, not featured[edit]

The New River Gorge Bridge

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Straightened version to illustrate, not for voting. Lycaon
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeOh, it was just informative -- Slaunger 00:01, 1 December 2007 (UTC) Yeah, I know, I asked for this, but after realizing the real bridge has a significant slope I prefer the original. With this knowledge the "horizontal bridge" version almost seems misleading although visually slightly more appealing IMO. -- Slaunger 00:01, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, boring. --Aqwis 22:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose not for voting Because the bridge deck is not level, so misleading perspective - but thank you for the illustration. -- Klaus with K 23:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Basik07 22:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Amazing edit, how did you make such a big change without much noticeable distortions? Dori - Talk 05:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 12:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:SF Bay Bridge USA.jpg, not featured[edit]

Bay Bridge and downtown San Francisco

  • Info Info: Bay Bridge and downtown San Francisco as seen from Yerba Buena Island. Created and uplaoded by Daniel Schwen, nominated by norro 16:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I love the composition and love the colours. --norro 16:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great colours and exposure. Freedom to share 17:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, great colours and composition, so the fact that it's unsharp and has quite a bit of noise doesn't matter. --Aqwis 20:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This is about 7 miles from my house. :) Calibas 00:38, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportThis is about 5000 miles from mine :) I like it too ! -- Fabien1309 14:07, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Very nice colors, great composition, but way too much color noise for FP in my opinion. --JDrewes 19:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Sorry Daniel, but the picture is too dark (yes, I know it is night), too noisy and I don't like the composition either - Alvesgaspar 20:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
    • You don't have to be sorry for an honest opinion. The pic was taken with my old camera under adverse conditions. I used a tripod and the image is actually an assembled mosaic. But the winds were very gusty that evening and it was hard/impossible to keep the camera from shaking. I did quite a fair amount of postprocessing (Greycstoration) which I usually don't bother doing, but I felt it was worth the effort as I also liked the composition and colors and it was an angle which was not available on commons then. Nonetheless I wouldn't have dared nominating it for FP myself. --Dschwen 03:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose not sharp, too noisy, but great cars on the bridge ;-). Lycaon 01:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice composition, but not too sharp, probably because of the windy conditions. --MichaelMaggs 09:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice --Karelj 22:06, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Huskyoog.jpg Husky (talk to me) 22:49, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too dark, and not a good angle for viewing the bridge WolfmanSF 10:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting question.svg Question: C'mon! Too dark? It's a night shot. --norro 12:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
It would be better if there were more reflections in the water. As it is, the lower half of the photo (except the bridge) is basically dead. WolfmanSF 05:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I would stay neutral, but there are many people opposing and I want the image to be FP, so... Poromiami 20:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Bay Bridge could at least be centred. Otherwise, a little noisy and possibly a little blurry. 哦, 是吗?(User:O) 04:07, 04 December 2007 (GMT)
    • Centered? Sigh. Then people would complain about boring composition. Centering is a no-no. Besides that would result in less interesting parts of the skyline to be shown. --Dschwen 17:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

SF Bay Bridge USA-noise-thumb.jpg

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The yellow and green pixels are what has disqualified other better images here and is called noise.-- carol 11:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
    • I'd have bet my internet connection that the yellow pixels were called numbers ;-) --Dschwen 17:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC).
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Too noisy. Without EXIF information, it's impossible to say if this was taken correctly or if the camera choice was a mitigating factor. If EXIF information was provided, I'd reevaluate my vote. The image also appears to be a tad too blurry, perhaps from the long exposure + wind. I expect closer to perfection for this type of shot. Composition is great. Update: Having read the above comments, I see this was taken with an older camera, thus the noise. I've changed to neutral as a result. Please take this again without the wind. -- Ram-Man 23:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
    • It's my favorite spot whenever I get to San Francisco. However, I live in Illinois now, so it might take some time until i get to reshoot. --Dschwen 23:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Merlijn 10:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Lack of sharpness, and trees in bottom right are distracting. --Cpl Syx 22:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
result: 9 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 12:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Us-mexico border at Tijuana.jpg, not featured[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by --Tomascastelazo 16:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Stark reality... not a critique against a country, but against the conditions that force migration, where we all share responsibility --Tomascastelazo 16:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I don't like the composition, I think showing a longer portion of the fence would be better. Also I think black and white should be reserved for occasions where it really enhances the image, and I don't see that here. Dori - Talk 17:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I feel that this is a political statement rather than FP. I disagree with your description of the image and I also disagree that we all share responsibility. If you want to debate this with a real right-winger, I am more than happy to discuss it with you. I am not however saying that this image should not be an FP because I disagree with its political message, but rather that it is not the type of image that I would list as one with a great WOW factor and as FP material. Freedom to share 18:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Be careful with what you ask... you may get it! And of course this picture has no WOW... If it did, it would be an insult. --Tomascastelazo 21:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • What I am saying is that this is not something that I would like to see as a featured pictured. Sure, it's powerful, thought-provoking and maybe will open my mind to the issue of illegal immigration one day. I love the use of monochrome, but that I do not believe is what FPs are about. This image would be great at the first page of an opinionated newspaper article about the subject, but for an FP I expect something else... a beautiful landscape or an important person would be FP-worthy material, but I somehow feel that street children or images such as those, no matter how striking, simply do not belong here. Commons is not their home. They are meant to be reprinted and shown to the world together with their accompanying messages to show everybody what you feel and maybe convince them to your views. I am not disputing that this image is great: a piece of poetry, even if I do not agree with it, can be great. I am simply saying: this is not an FP. It is an entirely different level of photography. It is expressionistic photography, heavily polarized and opinionated. It fits into Commons like a Capulet on a party full of Montagues: it simply doesn't. Sorry, I do not want to sound rude, dishonourable or disrespectful, but please put those images somewhere else, where they will be recognised, for they do not belong here. Freedom to share 21:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Oh dear.... First of all, thank you for taking responsibility for your opinions... I truly respect that. Now, whatever I may say is rethorical, nothing personal, and take no offense... But, what is a FP? A beautiful landscape? Who are you (or me)to dictate what should be a FP? Limiting the scope of photography in this forum, to me, amounts to censorship, and censorship, to me, is worse than leprosy. It eats away the spirit of the human being, his right to be heard and speak out. Not everyone must like every picture, it is everyone's right to like or dislike. It is democratic to support or oppose. This is an encyclopaedic effort, in every dimension, including FP. Anything less would make this effort a waste. As far as FPs, I am a proponent to evaluate according to well informed criteria, be it photographic, cultural, scientific. Unfortunately, IN MY OPINION, that utopian scenario is a long way off, but in a democratic way, one must accept opposing points of view, and at the same time, one has a right to oposse the opposing points of view, even if they don't like it. By critisizing, one must open up to critisism also... Regards...--Tomascastelazo 22:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
    For once I agree with you on this one Tomas. FP should be about value and good photography and not (only) about beautiful photos. I am glad that we have very valuable non-beautiful photos like this on FP. I wish we had more. -- Slaunger 22:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Slaunger - I have never proposed anything less than what you say. Maybe my ways are off, but not the ideal. --Tomascastelazo 23:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • BTW Freedom to share, your words Sure, it's powerful, thought-provoking and maybe will open my mind to the issue of illegal immigration one day. I love the use of monochrome, are much more rewarding than a simple support. You really make my case. Thank you! --Tomascastelazo 22:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • You're welcome. :-) Even if this nomination is not going to be a success (including my oppose contribution), your photo would have achieved its desired effect: it made me think about this issue and therefore it fulfilled its purpose. Freedom to share 15:58, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose agree with the description but oppose per Dori. Lycaon 20:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support against the flow :) ....i really like the composition. --AngMoKio 20:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This composition doesn't convince, somehow. --MichaelMaggs 22:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose IMO the photo should be more self-explanatory. If you do not read the accompanying illustration it could be any fence. -- Slaunger 23:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Very much agree with Slaunger. In the photo of the old woman above, the idea of social exclusion comes out strong and naturally from the composition adding to the formal beauty of the photograph. In this case we are left with the aesthetycal aspect of the image which is not strong enough to impress -- Alvesgaspar 00:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - per SlaungerRlevse
result: 2 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 12:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Cadaques stiched.JPG, not featured[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by --Hansvandervliet 19:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Hansvandervliet 19:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not categorized and stitch error. Lycaon 20:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, stitch error, poor lighting. --Aqwis 20:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 13:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Viejita.jpg, featured[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded andnominated by --Tomascastelazo 20:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportOld lady in San Miguel Allende, Guanajuato, Mexico --Tomascastelazo 20:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great pathos, good composition and very nice colors. --LucaG 20:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --AngMoKio 20:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support (ov). -- Lycaon 20:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Wow -- Alvesgaspar 20:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - Let me say something more because the picture deserves it. Not only the colours, composition and general quality are very good but I see a clear symbolism in the composition which adds to the pathos of the image (like Lucag said). For me having the door at her back and no space in front of her strongly suggests exclusion. IMO this is your best shot and one of the very best people photographs in Commons. Congratulations. -- Alvesgaspar 21:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Thank you Alvesgaspar. Truly. It is a shame as to how something so ugly can be morbidly pleasant to the eye. --Tomascastelazo 22:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great composition and colors. Dori - Talk 21:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question For such kinds of photos I guess the person being photographed should give their permission for being published? I do not find any notice thereof in the image page. Would that not be normal? Or is it not needed because the person in this case appears quite unidentifiable since we do not see the face? -- Slaunger 22:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Photo taken at a public place, fair game even if faces show. --Tomascastelazo 22:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment In this particular case I think you are right. At least legally there seems to be no concern. However, there could be a moral issue if the photo can be considered as intrusive, even the the person is in a public place. I doubt this is the case here as the person is hardly identifiable. But this is not my speciality... -- Slaunger 22:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Slaunger: I find it so ironic that our moral issue concerns verse on legal aspects. The real moral issue is poverty itself. It is my wish that photography becomes a window that allows us to see beyond. --Tomascastelazo 22:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Agree with Alvesgaspar. -- Slaunger 22:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --MichaelMaggs 22:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, everything's been said already. --Aqwis 23:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support An even stronger statement than your fence pictures. Calibas 00:42, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great --Simonizer 09:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- MJJR 20:48, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Rlevse 22:44, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support without a doubt. RedCoat 10:39, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Böhringer 21:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great photo. --Lerdsuwa 16:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Thermos 16:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Wow! Congratulations. Poromiami 20:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Richard Bartz 00:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice to see a talented people photographer. -- Ram-Man 23:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I'm happy to see new things over here. Wish I take this kind of photos... Benh 09:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Useful? Category:Category:Beggars - bad category, please use this image. Przykuta 23:58, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
That is interesting. Przykuta you see a beggar in this image? -- carol 23:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
result: 21 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 13:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:US-Mexico border deaths monument.jpg, not featured[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by --Tomascastelazo 20:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Taken at the Tijuana-San Diego border, Mexico --Tomascastelazo 20:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Composition doesn't do it for me, and moreover information and categorization are lacking. Lycaon 20:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
If you do not like the pic, that is ok... but where is it stated that information and categorization are criteria for FP? --Tomascastelazo 14:07, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Did I mention FP criteria??? I think not! Information and categorization are required for every image. Lycaon 21:42, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Ah! finally an agreement between us, I totally agree with your "I think not". IVery coraugeous of you to acknowledge it. Thanks! --Tomascastelazo 21:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice image, I especially like the inclusion of the CCTV poles in the image, which seem to almost be a criticism of a surveillance nation (a view with which I disagree, as usual :-) I live near London, if you are wondering why I am pro-CCTV :-) ), but the thing that really annoys me is the curved distortion due to the shape of the road, which I am sure someone of your abilities can fix in Photoshop. Also, what is Operation Guardian? Could you please add a link to its Wikipedia page (if it exists). If the fix is done in Photoshop, I will support the image. Freedom to share 22:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • It is an actual dip on the road, so it is as it is. And yes, lens curvature probably exagerates it a bit. I try to to be as unobtrusive with the image itself as much as I can, I hate gimmicks. I limit manipulation to tonal values, color correction, etc. --Tomascastelazo 21:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Agree with you (for once :-)) about Photoshop, but this is not a manipulation designed to deceive, but something that would improve the photo significantly without altering the content, so I would recommend considering. Freedom to share 22:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose for now due to distracting geometric distortion/tilt - especially of the CCTV pole. I do not think it is a gimmick to correct that. If that is done, I'll support. Besides that a strong photo. -- Slaunger 22:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I corrected the tilt as much as I could without cutting off the lights on the right. Thank you for the observations and suggestions. --Tomascastelazo 22:34, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
    Hmmm... better, but I think you need to go a little beyond tilting to make it optimal - you have to fix the geometric distortion to make the pole straight (I reloaded so I hope I am looking at the right photo, I think I do...) -- Slaunger 23:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. A powerful image. --MichaelMaggs 22:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Dori - Talk 16:06, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose bad composition --Urban 17:38, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose monuments are too small to be effective.Rlevse 22:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support MartinD 18:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice one. Poromiami 20:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Dtarazona 18:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
result: 6 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 13:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Coca cola lady.jpg[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by --Tomascastelazo 21:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tomascastelazo 21:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The old lady here is really touching, but the background is a bit distracting, anyway: high quality. Your other lovely "Viejita" is the perfect shot. --LucaG 23:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Very good photo, but I am not sure it makes it all the way to exceptional for me. The background is a little bit too cluttered IMO - especially at the left-hand-side. Looks like the photo could be improved by a slight CW tilt as well and/or a gentle crop of the wall on the right-hand side. I love the texture of the hand against the wall. The image is only categorized with the rather unspecific Poverty Category. I guess there must be other relevant categories to add too - specific for Mexico or the place/area? Adding more relevant categories will increase the probability that others can actually find your nice photo for a specific purpose besides illustrating poverty. You could improve value of the image page by adding geodata as well. -- Slaunger 23:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral, with a cleaner composition, this could be a really great photo. --Aqwis 23:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I cropped the picture. I usually leave them full frame so people can crop according to their needs. --Tomascastelazo 00:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
    IMO the crop is significantly better. Another ignorant question: How about the Coca-cola trademark and licensing? -- Slaunger 00:06, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
    I'm fairly sure that if it's in a public place it's fair game per Mexican law. Calibas 00:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Slaunger, no such things as ignorant questions... Generally, anything in public view is fair game. People, brands, etc., etc. if it is used in an editorial way, and even in a commercial manner as long as the intent is not to suggest, imply, etc., sponsoring of the particular symbol or company to whatever the photograph is trying to "sell". I can commercially shoot anthing in the street and have commercial logos present, for good or bad. And that is the way it should be. And if it is art, the options are even larger. I once uploaded a photo collage here but unfortunately some (choose your own adjective), maskerading as purveyors of decency and legality, censored it and deleted it. --Tomascastelazo 21:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
    OK. Thank you for the explanation. -- Slaunger 11:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Not bad but the lighting is rather poor. Calibas 00:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg NeutralI forgot, I already voted neutral once before. -- Slaunger 23:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC) Agree with Calibas. -- Slaunger 11:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Don't like the lighting -- Lerdsuwa 16:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Thermos 16:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination --Tomascastelazo 03:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Street musician.jpg, featured[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by --Tomascastelazo 23:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Sorry to load so many pics today... Loaded them in between phone calls....
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tomascastelazo 23:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Well, you nominate good and interesting photos, so I do not mind ;-) Could you be a litte more specific with categories here too? Category:Musicians seems like an very unspecific category. For instance Category:Street musicians seems more specific as well as other localized categories. -- Slaunger 23:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, how about if you help me out? Sometimes one fails to see where it can be well placed. This is, after all, a collective effort. Thanks! --Tomascastelazo 23:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
    Point taken. I've changed to the more specific Street musicians cat, but for more localized categories I think you are better at doing it yourself as I do not know exactly where the photo was taken. -- Slaunger 23:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I am about to log off, but will come back and recategorize. Thanks for your observations, suggestions, help and critiques. --Tomascastelazo 00:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support although I still think the image page should be supplemented with one or more suitable localized categories specific to the place, city, region, and/or country. -- Slaunger 07:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. le Korrigan bla 10:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--AngMoKio 20:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Karelj 22:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Lerdsuwa 16:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Poromiami 20:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Points for the great composition and nice use of DoF. -- Ram-Man 23:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support composition. Lycaon 06:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Was gonig to oppose, as it's too much grain in the image, but decided to try to remove them, see Street musician - edit.jpg
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Indeed on second (closer) view, very grainy, even compression artefacts. And I'm also puzzled by the dark right border. Composition is fine but the quality is wanting. Lycaon 14:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Simonizer 13:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Grape worker.jpg, featured[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by --Tomascastelazo 23:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support From a series of Mexican winery photos. I really love this one --Tomascastelazo 23:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Great picture, I'll support if you can reduce the noise in the background. Calibas 00:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Which noise? Looks pretty quiet to me.;) MartinD 18:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Huskyoog.jpg Husky (talk to me) 22:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Needs categorization. -- Slaunger 23:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support - and I don't mind the crop of the cap. -- Slaunger 07:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Lerdsuwa 16:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Dori - Talk 22:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Poor guy lost his hat. Don't like the composition (crop) and quality (very grainy BG). Lycaon 07:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose noise, theme --Beyond silence 15:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
result: 6 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Simonizer 13:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Butterfly vindula arsinoe.jpg, featured[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created and uploaded by Benjamint444 - nominated by LucaG 17:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Crispy image, stunning colors, good lighting and very good contrast with background leaves --LucaG 17:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --MichaelMaggs 17:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tomascastelazo 18:49, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Simonizer 19:50, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- I really like this one.Rlevse 22:42, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Same comment that for QI page. Sting 01:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Thanks for the nom. Benjamint 05:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Laitche 12:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Cpl Syx 19:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Böhringer 21:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Wow! - Huskyoog.jpg Husky (talk to me) 22:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Slaunger 23:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Wonderful colouring and sharpness mitigating the less-than-perfect background - Alvesgaspar 08:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Basik07 22:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Just beautiful--AM 21:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The butterfly is perfect. The background could be improved, but the quality of the butterfly compensates. -- Ram-Man 23:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Wo-ow ! Benh 09:08, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 13:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Concert guitar player.jpg[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by --Tomascastelazo 18:47, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tomascastelazo 18:47, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Interesting concept, but the composition isn't interesting enough. The whole bottom left part is black. - Huskyoog.jpg Husky (talk to me) 22:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Don't like the end result. --Lerdsuwa 16:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral, it's not a terrible image, but I don't really like it. Poromiami 20:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination --Tomascastelazo 03:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Grape workers.jpg[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by --Tomascastelazo 19:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support These are the people who bring us great wine --Tomascastelazo 19:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral At a first glance I can't fault the image, but I fail to see what makes it FP material. Cpl Syx 19:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Don't like the composition - two cropped people on the left and one hidden behind on the right. --Lerdsuwa 16:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination --Tomascastelazo 03:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Gray contrast test image.svg, not featured[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Benjamin D. Esham (bdesham) A test image to check your monitor's response to photographic shadow detail. An image that goes well with this document. Call it the 'what are you really doing' nomination. - uploaded by bdesham - nominated by CarolSpears --carol 22:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --carol 22:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This image is a pure technicality, useful no doubt, but why would it be featured? --JDrewes 23:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too dark Lycaon 00:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Yeah the first circle's too hard see. Please use better lighting ;) Rocket000 04:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I support it because it is a very good tool to calibrate the monitor for brightness and assure that what one sees reflects the tonal values of the image. --Tomascastelazo 00:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - I can't even see the first circle... - Alvesgaspar 01:20, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • That is exactly why this is useful. If you cannot see the first circle, your monitor is not calibrated right, and if your monitor is not calibrated right, your output will be off, especially when you fly visual. What you see in the monitor is not what you necessarily get in printing, whatever the medium (inkjet, photo lab). --Tomascastelazo 01:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • You don't have to see the first circle (from the left), only the other three. Dori - Talk 01:51, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I will share a couple of tips with you… In Zone System photogaphy, a method developed by Minor White, Ansel Adams, and others, there are what are called dynamic range and texture range. This particular illustration is useful to calibrate your monitor for the dynamic range, that is, the tonal separations in a particular image. If you calibrate it correctly, the texture range will fall into place automatically. Now, what I do is the following: I print a picture without any adjustments where I can see in the histogram that it covers the entire dynamic range, and has a decent amont of colors. Then I place it next to my monitor and adjust the brightness and contrast settings so that the monitor adjusts to the output, and then I do the same with color adjustments. I write down the settings because they will be useful only to that praticular output medium. I have two settings, one for my inkjet and one for the photo lab. The settings will not be the same. Depending on where I will print, I ajust values in the monitor. That way, what you see is what you get. This illustration, at least, will give you a good start in monitor and output calibration.--Tomascastelazo 02:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Assuming that people see the Picture of the Day and that is how they arrive here to vote, and also for the simple fact that the featured pictures are viewed via a display which is getting information from a computer -- it might be just good practice to once a year remind people about the technical aspects of what makes an image good or not good and the reasons that images are Featured and not as well as the voting guidelines. Once a year, everyone gets to calibrate their monitor and perhaps, reassess their criteria for their votes and their opinions. -- carol 07:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. Technically useful but not FP material. The image text actually says that your monitor is too bright if you can see all four, contrary to Tomascastelazo's comment above. My monitor is regularly calibrated using Huey Pro (a clever little device and software that actually measures screen output and adjusts colour balance and brightness settings automatically). I see three circles, and the ghost of a fourth if I stare very carefully. --MichaelMaggs 09:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
You are correct, I left out the part about just barely seeing the first circle. Like you say, a ghost. --Tomascastelazo 19:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This is a useful image from a technical standpoint, however nothing about it is worthy of FP nomination. Cpl Syx 19:15, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too simple to create. Not enough to justify being a FP. --Lerdsuwa 15:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, as above. Poromiami 20:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Value from simplicity. I remember back a year or two ago, we had this tool on the main FPC page to make sure everyone used a similar brightness. It is truly an invaluable tool for many of us in my opinion. Freedom to share 21:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose C'mon guys. This is just a tool. Where's the creative input? Of course, please discount my vote, I can't see the first circle. :-) Rocket000 04:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
result: 3 support, 9 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 13:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Cone and holly.jpg, not featured[edit]

Pine cone and holly

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Charlie2301 - uploaded by Charlie2301 - nominated by Arria Belli Arria Belli | parlami 23:27, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support While I do realize the berries in the background may be distracting to some, I quite like the overall effect. Happy holidays. Arria Belli | parlami 23:27, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per Arria, I love this!--Nick1915 23:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great picture. –Animum 01:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC) 01:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I tried something along these lines last Christmas, and failed miserably. RedCoat 10:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Excellent. Actually, "Excellent" isn't high enough praise. This is one of those images I simply love to look at! Absolutely outstanding work. Cpl Syx 19:15, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It's strange but the shallow DOF is what actually makes this photograph so good in my opinion - maybe I'm just being swayed by the seasonal theme of the image! --Cpl Syx 04:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Terrific. The level of detail is amazing. Huskyoog.jpg Husky (talk to me) 22:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Slaunger 23:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The DOF is too shallow for me in this crowded composition. Dori - Talk 02:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support DOF could be better, but in general a very nice picture. -- MJJR 18:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The DoF is way too shallow. Considering that my own pictures of similar cone compositions are labeled as compositionally weak, this seems a tad inconsistent. The cone is "growing out" of the picture, and the holly is out-of-focus that it just detracts. The Holly leaf divides the image into what seem like to separate pictures. -- Ram-Man 03:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Ram-Man and Dori. Also too kitschy for my taste. Lycaon 07:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

-- carol 11:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Missing here is the indiscriminate placement of a template saying that the image will probably not be accepted due to DOF problems. -- carol 15:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. focus /Ö 16:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Composition divides onto two separate areas which compete with eachother for attention. --MichaelMaggs 22:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Ack MichaelMaggs, plus the holly berries are completely out of focus which creates a weird ambivalence of them being background and subject at the same time. --Dschwen 22:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Composition and dof --Beyond silence 15:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  • A reject template would be inappropriate because there are people who are prepared to support it despite the faults. However, I am not one of them. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Dschwen, RamMan. Ben Aveling 08:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, mind-reading? The templates are applied usually extremely quickly in the candidates tenure here. Ben Aveling, what qualifies you for this expertise in how it works? The templates are usually applied within 30 hours. How does one know if there is going to be support for an image or not and if one knows, what reason is there to enter it into a contest like this? -- carol 09:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  • No mind reading involved; there are people who have already voted for it. Regards, Ben Aveling 19:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose due to poor composition and depth of field. Cacophony 00:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral This is beautiful but the DOF is too shallow and a few dust. -- Laitche 16:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
result: 8 support, 8 oppose 9 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 13:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC) Laitche 14:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:EmberizaSchoeniclusNaturalHabitat.jpg, not featured[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by Thermos --Thermos 22:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Thermos 22:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It's a nice picture of a bird in nature, but it has two problems. Compositional: The beautiful reflection was chopped off in favor of a much less interesting background. Technical: The bird seems a tad oversharpened. -- Ram-Man 23:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 13:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Pachycereus pringlei baja california 1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by --Tomascastelazo 22:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Taken at the Cataviña region, Baja California, Mexico --Tomascastelazo 22:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Don't like the cropped one in the foreground. Otherwise nice composition. --norro 23:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The composition could be better I think. Especially, the crop of the frommost plant disqualifies it for FP IMO. -- Slaunger 22:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 13:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Cirio columnaris, boojum tree.jpg, not featured[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by --Tomascastelazo 23:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This is one of the strangest trees. Photo taken at the Baja California peninsula, Mexico. --Tomascastelazo 23:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Wow. The depth of this scenery is amazing. Image quality is not too good, though. Perhaps try some denoising? --norro 23:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Interesting subject and nice composition. However, technically too weak IMO. Especially the sharpness of the subject and the lightning. Photo should be added to relevant species gallery or category. -- Slaunger 22:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 13:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Goeldis monkey - butterfly lunch - big.jpg[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Created, uploaded and nominated by Nattfodd --Nattfodd 19:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info I know it's a little bit noisy at 100%, due to the extremely low light when shot, which required to bump the ISO to 800, even with a f/1.8 aperture. The other qualities of the shot should more than make up for it. --Nattfodd 19:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info I haven't been able to identify the butterfly, all I know is that it's from South America rainforest. Any help is welcome. --Nattfodd 19:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Nattfodd 19:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --AKA MBG 09:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Boxes 16:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Obvious zoo pic. Bad lighting and very noisy. Lycaon 17:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
    • I never pretended it wasn't a zoo pic. --Nattfodd 17:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry - the obvious zoo elements, the composition, the lighting and the noise are all problems for me. --MichaelMaggs 18:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Striking perspective and you have caught the subject with a nice expression. It is, however, fairly noisy and the branch at the bottom is awfully distracting. RedCoat 18:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination --Nattfodd 20:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Dune Flickr Rosino December 30 2005 Morocco Africa.jpg, not featured[edit]

Sand dunes in Morocco

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Rosino (Flickr user) - uploaded by Quasipalm - nominated by Arria Belli. Arria Belli | parlami 02:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Lovely, hypnotic photo. Arria Belli | parlami 02:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral kind of grainy close up IMO. --[[Anonymous Dissident]] 04:38, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I see it too. In the shadowy part there is really a lot of noise (that's not just sand, is it?), and I see a bright halo following the outline of the dunes, maybe oversharpened? Otherwise very nice athmosphere, so if this could be fixed, I'd like to support. --JDrewes 18:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
      • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Yeah, indeed, oversharp was another word I was looking for. I would support too if this were somehow fixed. --[[Anonymous Dissident]] 18:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, it's not grainy, it's sharp. --Aqwis 16:02, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Sand is naturally grainy :) Can you fix the dust spots? One at the centre on the bottom edge, and a fainter one at the top of the sky directly over the v of the horizon.
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--AngMoKio 20:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Böhringer 21:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Karelj 22:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Terrific picture, compressed too much though. Dori - Talk 22:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral - Huskyoog.jpg Husky (talk to me) 22:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
blotches in the sky
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Distracting almost white thin line in boubdary between dunes and sky (postprocessing artefact?) overcompensated by wow -- Slaunger 23:25, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
      • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Agreed. Exceptional image. Suggest lighter handed processing to original.--Wrspiers 06:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I looked to see the thin white line and saw what I think are clone errors. Red outlines the real obvious ones, yellow is around some less obvious. -- carol 09:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Actually, taking artistic-looking photos of dunes is not difficult. This composition shows little imagination. WolfmanSF 04:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - The composition is almost trivial and there are technical problems: the white line and the noise in the shadows - Alvesgaspar 12:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Noise in the shadow and oversharpening halos need fixing, see above. --JDrewes 15:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I think the composition is not good, as the shadow zone is not well centered even on a third -Theklan 16:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too many problems as discussed above. --MichaelMaggs 18:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support its a bit noisy --Richard Bartz 00:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose ack Richard Bartz. Lycaon 07:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Dune Flickr Rosino December 30 2005 Morocco Africa-problems-thumb.jpg

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg CommentTo me, this image has everything with the exception of the noise in the shadows that was mentioned.-- carol 11:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Tbc 21:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Pudelek 22:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Merlijn 10:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per the technical problems mentioned. Rocket000 04:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Beautiful --Booksworm 15:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
result: 11 Support, 7 Oppose, 3 Neutral => not featured. Simonizer 09:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Mt. Feathertop444 edit.jpg, featured[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Benjamint 05:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC) and uploaded by user:fir0002
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Benjamint 05:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --It's a stitching, right ? A very unfortunate focusing error during shooting ruins this nice picture : the clouds at the right are completely out of focus and in a lesser level, the ground in valley at the left. It's a pity, sorry. Fixed Sting 12:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, I couldn't care less about the clouds being unsharp. --Aqwis 16:02, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment : Imo if all were, ok ; here one part is sharp, the other at the same distance, out of focus. Sting 16:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • No need to be sorry; it's fixed. The land was as it should be though, thats what hills covered in eucalyptus trees end up looking like from a great distance (and haze) it all ends up being one tone :). Benjamint 09:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Relic38 20:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info
  • I've made a first edition on that panorama and uploaded it over the original with the following corrections : the former blurry clouds turned blue, so I corrected this ; also there were several darker areas in the sky (due to stitching ?), which were well visible in the thumb view like above, a bit less in the larger view of the description page and I made them clearer to match better the luminosity of the other clouds. This edit may be viewed here.
  • I made a second edit I've uploaded also over the previous version (it's the current version — if you don't like it, you can revert —) : the mountain, on the both sides of the picture seemed to me unnaturally darker, not because of the shadow of the clouds or the nature of the ground but more like a vignetting problem. I made these two areas clearer. Sting 12:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support now the 2nd edited version. Sting 12:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Beyond silence 15:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- MJJR 21:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
result: 6 Support, 0 Oppose, 0 Neutral => featured. Simonizer 09:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Oakland Mormon Temple3.jpg, not featured[edit]

Oakland LDS Temple

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Calibas - uploaded by Calibas - nominated by Calibas 08:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Calibas 08:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I find the colour saturation just too much - sorry. --MichaelMaggs 09:24, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Urban 20:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- A bit blurry, and i think the composition could be better. - Huskyoog.jpg Husky (talk to me) 22:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose That mast in the background disturbs the composition IMO. I am wondering whether it would be an idea to clone it out (should be easy), but on the other hand I think that may be to manipulate a little bit too much with the photo... -- Slaunger 23:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
    • !?! The mast in the background is well recognized landmark of San Francisco. Cloning it out would be absolutely unacceptable. --Dschwen 13:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
      OK, I was unaware of that. Obviously, it is not an option to clone out the mast then. -- Slaunger 13:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, the composition is excellent IMO, Poromiami 20:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tomascastelazo 03:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too blurry for me. Lycaon 07:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Karelj 18:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Oversaturated. --AM 21:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Foreground is too dark. I don't automatically support a picture just because it has a pretty sunset. A nice daytime shot with perfect blue sky and puffy clouds would be more useful, from an encyclopedic point-of-view. -- Ram-Man 22:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Merlijn 10:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nothing wrong with the composition, it's just the color and blurriness. Rocket000 05:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Interesting shot—looks like outside U.S. Minor sharpening would help.--Wrspiers 06:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
result: 7 Support, 7 Oppose, 0 Neutral => not featured. Simonizer 09:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Gibraltar map-en.svg, featured[edit]

Map of Gibraltar

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Sting - uploaded by Sting - nominated by RedCoat --RedCoat 09:38, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --RedCoat 09:38, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Excellent as usual. le Korrigan bla 10:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Cpl Syx 19:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Huskyoog.jpg Husky (talk to me) 22:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --MichaelMaggs 18:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nickel, comme d'hab. Sémhur 19:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Merlijn 10:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Excellent map. However it's POV since only shows the UK&Gib POV (that the fence between Spanish and Gibraltar territory is an international border). Phrase "International border" must say "International border (not recognized by Spain)" or even better "Fence/Frontier". Mind that all the agreements between Spain, UK and Gibraltar, such as the Cordoba Agreement talks about "fence/frontier" (stating that "This phrase means frontier for the UK and Gibraltar, and fence for Spain").--Ecemaml (talk to me/habla conmigo) 23:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Pictogram voting info.svg Info I've uploaded a modified version replacing « International border » by the more neutral (?) term « Frontier », even if it is disputed (or should I have used the expression « De Facto Boundary » like in the CIA map ?) and notified the claims of Spain about this area. I didn't use the term « Fence » as this one is really of Spanish-centred use which of course can be mentioned in the article pages of the different WPs. Sting 12:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I think that de facto frontier would be the most accurate approach (however, maybe just a note on the box simply stating that its not recognized by Spain would be fine). --Ecemaml (talk to me/habla conmigo) 13:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
result: 7 Support, 0 Oppose, 1 Neutral => featured. Simonizer 09:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Sagami Temple 2600px.jpg, featured[edit]

Sagami Temple

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by 663highland - uploaded and nominated by Laitche --Laitche 12:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Laitche 12:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Cpl Syx 19:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Böhringer 21:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral -- Beautiful colours, but i think a shot of the whole roof temple might have been more interesting - Huskyoog.jpg Husky (talk to me) 22:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Thats a very nice photo with delicate colurs and sharpness. As an observer my eye is immediately drawn to it. One thing though. I would have liked to see how it ended at the roof. One can see how the pattern ends below, but not above. -- Slaunger 23:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • You can see how it ended at the roof. Here you are. :) --Laitche 10:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
    Well, thank you. However, I do not think it should be necessary to look at supplementary photos when evaluating an FPC to get the full picture;-) - Slaunger 07:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC).
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I would also have liked to see the photo continue above, but the overall effect is still dazzling (so many colors and details and angles to look at). Arria Belli | parlami 23:56, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Great colors but it appears tilted clockwise to me. Dori - Talk 01:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I think that the photograph is not tilted. Some pillars are tilted clockwise a little. Please see this one. --Laitche 14:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Thermos 16:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry to go against the flow but the lighting bothers me (glarey in the middle and gloomy at the top), as well as the loss of the very top of the design. --MichaelMaggs 19:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Poromiami 20:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Acarpentier 16:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Obviously nice colors, and the centered look works with the geometric shapes, rather than against it like many other pictures. -- Ram-Man 22:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --LucaG 20:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Too tightly cropped at the top, but nevertheless FP quality. -- MJJR 21:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Benh 09:02, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Beautiful shot. Interesting symmetry, lively, clean color and good shadow detail. Well done.--Wrspiers 06:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
result: 12 Support, 1 Oppose, 3 Neutral => featured. Simonizer 09:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Elephant Head Column Head.jpg, not featured[edit]

Column capital in shape of elephant's head in Petra

Without dust spot
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I found this photo many months ago while working on fr:Pétra. I'm undecided on whether it should be a QI or an FP, but in the end I suppose it doesn't hurt to try for FP first. Arria Belli | parlami 23:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Like it (PS sky is wonderful)--Nick1915 00:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Please remove dust spots before submitting anything to FP. Lycaon 00:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Thermos 16:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It's hard to see the elephant, so the image is quite meaningless. -Theklan 16:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Poromiami 19:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Tbc 20:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too much column, should be cropped. --AM 21:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Dust spots, overexposure, and low-side of the resolution guidelines. -- Ram-Man 23:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Merlijn 10:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per above reasons. Rocket000 00:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Dtarazona 18:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good color, detail and composition: elephant is still the focal point. Please correct the darker, circular cloned correction in sky near column, about midway down.--Wrspiers 06:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Pudelek 16:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment As I do not know how, Rama has since kindly removed the dust spot (see image in thumbnail), but it's a noisier photo. Arria Belli | parlami 17:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
result: 9 Support, 5 Oppose, 0 Neutral => not featured. Simonizer 09:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Pirinioen panoramika.jpg, not featured[edit]

Panorama of the Central Pyrenees from Bailo, in Huesca province.

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Theklan - uploaded by Theklan - nominated by Theklan --Theklan 22:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Theklan 22:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, please get rid of the text and the borders. --Aqwis 16:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Borders, Text, picture seems upsampled --Simonizer 16:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Borders, details extremely washed out, very close crop, not sharp --JDrewes 18:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Fantastic picture, the wow does enough to outbalance artificial borders. Freedom to share 21:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per other opposers. Lycaon 09:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
result: 2 Support, 4 Oppose, 0 Neutral => not featured. Simonizer 09:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Flower with pollen-Edit2.jpg, not featured[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Had nominated this image before the edition.Its a Featured Picture at wikipedia. Let's see how it goes. Created and uploaded by Muhammad Mahdi Karim- edited and re-uploaded by jjron - nominated by Muhammad Mahdi Karim --Muhammad Mahdi Karim 16:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Muhammad Mahdi Karim 16:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The lightning and composition is not good enough in my opinion. As an aside: There is no location information in the image page. I recommend adding geodata to the image page. -- Slaunger 22:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Distracting background and awkward POV. RedCoat 18:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 Support, 2 Oppose, 0 Neutral => not featured. (Rule of th 5th day) Simonizer 09:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Medjugorie Bosnia-Erzegovina.jpg, not featured[edit]

Paesaggio della Bosnia-Erzegovina

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Michele.gaiga - uploaded by Michele.gaiga - nominated by Michele.gaiga --Michele.gaiga 17:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Michele.gaiga 17:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Una parte de las nubes está sobreexpuesta. --Jorgebarrios 21:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Overexposed, noisy, posterized colours, sorry. I recommend to add geodata to such types of photos. -- Slaunger 21:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I like the composition but unfortunately on the technical side is not acceptable. Jacopo 22:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As per your other photograph, the quality of the camera is the factor here. --Cpl Syx 04:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Even in the thumbnail, it can be seen that the whites are too white -- blown-out is the weasel wording that get used by the digi-photo speak people to describe that. It is not so obvious in the other photograph. If you can take a well composed photograph which does not have the too strong white areas in it, to prevent people from judging your camera instead of the image that was produced, there are tools online that can edit the metadata -- if you are the kind of person that might do that. It is an interesting thing to consider doing to the kind of people who criticize a photograph based on the metadata only -- the making of a perfect picture.... I am of the opinion that a great camera can take many different kinds of great photographs; the lesser the camera, the fewer the options, the fewer the kinds of great photographs it can take. The more options there are, the more confusing it is as well. Also, to be perfectly honest, I would not have looked at the photograph if it hadn't been pointed out that it was part of a cellphone, due to the composition problems. People, including me, are quite whatever negative attribute that is. -- carol 07:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Carol, I'm unsure if you were referring to my statement when you said "the kind of people who criticize a photograph based on the metadata only", but I was not judging the camera itself as I agree that good photographs can be taken with any equipment. However after viewing the image it was clear that the camera was the limiting factor - had there been no metadata I would have still stated as much. --Cpl Syx 21:58, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Constructive criticism. -- carol 02:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 Support, 4 Oppose, 0 Neutral => not featured. (Rule of th 5th day) Simonizer 09:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Torri del Benaco - Lago di Garda.jpg, not featured[edit]

Barca ormeggiata a Torri del Benaco (Lago di Garda)

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Michele.gaiga - uploaded by Michele.gaiga - nominated by Michele.gaiga --Michele.gaiga 19:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Michele.gaiga 19:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Hi Michele. First of all, welcome to Commons. I like Lago di Garda, but the photo is unfortunately technically weak in several ways. It is noisy, not really sharp, the composition is not very good and I do not think it is very valuable either. Do not be discouraged though! I can recommend consulting Commons:Photography critiques if you would like some further feedback on your photos and hints on how to improve them. -- Slaunger 21:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Unfortunately the hinderance here is the camera - photos taken by mobile phones are generally weak in a technical sense when compared to more "professional" equipment. --Cpl Syx 04:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Read somethings about composition and keep trying.
result: 1 Support, 2 Oppose, 0 Neutral => not featured. (Rule of th 5th day) Simonizer 09:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Iguana BuinZoo.jpg, not featured[edit]

Iguana Buin Zoo

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by J. Barrios - uploaded by J. Barrios - nominated by J. Barrios --Jorgebarrios 21:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Jorgebarrios 21:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Looks pretty good in thumbnail, and it is a fairly good composition IMO. However, in full size it looks very strange concerning the colours and sharpness as if it has been overprocessed. -- Slaunger 21:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too small at 1.3 MPx. -- Relic38 23:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The blue lighting is very strange. I've never seen rocks that colour. --MichaelMaggs 18:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 Support, 3 Oppose, 0 Neutral => not featured. (Rule of th 5th day) Simonizer 09:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Cherry Stella444.jpg, not featured[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Benjamint 09:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Benjamint 09:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support woooow! Muhammad Mahdi Karim 15:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question Are they floating in mid-air, or is it me? RedCoat 15:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Lerdsuwa 16:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Retract my vote. I notice gray vertical lines at the left and the right of cherry that should be removed away. --Lerdsuwa 09:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)Symbol support vote.svg Support Apparently fixed. --Lerdsuwa 17:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, poor lighting. --Aqwis 16:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral, better. --Aqwis 15:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral, same as Aqwis, the lightning could be much better. I'll stay neutral for now, and may support it later; I have to consider it. Poromiami 20:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Fixed, but your monitor is way too dark if you can see that. Benjamint 11:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support My mouth is watering. Calibas 01:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The bluish/magenta tint looks weird to me, I don't really like the lighting. Dori - Talk 18:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Poor lighting - Alvesgaspar 19:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Neither the lighting nor the shadows seem natural - sorry. --MichaelMaggs 22:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Color fringing and low resolution (especially for a studio shot). -- Ram-Man 23:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 2 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 21:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Tunisia Sahara.jpg, not featured[edit]

Sahara desert in Tunisia and shadows of camels with travelers

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Moscvitch - uploaded by Moscvitch - nominated by Moscvitch --Moscvitch 16:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The composition is not very good. The horizontal lines are not horizontal and the focus on the center makes the sky blurry and not interesting. Perhaps the idea was better! -Theklan 16:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Fun: camel has 7 legs. Try crop image: to remain only sands, without sky. --AKA MBG 06:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
    Fixed... 7 legs because there were more than one camel. --Moscvitch 18:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Tunisia Sahara-noise-thumb.jpg

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The pink, green and blue pixels are what the graphic art world calls 'digital noise'.-- carol 11:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Thank you. I tried to correct the photo with the help of the "AKVIS Noise Buster" program. Is it okay now? --Moscvitch 23:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, the noise is reduced. How much did that software cost you? -- carol 11:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I just looked this up myself. It did not seem to hurt this image, but some of the examples I saw online of what it can do were terrible! -- carol 12:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Doesn't do it for me. Is it noise or lighting that makes the color seems strange to me? -- Ram-Man 23:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Interesting shadows, but more elements of interest are needed for FP status. The dunes and their features don't show up well. WolfmanSF 02:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 21:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Schéma abeille-tag.svg, featured[edit]

Bee anatomy scheme

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Bee anatomy scheme, created by Walké - uploaded by Walké - nominated by Sémhur --Sémhur 20:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I think it's an impressive work, so I nominate it. For now, picture keys are only in french, so add it in your own language if you find translations -- Sémhur 20:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great work from french wikipedian graphic lab. --Pinpin 21:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Walké 22:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great work. I added the Spanish table, but I had problems with translating a couple of them. Could someone check them, please? Poromiami 02:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Uninteresting mix of 2D and 3D elements. Biologically not very correct. (why are Malpighian tubes and anus outside the abdomen? - what about the names for the leg segments? - What are the white circles on the abdominal dorsal blood vessel? - what is a postgraphme ??? - ganglia and cerebral ganglion don't seem to be properly connected - Labial palp is not labelled - Muscles are drawn striped but they are not in reality). Lycaon 07:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
You seem to be an expert about bees. Thanks for your help to improve this diagram ! Sémhur
✓ Done why are Malpighian tubes and anus outside the abdomen?: that's true, I have contacted the wikigraphist, he will redraw this part. Done, they are inside, now.
✓ Done what about the names for the leg segments?: Do you talk about the letters e f g h i ? I havn't found a name for each one in french. They have only a generic name, articulations tarsales, articles tarsaux or métatarses. But perhaps they have names in other languages. Done, only the main have a name (basitarsus).
✓ Done What are the white circles on the abdominal dorsal blood vessel?: I think they are cardiacs valves, according to the diagram of this document (p. 27). Done, cardiacs valves.
✓ Done what is a postgraphme ???: it was a spelling mistake, I have corrected it. The right word is "postphragme".
  • ganglia and cerebral ganglion don't seem to be properly connected: I don't see what you mean, can you be more precise ?
✓ Done Labial palp is not labelled: Is it the red appendix close to the tongue ? Done, description added.
✓ Done Muscles are drawn striped but they are not in reality: the diagram was made from this photo, and muscles appears to be striped, and also in this document (p. 25). If you have other sources, please tell us. Done, sources indicate striped muscles.
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Yugiz 15:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Coyau 19:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Well done but what about the antenna? Calibas 01:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Aqwis 19:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as per Lycaon. If these issues are resolved, this should result in another nomination so I know to change my vote. -- Ram-Man 23:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It is very well done. I cannot find the names of the tarsal segments either. At least generally speaking and after googling "tarsal segments", they are called tarsal segments or tarsomeres 1-5 [1]. --Al2 19:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
The first tarsal segment connecting to the tibia is called basitarsus [2] --Al2 20:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, description added (in french : métatarse)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as per Lycaon. --norro 23:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --libertad0 ॐ 19:09, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Incorrect anatomy aside, it just looks bad. Mixing 2D and 3D is never good. Poor colors, too. This diagram has potential to be great; it just needs to be done in a more consistent style. Rocket000 20:42, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - For aesthetical reasons. The colours, the mixing of 2D and 3D and the awfull checkerboard as a background. If this picture is also to be seen in a screen, why doesn't it have a white background? - Alvesgaspar 21:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Checkerboard? That's just how your browser renders the transparent background.. --Aqwis 07:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
It is easier to integrate a transparent background than a coloured one in the graphic charter of a website. Commons is not only for Wikipedia (and when it's used in WP, the background appear to be white). About the colours, well, to each his own... Sémhur 13:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, yes. When Mediawiki converts this to PNG, it's either transparent if your browser supports it, or it's white. You should see a checkerboard, though, on the image description page. That is just to let you know there's nothing there. Rocket000 14:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very nice. And as mentioned the checkerpattern is just transparency, if you use a browser that supports svg you can can look at the rendered svg directly. /Daniel78 23:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Now that the issues mentioned by Lycaon were fixed. Very nice and clear drawing which represent a lot of work as well as research to be accurate. Sting 21:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
result: 12 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 21:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Dry mud at Sossusvlei.jpg, not featured[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by Lycaon 16:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support For an illustration on drought --Lycaon 16:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Really very well illustrated. Fully justified QI but for FP I somehow miss sth more. --AngMoKio 20:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 21:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Dried vlei at Sossusvlei.jpg, not featured[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by Lycaon 16:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support For an illustration on drought --Lycaon 16:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Really very well illustrated. Fully justified QI but for FP I somehow miss sth more. --AngMoKio 20:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 21:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Annabelleal.jpg[edit]

  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportI like the photo. It is cute.--69.51.163.154 16:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Picture is too small. Should probably have a personality rights warning to. --Boxes 16:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Nuvola apps important yellow.svg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because too small - Boxes 16:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC) Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Ugh, major personality rights issues - should be removed from the "Lolita" category and Polish article, and possibly deleted unless a release is sent to the Foundation. --155.98.230.202 17:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I have removed the Lolita category as it is potentially libellous. --MichaelMaggs 18:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -Susanlesch 12:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nothing special. And in my opinion, an admin should revert allmost all of this ip(s) contribution... Acarpentier 00:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Chess in black.jpg[edit]

Short description

Nuvola apps important yellow.svg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because watermarked Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

Lycaon 23:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Bloody frog.jpg[edit]

300px|Bloody Frog

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info An unfortunate accident allowed this frog to wake up whilst being dissected. Its underside is open. .Everything by Muhammad Mahdi Karim --Muhammad Mahdi Karim 05:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Muhammad Mahdi Karim 05:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Dear God that's disgusting. Why wouldn't you kill the frog before dissecting it? Calibas 05:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
We normally chloroform the frog and then dissect it. Killing it might damage the internal organs. But unfortunately this one received a low dose and woke up, turned around and started jumping with its organs hanging around. It was a shocking sight and whilst my friends took care of the problem I snapped a few pictures for wiki. (I still get nightmares). Muhammad Mahdi Karim 05:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Nuvola apps important yellow.svg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because out of project scope Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

--MichaelMaggs 07:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I am not sure it is correct to state that the contribution is out of project scope. On the educational side it could be a clear demonstration on how not to prepare a frog for dissection. On the technical side, I would argue that the photo is on the low res limit with an unfortunate light although the special circumstances could mitigate that. I do not know much about dissection, and I am surprised that the animal was not killed efficiently prior to dissection. Would that not be normal? -- Slaunger 13:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
The animal is not normally killed as killing it may damage the organs (mechanically killing) and poisoning may be considered dangerous when students dissect. Hence, chloroforming is normally done. But unfortunately, this one as I mentioned, received a low dose. I have a higher resolution photograph, but I believe 2mp is the minimum requirement. Right? Muhammad Mahdi Karim 15:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, glad I do not study that science, it would be hard for me to accept the procedures. With respect to image size the technical quality normally has to be very high for a 2 MPx picture to get through the nomination phase unless there are mitigating reasons. If you have a larger res photo, which gives an overall better technical quality do upload it. -- Slaunger 16:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Vivisection seems to be the proper term for this and there is no commons category or gallery yet for this subject here. There are two other images that appeared when I searched Image:Activist against vivisection.JPG and Image:Harbin Gedenkplakette Einheit731.JPG. -- carol 15:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Bloody Frog

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Here's a higher resolution picture. Slaunger, since you do not think this picture is out of project scope, could you please remove the 'out of scope' template? Muhammad Mahdi Karim 18:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
    Actually what I had in mind was that you should upload a new version of the old image not create a new one, but nvm. Regarding removal of the template, I am not so sure, I will do that; although I do not agree that the photo is out of project scope, I really cannot replace it with a supporting vote. Actually, I am inclined to oppose it, but to do that I have to make up my mind why I would oppose it. The easy reason would be to just refer to bad lightning, but really I have a hard time filtering away my dislike of the cruelty in the scenario as such. But an FP does not have to display beauty - I have to think about it. -- Slaunger 21:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I am opposed to gross pictures. I really think that an FP should be something that one likes to look at. If this picture was of ultra-superior quality (which I don't think it is, though it's not bad either), I would still be disgusted and therefore I would not like to look at it. Not FP for me. --JDrewes 21:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
"I really think" <-- thinking is cool, I would like to encourage that; however if you could look through the FP guidelines and find something there that supports your thoughts on this it would make it appear that you used research and documentation to base your thoughts on. I did not think when I made my first comment here -- I don't like the image, I did not study biology even in high school -- dissection was one of the reasons. Instead of 'thinking', I looked to see if the commons had a category for such encyclopedic images and they didn't, but they have enough to make one. -- carol 03:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I am a bit scared that featuring these kind of pictures might encourage people to try to shoot other twisted images for nomination. Also I don't think this image is good enough anyway. /Daniel78 23:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Common Muhammad Mahdi Karim, I'm sure you are making fun of these peoples he he he... Anyway, in my opinion this image is not valuable: There is nothing to learn of it, it's not a proper vivisection and there is nothing difficult of doing such a photo, I could have done that at 5 year old if I had the equipment... Acarpentier 00:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose If it makes any difference to the other voters here, amphibian brains lack the features that produce basic emotions in mammals, birds, and reptiles. So this unfortunate animal probably is not suffering. That said, the composition simply isn't anything special. It's a botched vivisection, nothing more. Durova 02:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The Commons:Image Guidelines state "An image “speaks” to different people differently, and has the capacity to evoke emotions such as tenderness, rage, desire, rejection, happiness, and sadness, good photographs are not limited to evoking pleasant sensations." Keeping that in mind, I believe this picture does just that. Just because a picture is gross, does not mean its not FP material. If the picture has technical flows, then please let me know specifically how and where. Thanks Muhammad Mahdi Karim 05:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Ugly and irrelevant. I don't see any useful purpose in this picture other than shocking people or satisfy their morbid curiosity - Alvesgaspar 08:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose After thinking about it, I have made up my mind about your nomination. I oppose the image for several reasons:
    1. The photo is not sufficiently self-explanatory. You have to read the context to realize that the photo is a result of a vivisection mishap. The frog is photographed on a package with some gloves, which gives hints to the laboratory environment, but this is nowhere clear enough.
    2. The photo demonstrates how not to do vivisection. Although this is somewhat educational and useful knowledge I think a vivisection photo to become FP rather should show a professional vivsection, where the animal is sedated correctly, and it is shown in a vivsection/lab environment with the tools used for vivsection alongside the frog.
    3. The flash lightning and messy background indicate point-and-shoot conditions. Not surprising given the conditions, but too low quality to be mitigated for FP. And that does not imply that I urge you to go back and reshoot the scenary...
    4. I consider the photo as being equivalent to nominating photos of accidents in the public. Such photos serve others "morbid curiosity" as Alves states. And although I support the existence of such photographs on Commons I do not think their presence should be emphasized by giving them FP status unless there are very special conditions such as great historical value.
    5. Although you state that others were busy taking care of the situation while you took the photos, I am a somewhat surprised that you chose to spend your time photographing the scenario instead of actively dealing with the situation.
In summary, valuable, but not FP material IMO. -- Slaunger 09:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I think this is very well in our scope, but I oppose this because I don't like looking at it. I could of very well came up with technical reasons for opposing, but I didn't feel like it. (Which is ok people.) Rocket000 15:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Thank you Slaunger for being the only one to correctly vote for the picture. Regarding your comments, "I am a somewhat surprised that you chose to spend your time photographing the scenario instead of actively dealing with the situation," well.. let me just say I would not have helped much (too many cooks...) and I was better off doing something to share my experience.

Taking into consideration Slaunger's reasons I withdraw my nomination --Muhammad Mahdi Karim 15:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Valle Interandino Ancash.JPG[edit]

Short description

Nuvola apps important yellow.svg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because not a sufficiently good composition and is unsharp Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

--MichaelMaggs 22:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Rincon de ortega church.jpg, not featured[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by --Tomascastelazo 03:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tomascastelazo 03:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, underexposed, not much wow. --Aqwis 11:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice shadow detail --Thermos 22:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Obviously taken with a high-quality camera (lack of shadow noise), but for me, not enough wow. -- Ram-Man 23:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Technically brilliant, but I fail to see what makes it FP material at first glance. RedCoat 17:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 13:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Housefly anatomy-key.svg, not featured[edit]

Anatomy of a Housefly with numbered key.

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by, uploaded and nominated by Al2 --Al2 18:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info References http://www.infovisual.info and http://www.nku.edu, and others.--Al2 18:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Al2 18:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Petronas 08:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, lots of insects today. :) --Aqwis 11:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Adam Cuerden. --Aqwis 18:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Note : please be very careful when using information from infovisual.info : I know this website can contain many mistakes, I have seen quite a few for ships and related topics. ut I don't know much about flies :-) le Korrigan bla 12:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I always try to complement with other information such as glossaries and studies. --Al2 16:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral - I would like to support this nomination but it needs some more detail and sophistication. For example, the depiction of the composite eye is a little too basic and other parts of the anatomy could be identified (in particular on the wing: basicosta, wing venation,...). BTW, the long veins in the wing reach the margin - Alvesgaspar 08:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info I have uploaded a new version with more anatomical parts. The compound eye is now compound and I corrected the thing with the wing veins. --Al2 13:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - Better now! But a little detail remains: the 4th and 5th long veins should reach the wing margin - Alvesgaspar 16:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Beyond silence 15:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Provisional Symbol support vote.svg Support (I still have to scrutinize) Already a lot better. Lycaon 15:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Richard like Flies :) --85.181.6.212 13:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC) --Richard Bartz 12:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
    Richard has to log in to vote ;-) Lycaon 14:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
     :) --Richard Bartz 12:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose in strongest possible terms - The wing is misshapen (it should have a sort of lobe near the base, not just taper smoothly) and upside-down. [3] The mouthparts are off; See [4] The halter is somewhat deformed, and (I think) a bit too far towards the abdominal end. Please realise this isn't your fault, but your sources were inaccurate, and without fixing it with better sources, this cannot be an FPC. Adam Cuerden 15:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --libertad0 ॐ 19:09, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Provisional Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose A picture like this must really be a lot of work, and it produces very high value. However, it really needs to be correct, and unless Adam Cuerdens issues can be resolved, I think it should not be FP. --JDrewes 01:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't like opposing something so much better than I can do, but I'm going to have to. Provisional Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as per JDrewes until Adam Cueden's issues are resolved. Sorry, Ben Aveling 18:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info New version uploaded. I have created a new wing structure based on other resources [5] [6] [7]. For graphical purposes, the wing position whould be as it is, considering that the vein named "costa" in all wing structures goes upwards Wing venation. I re-drew the mouth parts and positioned the haltere. As this is a scheme or diagram to depict the fly parts, it would not be similar to any specific fly. --Al2 13:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
The wings are displayed that way in order to make the wings of various insects consistent: basically, in a dragon fly, the wings are like this, as seen from above (You'll have to look at the source in the edit field, and I've left out the second pair of wings)
     O

COSTA | COSTA \_____|_____/

     |

But a fly holds its wings something like this, as seen from above (actually,t hey tend to overlap a bit, but this will do.


  O

C// \\C O | | O S X S T / \ T A/ \A

</nowiki>


The fly's wings are generally found at rest atop its back, parallel to the surface it's standing on. You might be able to fix it by moving the abdomen to the front and adding slight foreshortening, so that we're seeing the wing from below. But this is unacceptable and unreal. The costa is traditionally shown at the top when showing just the wing, because of dragonflies and the like.

By the way, I'm sitting an exam on this sort of thing tomorrow =) Adam Cuerden 14:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I see your point and will fix it. thanks --Al2 12:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Pictogram voting info.svg Info New version of the file, following recommendations by Adam Cuerden, good luck with the exam! --Al2 12:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Looking a lot better. Two things: the mouthparts and other parts of the head are still slightly off - the labrum and hypopharynx are missing, for one - see [8] or ,[9]) - though note there's a bit of cheating going on there: They've been spread out so they can be seen, whereas, in reality, they're part of the food canal. Also, the accuracy of the labelling of the mouthparts are a bit off - the pseudotracheæ are grooves in the labellar lobes, for instance. If you want, I could e-mail you some textbook scans. The haltere is generally a creamy white - which would also make it show up better, and it'd probably be best to move the abdomen (not the thorax) to a higher layer so that it blocks the tiny bit of the wing that's now in front of it, which would help the perspective. The colouration of the body is technically a bit off, but I wouldn't worry much about that. It's getting there. Oh, also, if you wanted, I know the names of the veins in the wing. Adam Cuerden 10:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Scans would be great (gmail:fiestoforo). Thanks for the information! I've noticed that models in these diagrams and pictures are altered somehow to depict its particular better. Not sure if that should apply in these kinds of diagrams. --Al2 11:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
result: 6 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 13:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Zigouillonbourdon.jpg, delisted[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Low resolution, overexposure, unsharpness, poor filename, poor contrast, distracting background. (Original nomination) 00:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist -- Ram-Man 00:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist -- you forgot to mention that at 1280x960px it is on the small side -- carol 07:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist Too many problems. Regards, Ben Aveling 09:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist --Beyond silence 12:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist ouch! Lycaon 18:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - It's amazing how high our criteria have raised in only two years. And still I don't think we should delist these "old" pictures. - Alvesgaspar 18:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep Yes it's a bit scary how it changes. If this continues the images we feature today might be delisted in two years again. I would like if FP images got marked for example as FP2005 which could not be revoced. Thus you could see that yes this is not up to the standard of today but it was a FP2005 and I still think this image is good although it's far from perfect and I would not support it now. To make some kind of point I vote keep for this. /Daniel78 17:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Scary? It's amazing how this process has encouraged such high quality picture taking. -- Ram-Man 17:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
High quality is not the scary part, I mean that we lose the information about the old images, not that we are getting better on the new ones. /Daniel78 17:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
We don't lose them. They get a label stating that they used to be FP (so they are always part of FP history) and they surely are not deleted. Lycaon 20:44, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I know they are not deleted :), I did not know about the label however. Are they in a category so you can easily find them ? /Daniel78 22:07, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Of course you can find them easily in Category:Formerly featured pictures. --Javier ME 22:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist --Javier ME 22:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep per Danial78. I guess we will want 20MP photo for FP in 5 years. :) -- Lerdsuwa 11:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
result: 6 Delist, 2 Keep, 0 neutral => delisted. Simonizer 09:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Antinous Mandragone profil.jpg, delisted[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Size and substandard quality (lighting). (Original nomination)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist -- Lycaon 13:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist per nom. --MichaelMaggs 18:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist as above. -- Slaunger 23:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist -- carol 07:01, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist Size --Simonizer 17:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist as above --Karelj 18:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
result: 6 Delist, 0 Keep, 0 neutral => delisted. Simonizer 09:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Astrolabe-Persian-18C.jpg, not delisted[edit]

A Persian Astrolabe

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info resolution, and the light is very bad (Original nomination)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist -- Prince Kassad 17:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep My current size limit is 1024×768, so this picture can still stay for me. Lycaon 19:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Lycaon perhaps you can spend some quality time reviewing your list of disqualified images then -- carol 12:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep enough --Beyond silence 10:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep --Lerdsuwa 11:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep --Karelj 18:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep Not far enough below current standards to delist --MichaelMaggs 07:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep In my opinion this picture reach the standards for featured pictures --ChristianBier 07:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep --AngMoKio 17:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 Delist, 7 Keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. --Simonizer 23:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Molinos atardecer-1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Windmills in Campo de Criptana, Spain.

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info from flickr, created by Ana Ulin - uploaded an nominated by Petronas --Petronas 08:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Petronas 08:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • {{FPX|too small}} --Aqwis 11:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I think the size is all right, it isn't small at all. Poromiami 18:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, too small. --Aqwis 19:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Nice composition spoiled by unfortunate geometric distortion -- Alvesgaspar 19:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose 1.5Mpx is too small. --MichaelMaggs 22:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Size and wow. -- Ram-Man 23:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 10:26, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Strawberry444.jpg, not featured[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Benjamint 09:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Benjamint 09:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Aqwis 11:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose for now. The shadow is not clean. Perhaps without it, or with an other format (png, or svg). Sémhur 19:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral That's better, but as it's said below, there is too much white margins. Sémhur 16:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, sure this is a great picture, but the shadow has issues and a studio shot needs to be greater than 1600x1200. -- Ram-Man 22:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Shadow fixed and minimized. It's within the res limit, the guidelines don't mention anything about certain subjects needing a higher resolution than others. Benjamint 09:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
    Regarding size, it is a guideline and it also says that For 'easy to take' images, reviewers may choose to demand more if the image would benefit from it., and I guess this is what Ram-Man is referring to. -- Slaunger 11:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
    Yeah, I demand more than the bare minimum when it comes to studio shots. We're trying to build a collection of best possible, not merely adequate images. This image could conceivably be redone by another photographer with little effort and larger resolution, thus it is not special enough for me. -- Ram-Man 12:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
    But until someone does take a better picture, is this our best studio shot of a strawberry? Regards, Ben Aveling 08:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
    It is the best studio shot currently available, but if we have to feature every 'best' shot of every item available on Commons, then we're not done yet... ;-). Lycaon 08:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
    I have to agree with Ram-Man. Moreover 50% of the picture is pure white, so one could argue that the image is only 1Mpx. The technique and the quality however, are quite good, so please provide us with a huge STRAWBERRY ;-). Lycaon 15:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Great shot. I'd support a version with higher resolution. I took the liberty of editing the cats on the image page, see my edit summaries. -- Slaunger 22:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 10:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Libya 4432 Ghadames Luca Galuzzi 2007.jpg, featured[edit]

The ancient desert town of Ghadames

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Created, uploaded and nominated by LucaG 21:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info The ancient desert town of Ghadames, Libya, is designed to fight the dramatic extremities of Saharan climate. Houses are made out of mud, lime, and palm tree trunks with covered alleyways between them to offer good shelter against summer heat. --LucaG 21:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Excellent. --Thermos 22:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Pudelek 22:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral The resolution/sharpness is on the low side, but it's a FP-grade composition. -- Ram-Man 23:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support agree with Ram-Man, but the unusual subject pushes me towards a support. --Dschwen 23:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - love the mood, reminds me of Mos Espa. -- Slaunger 11:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose No wow, tech and theme.--Beyond silence 15:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- MJJR 21:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like the calm relaxed feel of the image. Calibas 00:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Use the force Luke !! Benh 09:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral The photo would be perfect if the man would sit on the left side. This way he is too centered in my opinion. Still very nice picture. --AngMoKio 20:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment What you see in the picture is a covered path of the city of Ghadames not a house. The doors on the left side are entrances of houses. This Berber man was walking, when he stopped to look the desert outside, I shot handheld in the dark alleyway (1/8s f/4 400ISO) thank to stabilized lens. Sure not a High QI but the man was not posing. --LucaG 16:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral - Because image quality - detail and sharpness - is not up to FP standards. Otherwise, nice composition and atmosphere - Alvesgaspar 10:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good composition. --Herrick 13:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Fascinating! Booksworm 15:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 3 neutral => featured. Simonizer 10:28, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Pisco Sour 0912b (Peru).JPG, not featured[edit]

Peruvian Pisco Sour

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Dtarazona - uploaded by Dtarazona - nominated by Dtarazona --Dtarazona 19:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Dtarazona 19:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose lighting, composition --norro 23:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, have to agree with Norro. --MichaelMaggs 07:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Commonplace. -Susanlesch 12:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Although I agree with the things stated above I do find it an interesting picture. --Boxes 20:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 10:53, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:El Gouna Sheraton 02.jpg, not featured[edit]

(Part of) the Sheraton Hotel at El Gouna, Egypt

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by MJJR - uploaded by MJJR - nominated by MJJR -- MJJR 20:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- MJJR 20:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nothing special. --Herrick 12:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral - This is an excellent composition and the colours are very good. Unfortunately the image quality doesn't go with it, probably due to natural DOF limitations (no miracles possible) and camera quality. But I'll gladly promote the picture to QI - Alvesgaspar 23:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 10:53, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Pulque donkey and vendor.jpg, not featured[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by --Tomascastelazo 23:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Pulque is a traditional fermented beverage made out of the maguey plant. People attribut curative properties to it. --Tomascastelazo 23:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too tight crop, poor lighting, fringing. I've seen better. Lycaon 23:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 10:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Saltbox concord 1.jpg, not featured[edit]

A classic saltbox, outside of Concord, MA.

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Taken, uploaded, nominated and all that good stuff by: -Fcb981 23:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Fcb981 23:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice, clean picture. Surely QI, but lacking FP wow. Lycaon 23:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As Lycaon. /Daniel78 23:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 10:55, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Don't abbreviate as Wiki (English version).png[edit]

Don't abbreviate as Wiki.

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Kasuga, nominated by Laitche -- Laitche 21:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This is very useful for Wiki.Don't abbreviate as Wiki (English version).png I'm sure. -- Laitche 21:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I don't see the value and should be SVG. Btw.: w:Plenk --norro 21:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, ...why? --Aqwis 23:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I think this is one of Japanese culture but maybe not meet to FP... -- Laitche 03:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info The meaning of the phrase is a sort of joke(humor), not in the literal interpretation :) -- Laitche 03:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination Thanks a lot. -- Laitche 16:52, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Asterias.svg, featured[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Dissection of Asterias rubens created by Lycaon - uploaded by Slashme - nominated by Lycaon 08:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Lycaon 08:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Browser buster here; sorry I forgot to log in (again) before mentioning that. -- 67.180.38.172 14:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Hmmm. Slashme fixed some font problems for me and on my computer(s) it now works fine. Have to look into this again. Hold on... Lycaon 15:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It looks very nice. --Al2 18:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- MJJR 22:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice work. Calibas 00:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Aqwis 13:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --libertad0 ॐ 19:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Well done. Rocket000 20:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --LucaG 20:49, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Nice work, clean and detailed. But I would prefer a white background, these images are also to be seen in the screen, not only for printing - Alvesgaspar 10:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
    • It's SVG, that can be easily added, but why? Like in the use here, it's hardly ever needed. Rocket000 05:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great diagram, as usual. RedCoat 15:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 10:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Nikes.jpg, not featured[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by --Tomascastelazo 23:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support What can I say? --Tomascastelazo 23:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Don't like the composition. Furthermore it would be nice if there was some image description. It's not very useful for other projects if you don't know what is shown, when and where it was made. --norro 23:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question Where was the photo taken? Please add this information to the image page - this is a general remark regarding most of your photos. It is valuable information and increases usability. -- Slaunger 22:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Low resolution, not too sure about the composition. Rocket000 19:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Just great, but add info, please. SRauz 19:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
      • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Info added to file. --Tomascastelazo 21:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- Booksworm 15:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 10:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Jodie Foster.4785.jpg, not featured[edit]

Jodie Foster, 2007

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by FRZ - uploaded by FRZ - nominated by Susanlesch --Susanlesch 12:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support as nominator. --Susanlesch 12:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose sorry, but for an portrait I miss the standards of quality. --Herrick 12:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Image is of Jodie Foster, an American actress and film producer, in Berlin in 2007. Apart from quality which is remarkable for a person of this stature, thanks for pointing out that out so the notability that was absent could be added (done). -Susanlesch 12:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
... and she killed her hairdresser? ;-) --Herrick 10:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Jodie Foster or not, the picture is of poor quality. --Boxes 20:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Motion blur, camera shake and lots of noise. Sorry. I think FP means Featured Picture, not Featured Person ;-) --JDrewes 21:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose i liked "the secret of the lambs" --Richard Bartz 01:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 10:32, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Cartoixa d'Escaladei 2.jpg, not featured[edit]

Ruines of the carthusian monastery “Cartoixa d’Escaladei”

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by Gepardenforellenfischer --Gepardenforellenfischer 14:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral (Since it is my own picture) --Gepardenforellenfischer 14:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Composition, what's the subject? AzaToth 21:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  • {{FPX|not a sufficiently good composition}} --MichaelMaggs 22:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
    Bad composition doesn't violate the guidelines. --norro 22:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Thanks so far for the remarks. Concerning the question: the subject are the ruines of the monastery Scala Dei on foot of the Montsant mountains. So you're right, when you citicize, that the picture doesn’t show neither exclusively the ruines nor exclusively the mountains – it’s a combination of both, which (in my eyes) is what makes it especially appealing. However, if the overall composition doesn’t meet the quality / relevance standards for a featured picture, I perfectly agree that should be denominated. Greetings--Gepardenforellenfischer 08:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not a sufficiently good composition. --MichaelMaggs 08:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
result: 0 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 10:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Anemone anatomy.svg, not featured[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg InfoAnatomy of a generalized anemone (Actiniaria), created, uploaded and nominated by Lycaon 22:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Lycaon 22:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Perhaps good for an illustration for a children´s book, but no FP. So minimalist. --Tomascastelazo 23:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It's anatomy, you can be very liberal with the colors. :) Calibas 04:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Not really. This is a scientific illustration. Lycaon 16:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I seems like a figure with significant value and information content, but it is not exceptional enough for me to consider it FP-worhty. The general simplicity of the figure correlates well with what it describes: The general anatomy. Despite that I think more "bells and whistles" could have been utilized. For instance, the figure is very 2D-like and lacks depth to make it more interesting for me. I am unable to verify the information content itself due to my lack of knowledge of the domain. In my review, I have assumed the information is correct - it usually is from this contributor. -- Slaunger 11:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I know Lycaon's preference for sienna and beige colors but this illu could be drawn more plastically with nicer gradients and colors, like now it looks a bit sad. --Richard Bartz 14:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 10:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Turtle1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Turtle1.jpg

Big turtle in the zoo of Sharm el-Sheikh (Egypt).

Nuvola apps important yellow.svg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because overexposed with blown highlights. Animals proposed for FP status also need to be properly identified ('big turtle' is not enough). Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

--MichaelMaggs 17:01, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, as above. It looks unnatural. Sorry. Redrocketboy 08:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Drought.jpg, featured[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by --Tomascastelazo 02:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support For an illustration on drought --Tomascastelazo 02:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Kind of leaves me yawning, and is distracted by top right and left. --[[Anonymous Dissident]] 06:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support AKA MBG 08:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Merlijn 10:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral, appears oversharpened. --Aqwis 13:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Acarpentier 21:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support For sure valuable. Technically not perfect. The light is harsh and/or the photo is oversharpened, but as a matter of fact I do not mind as it matches well a photo of drought. I feel thirsty just by seeing it. -- Slaunger 22:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support very nice. Cacophony 07:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Useful, but doesn't meet my personal "wow" criteria for FPs. -Rocket000 19:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Useful? Please use this image. Przykuta 00:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • It would work here. -- carol 03:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Hey, I didn't say it was useful to me. :) I was just saying that because people above me said it. It can be used for an illustration on drought or something. (lol at carol :) Rocket000 03:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Fascinating... Booksworm 15:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice, attractive shot. RedCoat 17:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose poor quality, there are better shots of dry mud available on Commons. Lycaon 07:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  • *Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I am sure there are! And considering the importance of the topic and the power of the image to sensibilize people of this grave world problem, please nominate them in order to make them more accesible to people. And let the people decide. --Tomascastelazo 20:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
result: 8 support, 2 oppose, 2 neutral => featured. Simonizer 16:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Ducks in a row.jpg, not featured[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by --Tomascastelazo 02:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This picture reminds me of a joke a french friend told me about a belgian who thought the lake was shallow because the water reached up to the duck's belly only --Tomascastelazo 02:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Can these ducks be just a smidgin whiter? -- carol 09:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
      • Hi Carol - I cannot tell if you are joking! In case you are not... white subjects are difficult to represent because they fall between the end of the texture range and the end of the dynamic range, in the high luminosity end (in zone system photography, which I use for representation of subjects). That means that subjects that fall within this range will have tonal differences, but no texture on their surfaces, as it is the case here. If we were to increase luminosity or contrast, their entire bodies will block out in white. Now, there might be a color cast, but that is greatly dependent on output or display, which can be corrected (even the file itself can have a color bias within its information, but digitally speaking, I cannot tell, and I correct for that in output anyway). Regards, --Tomascastelazo 19:11, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
I was joking, and it was probably not a good idea to use a joke like that in a multi-language situation (this was a few shades of sarcasm) to point out that it is a great photograph, with the inky blackness of the water and still showing details of the white of the ducks. For some reason which I am not able to remember right now, the sarcasm seemed to fit with your statement about the depth of the water as well. I should apologize and take the proceedings here more seriously. Some situations have made that latter goal a challenge, however. -- carol 02:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportAs per above Booksworm 15:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 16:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Male mallard duck 2.jpg, featured[edit]

Mallard drake standing

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info A Mallard drake standing (Anas platyrhynchos).
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Acarpentier - uploaded by Acarpentier - nominated by Acarpentier --Acarpentier 21:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Acarpentier 21:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Rabensteiner 05:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --LucaG 10:05, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tomascastelazo 17:09, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- MJJR 21:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Simonizer 12:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Lovely colours, contrast, composition etc. RedCoat 15:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Perfect DOF, nice colors. AzaToth 19:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Calibas 20:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Useful? Please use this image Przykuta 00:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Przykuta, you suggested to do that with a few other images. Is it that you simply want these images used? Or is are you questioning their usefulness? Rocket000 08:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
      • Sure, I want to see these images in sister projects, cause Wikimedia Commons is only a database :) (So, I know, that we have POTY, but... the rest - priv). Przykuta 19:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Boxes 16:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support
    English: I like it a lot, it's a beautiful picture!!
    Español: Me gusta muchísimo, es una fotografía hermosa!!
    --Dtarazona 17:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Quack. :) Durova 02:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Dincher 03:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 16:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Santes Creus monastery stained glass.jpg, not featured[edit]

Santes Creus monastery in Spain. Picture taken this summer

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Kuxu76 - uploaded by Kuxu76 - nominated by Kuxu76 --Kuxu76 13:22, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Kuxu76 13:22, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- ????? Sting 15:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- ?????? Laitche 17:51, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Nuvola apps important yellow.svg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because underexposed in most areas, but with overexposed, blown-out areas as well Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

. --MichaelMaggs 18:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info If I have nominated this image, it is presicely because there is a contrast between the darkness of the church and the colored glints of the stained glass that I found interesting. Kuxu76 20:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It's an interesting image for sure, but it's not really featured quality in my eyes. I wish the other opposers gave more constructive feedback other than meaningless question marks. Thanks. Redrocketboy 08:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This picture would probably be better at the end of a cloudy day and if the lights were turned on. That way, we could see both the stained glass clearly and the interior of the monastery, which imo would end up looking much better. Freedom to share 13:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:1997 274-24 Gerewol.jpg, not featured[edit]

Contestants in the Gerewol beauty contest, Niger 1997

Nuvola apps important yellow.svg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because too small and out of focus Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

. Is this a joke? --MichaelMaggs 21:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:1997 275-15 young Wodaabe women.jpg, not featured[edit]

Three young Wodaabe women at the Gerewol festival in Niger, 1997

Nuvola apps important yellow.svg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because too small Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

.--MichaelMaggs 21:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Colorado River.jpg, not featured[edit]

The Colorado river next to Page,AZ

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Adrille - uploaded by Adrille - nominated by Adrille --Adrille 11:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Adrille 11:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Agree w. Aqwis - too washed out colours. -- Slaunger 22:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 16:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Increased contrast/sharpened edit, featured[edit]

Colorado River edit.jpg

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info The original is horribly uncontrasty, so I adjusted the levels a bit and added some artificial sharpness. --Aqwis 15:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Wisnia6522 15:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Better, but the knobs were turned too much for my taste looks overprocessed. The cats should be on this photo as well and as an aside I recommend adding geodata. -- Slaunger 22:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This is better and very beautiful, and I don't think this is too much... it doesn't look overprocessed, it just looks colourful. Adrille 11:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Agree with Slaunger, it doesn't look natural now - Alvesgaspar 12:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support But categories are absent now... AKA MBG 12:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Muhammad Mahdi Karim 15:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Oversaturated and lacks sharpness. Also the writing on the rock in the bottom-left corner is distracting. (some sneaky new way to watermark images? j/k ;) ) Rocket000 20:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Unfortunate oversaturation. RedCoat 15:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This is the best of the four images shown as of 12.10.07--Wrspiers 05:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support good composition and value --Beyond silence 10:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Unrealistic colours --Herrick 12:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice and I think this is the best edit. /Daniel78 23:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Aqwis 20:22, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
result: 8 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral => featured --Simonizer 10:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Increased contrast/sharpened edit 2, not featured[edit]

Colorado River edit2.jpg

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Tried to make a version not too oversaturated. AzaToth 19:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Shadows are now too purple. Calibas 20:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Hehe, as I've never been there, I don't really know what colors there should be. AzaToth 23:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It is better. It is not so monotonous color :) --AKA MBG 09:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too much. Parts of the rock at the right now seem to be overexposed. --norro 21:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Agree that right side rock overexposed. Left side too saturated in magenta and cyan and river too blue, foliage too green.--Wrspiers 05:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 10:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Colorado River-edit.jpg, not featured[edit]

Colorado River-edit.jpg

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Major use of curves, a handful of smart sharpen, and a dash of color balance. Calibas 03:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Overall, image is too yellow. I believe image 2 is a truer representation.--Wrspiers 05:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 16:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Fishmarket 01.jpg, featured[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by --Tomascastelazo 15:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment No, I do not know its scientific name, and if for that reason you are going to oppose it, at least be a good sport and identify it for everyone's benefit... at this stage is dead fish at the fishmarket (and food) in Ensenada Baja California's fish market, aka "el mercado negro" or "black market". This fish is commonly called "vieja" (old lady).
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tomascastelazo 15:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

{{FPX|too small - [[User:Rocket000|Rocket000]]}} – It is large enough now. Lupo 08:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

      • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I re uploaded a large version. --Tomascastelazo 19:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
        • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment California Sheephead, Semicossyphus pulcher: The California Sheephead is characterized by its wrasse-like shape, and three different color patterns for juveniles, adult males, and adult females.
        • And thanks a lot Lupo !!!--Tomascastelazo 20:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
        • Thanks for uploading a higher res version. Sorry I didn't remove the message box earlier. Still kinda sick looking ;) but I won't oppose. Rocket000 14:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Kjetil r 02:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The face is arresting. Now that the image size is resolved I'm glad to support. Durova 02:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I am going to have a dream about this freaky looking fish! Dincher 03:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support this picture is wonderful Cary Bass demandez 17:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --MichaelMaggs 07:12, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Super--Albedo-ukr 19:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC) Voting time was allready over --Simonizer 10:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 10:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:El Gouna Steigenberger 01.jpg, not featured[edit]

Steigenberger Hotel at El Gouna, Egypt

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by MJJR - uploaded by MJJR - nominated by MJJR -- MJJR 16:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- MJJR 16:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- SRauz 19:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nothing special. Advertising for hotels? --Herrick 12:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Not the hotel is the main subject here, but the design of the building created by the famous architect Michael Graves. Perhaps is this something special though? -- MJJR 14:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Kjetil r 02:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Visually striking. -- Klaus with K 17:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
result: 4 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 10:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Tartan Ribbon.jpg, not featured[edit]

Tartan ribbon

The first color photograph ever taken. Created in 1861. Nominating because of historical importance.

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Photographed by James Clerk Maxwell. - uploaded by Janke - nominated by Durova --Durova 07:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Durova 07:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment That is a cool image! This is the kind of thing that if it were to be considered FP should have more in the summary as well as making the Image page look nice by using the {{Information template}}. Thanks for posting it here. -- carol 07:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
    • If I had more information available I'd certainly expand. I was sorting through portraits of physicists when I stumbled across this. It completely surprised me to see it had never been nominated before. Durova 07:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Of very important historical value. I remember having supported some other landmark photos, too. Freedom to share 08:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I'm not sure yet. Rocket000 04:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC) It is cool and historical (considered the first colour photograph), but for something like this, I need more context since it's obviously graded on a different scale. Rocket000 08:58, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Is there someone who can help provide it? I would if I knew how. Durova 09:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It looks like an upsampled version of any of the many smaller (reasonable quality) copies found on the internet. Lycaon 11:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
    • The image describes where it is from - a scan created by Janke from a particular book. Rmhermen 19:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't remember ever seeing this photograph in any of my textbooks or in any of my dads photography books. The wikipedia page makes it look like in the time that this man was supposed to be taking this photograph, he was instead receiving awards. That would itself be a difficult task as they did not have motorized vehicles then. This 'graph smells funny. -- carol 15:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
    • None of Wikipedia articles tell what day the image was created on (and Maxwell wasn't the photographer himself), nor does any article describe what Maxwell was doing on every day of 1861. Where does this complaint come from? Rmhermen 19:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
      • This has been a featured image on the English language Wikipedia for a year.[10] See also this statement from the James Clerk Maxwell foundation. The text description on that project reads Tartan Ribbon, photograph taken by James Clerk Maxwell in 1861. Considered the first colour photograph. Maxwell had the photographer Thomas Sutton photograph a tartan ribbon three times, each time with a different colour filter over the lens. The three images were developed and then projected onto a screen with three different projectors, each equipped with the same colour filter used to take its image. When brought into focus, the three images formed a full colour image. The three photographic plates now reside in a small museum at 14 India Street, Edinburgh, the house where Maxwell was born. I hope this satisfies? Durova 22:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment So clearly he didn't produce the first colour photograph, just three black and white transparencies. So this is a relatively modern photo taken some time later (when real colour photography had been developed) of the three overlapping images projected onto a screen through coloured filters. Less excuse for poor quality, the image we're looking at is not from 1861. :-) --Tony Wills 00:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
What would you call it then, the first color slide projection? And would you consider a better copy of this image if one could be found? This is a scan from a textbook. From my reading of the English Wikipedia material, a scan from the 1961 Scientific American article might yield a better result. I'm considering heading over to a university for assistance with that, if it would make a difference to the outcome of the discussion. Durova 21:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
If you follow the comments and votes for images like this, the people delivering their opinions consider poor quality scans to be a 'historical fact' and worthy of being maintained all on its own merit. -- carol 06:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose for the reasons given by Tony Wills. --MichaelMaggs 18:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. Anything by Maxwell is good enough for Wikimedia. -Susanlesch 12:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Susanlech--nothing is automatic. RlevseTalk 17:04, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 10:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Dalai Lama 1471 Luca Galuzzi 2007.jpg, featured[edit]

Dalai Lama by Luca Galuzzi

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by LucaG 20:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Tenzin Gyatso, the fourteenth and current Dalai Lama, photographed during his visit in Italy, on december 8th, 2007. --LucaG 20:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support What a privilege to be the first support for this image! --Tomascastelazo 23:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - I don't like the harsh flash shadow and would prefer a more generous crop so the whole chair is visible. Nothing to do with the subject, of course - Alvesgaspar 20:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Mr. Gyatso and his chair were on a stage, I was standing 5m from the stage and under it, so I couldn't see chair's legs. The hall was poorly enlightened and I used full flash, as every other photographer attending the conference. I uploaded these 3 pictures because I didn't find any high resolution photograph of Mr. Gyatso on Commons. --LucaG 21:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- MartinD 20:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great candid. Dincher 03:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support fabulous subject. Cary Bass demandez 17:34, 15 December 2007 (UTC)