Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/January 2006

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

Image:Cows in green field - nullamunjie olive grove.jpg, Featured[edit]

Self Nom --fir0002 05:09, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely... they even all lined up for you! pfctdayelise 05:13, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support great composition!Why am I always logged out? ♦ Pabix ℹ 15:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. villy ♦✎ 17:55, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support beautiful scenery che 23:03, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Elgaard 00:42, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rex 01:37, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Romeo Bravo 04:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support - MPF 14:51, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral nice, but it's leaning extremely --SehLax 15:06, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support — ADSR6581 15:49, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral ~~ACK Sehlax. The resolution is high enough, so perhaps you can try to straighten it a bit, fir0002?~~ The second version is my favourite norro 10:59, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tvpm 20:02, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Get_It (Talk) 02:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Added an edited version --fir0002 01:54, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, the colours in the first version were IMHO better (more vivid) --SehLax 19:38, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the orignal looks more rich, the new one just looks overexposed. —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 13:54, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I prefer the first version, too --Buchling 21:14, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Added another version with pretty much only rotation. I didn't work off the one I uploaded but off the original (higher res) so the adjustment may not be exactly the same. --fir0002 07:37, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support Livestock solidarity. First version definitely best. QuartierLatin1968 22:41, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

13 support, 1 neutral (first version)=> Featured--Shizhao 08:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Chata pri Zelenom plese - autumn05 jk.jpg, Not Featured[edit]

Nominate

self-nom Wikimol 19:12, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose lighting norro 20:54, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ditto to Norro. Only a small stripe is lightened, the rest is very dark. --SehLax 21:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. villy ♦✎ 23:58, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Shizhao 01:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Almost good --fir0002 03:35, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I like the way the sun picks out the colour - MPF 14:51, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose — Picture is very soft. ADSR6581 15:45, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The lighting is better in the regular picture than in the thumbnail. MartinD 08:12, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Get_It (Talk) 02:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Hein 08:09, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

2 Support, 6 oppose, 2 Neutral => Not Featured--Shizhao 08:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:FurciferPardalisMale.JPG, Not Featured[edit]

Nominate

Taken by User:B.navez, nominated by pfctdayelise 14:05, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support pfctdayelise 14:05, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Shizhao 15:11, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. villy ♦✎ 18:29, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Elgaard 00:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not very sharp, and white balance seems off. --fir0002 03:42, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - agree with Fir, the colour balance looks odd. Would support if that could be edited - MPF 14:49, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose — Agree, needs some colour correction. ADSR6581 15:46, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose-- Urban 05:32, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Get_It (Talk) 02:47, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support
Português: O camaleão se camuflando ao fundo verde está demais!
--FML ^hi 14:25, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support i corrected the blue dominant light. Tatoute
Support - colorful! :) Renata3 16:04, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral --Atamari 04:17, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

7 Support, 5 Oppose, 1 neutral => Not Featured--Shizhao 08:27, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Tallinn straat2.jpg, Not Featured[edit]

Nominate

Self nom  Support —Vdegroot 13:37, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose very dark, no information, not the best composition. --SehLax 13:48, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose — Resolution. ADSR6581 13:50, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Shizhao 15:12, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose gratuitously artistic Rama 16:42, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --fir0002 03:45, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Get_It (Talk) 02:47, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Hein 08:10, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1 Support, 5 Oppose, 2 neutral => Not Featured--Shizhao 08:27, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Herbst wagenrad kuerbis.jpg, Not Featured[edit]

Nominate

Self nom  Support BenHur 09:31, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support Gwir 10:09, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Oppose--Shizhao 11:04, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose composition (too frontal and centered for my taste). --SehLax 13:40, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose — Not very sharp. ADSR6581 13:55, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Would support, if the green pumpkins at the right side weren't cut. I like the composition very much norro 21:17, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. What's the point? villy ♦✎ 00:02, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --fir0002 03:45, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I had exactly the same impression like norro when I whatched this image. It's a shame that a few cm are missing ... Andreas Tille 06:16, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - agree with Villy - MPF 23:36, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Get_It (Talk) 02:47, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Hein 08:10, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Atamari 04:17, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

3 support, 6 Oppose, 4 Neutral => Not Featured--Shizhao 08:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Fliegenpilz Amanita muscaria.jpg, Not Featured[edit]

Nominate

Self nom --BenHur 08:38, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support ♦ Pabix ℹ 08:43, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing spécial; Gwir 10:08, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Oppose ordinary composition and subject. And the grass blade at the right side disturbs me. --SehLax 13:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Ditto SehLax. villy ♦✎ 00:04, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --fir0002 03:45, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support - (and that grass leaf could easily be cropped out if desired) - MPF 14:47, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose-- Urban 05:32, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Get_It (Talk) 02:47, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Hein 08:11, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Atamari 04:16, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support - really good, I think --Buchling 18:12, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

3 Support, 8 oppose => Not Featured--Shizhao 08:25, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Schlossvaduz.jpg, Not Featured[edit]

Nominate

--64.231.224.92 06:45, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose--Shizhao 11:04, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Husky 12:24, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- I can't see there is anything wrong with this picture. MartinD 12:41, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - Maybe the foreground is a bit too dark ... ? --SehLax 13:37, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral — I like it, but I would prefer a much larger version. ADSR6581 13:57, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'd like to see a higher resolution version of this photo. Rex 01:39, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --fir0002 03:46, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I like it. Don't get ADSR6581's point, it is as large as the computer screen, making it any larger means having to scroll around to see it all - MPF 14:45, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe he has a screen resolution of 1600x1200 ;-) --SehLax 16:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have a 17" screen - 1280x1024, it doesn't even fill screen at that resolution. I thought high-resolution pictures were prefered in the Commons? Personally, I would rather have the option of scrolling around so I can see more detail. — ADSR6581 16:57, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose-- Urban 05:32, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Get_It (Talk) 02:47, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Hein 08:12, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support - really nice --Buchling 13:23, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

5 Support, 4 Oppose, 3 neutral => Not Featured--Shizhao 08:25, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Hoornse Hop.JPG, Not Featured[edit]

Self Nom. --GerardM 19:52, 18 December 2005 (UTC) Picture by my uncle :)[reply]

Oppose--Shizhao 02:45, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose boring subject and composition, low colour contrast. --SehLax 13:50, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too much sky, which should not be gray and the subject is too small. Bogdan 13:55, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Hoorn was once relevant as a port. There being much sky is typical in Dutch landscapes :) Now without the water and the sky it would not be a view of a once prominent harbour that is now largely forgotten. GerardM 23:02, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Agree with Bogdan --fir0002 03:47, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Get_It (Talk) 02:46, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Hein 08:12, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Atamari 04:16, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

7 Oppose => Not Featured--Shizhao 08:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Farbige weinblätter.jpg, Not Featured[edit]

Nominate

Self nom  --BenHur 22:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Romeo Bravo 04:41, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support ♦ Pabix ℹ 08:43, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I don't like the dark bg. --SehLax 13:36, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support — ADSR6581 14:01, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ack SehLax. pfctdayelise 14:13, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Looks artificial, a bit weird. villy ♦✎ 17:56, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not that sharp --fir0002 03:47, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose-- Urban 05:33, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Get_It (Talk) 02:46, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Hein 08:32, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

3 Support, 7 Oppose => Not Featured--Shizhao 08:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Frucht der Edelkastanie.jpg, Featured[edit]

Nominate

Self nom --BenHur 21:31, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - nice colours, but Fir2000's chestnut pic has a better composition (and there's no shortage of Castanea sativa pics, too!) - MPF 22:33, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Shizhao 02:04, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the colours of this one better. --SehLax 13:35, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like them both! pfctdayelise 14:13, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. villy ♦✎ 17:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --FML ^hi 19:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Elgaard 00:43, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I prefer mine, this one isn't that sharp I don't know what I was thinking, I had another look and I like it, change to Support --fir0002 03:49, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hein 08:32, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

8 support, 1 Neutral => Featured--Shizhao 08:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Seerose im regen.jpg, Not Featured[edit]

Nominate

Self nom --BenHur 21:31, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Colours, contrast, ugly leafs, dark water, composition norro 22:22, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - would support if identification of the species of water-lily was given - MPF 22:31, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Shizhao 02:05, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose composition. --SehLax 13:31, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with norro --fir0002 03:48, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Get_It (Talk) 02:46, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Hein 08:31, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Atamari 04:15, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

6 Oppose, 2 neutral => Not Featured--Shizhao 08:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Bachlandschaft-schweiz-tessin.jpg, Not Featured[edit]

"Bachlandschaft" im Kanton Tessin, Schweiz

Nominate

Self nom --BenHur 21:31, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - exposure too slow, so the water doesn't look right (admit it would be difficult to get a faster exposure in this rather dark situation) - MPF 22:28, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Shizhao 02:05, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Urban 03:21, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --FML ^hi 20:17, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --fir0002 03:50, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Atamari 04:15, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

2 Support, 4 Oppose => Not Featured--Shizhao 08:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Anholt desert.JPG, Not Featured[edit]

Nominate

Self nom —Tone 11:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support —Tone 11:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support - very nice. The shrubs are Juniperus communis. - MPF 11:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Husky 12:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- YolanC 14:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Get_It (Talk) 18:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Aslak 18:54, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Boring composition norro 22:20, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Shizhao 02:05, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Urban 03:18, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --che 20:48, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. villy ♦✎ 17:58, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support would like CC-1.0 version --Elgaard 00:43, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --fir0002 03:50, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- after i made light correction Tatoute
Oppose Hein 08:30, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Janeznovak 20:17, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

7 support, 8 oppose, 1 Neutral => Not Featured--Shizhao 08:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Austria Bundesadler.svg, Featured[edit]

Nominate

and  Support Schaengel89 11:20, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support a good example of heraldry. Scoo 14:31, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Get_It (Talk) 18:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent and out of the ordinary for featured pics. QuartierLatin1968 21:14, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support pfctdayelise 23:44, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Shizhao 02:06, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support perfect norro 20:53, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't seem to have acceptable licensing. "Austrian Armed Forces (2001) Directorate of Press and Public Information/MoD. Publication of this picture except for commercial advertisement permitted." --SPUI 08:07, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You are right. I asked the uploader for detailed information about that, but not yet got an answer. It's a little bit curious, because neither the german image description nor the (german) answer of the copyright-holder (Federal Ministry of Defence) tell anything about this non-commercial restriction. I suggest to vote, as if there weren't any problems with the license. If the image has to be deleted, your vote won't have any effect :) Kindly, norro 16:57, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. villy ♦✎ 17:58, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. To me it's just a coat of arms. Rex 01:41, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's not a barrier to make it featured! Schaengel89 18:25, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose --fir0002 03:50, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support -- just a coat of arms and an excellent one at that, superbly done. —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 13:55, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree --Braegel 19:25, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose renominate if license ok. We mustnt show people features pics that dont have free licenses even if temporarily. Justinc 12:07, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Roger McLassus 10:34, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

11 support, 3 Oppose => Featured--Shizhao 08:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Beagle.jpg, Not Featured[edit]

Nominate

and  Support —Romeo Bravo 05:08, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Luc Viatour 10:08, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- YolanC 14:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Get_It (Talk) 18:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Cut at the buttom, odd background, disturbing neckband. Would like to see it more from the side with a complete natural background norro 22:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Odd neckband, its a collar... --Romeo Bravo 22:59, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - ditto to Norro - MPF 22:25, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Shizhao 02:07, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Urban 03:19, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- LoopZilla 22:55, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Nice & funny. villy ♦✎ 17:59, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Rex 01:42, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with norro --fir0002 03:51, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Maybe a nice dog, but the picture just isn't excellent --Buchling 00:24, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Hein 08:28, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Great 81.164.91.103 21:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

6 Support, 7 Oppose, 2 neutral => Not Featured--Shizhao 08:15, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:NTS Barrage Balloon.jpg, Featured[edit]

Nominate

- I think this is just a beautiful, surreal historical photograph, wonderfully composed. It shows an (unmanned) blimp which was felled by a nuclear test at the Nevada Test Site in 1957. The people to the right of the blimp give a sense of the scale. To me it resembles a post-apocalyptic Hindenberg, with a wonderful sense of symmetry, and is just a breathtaking image for reasons I don't claim to fully understand. Very high resolution original. Fastfission 22:06, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support Fastfission 22:06, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I wonder how long those people lived after this . . . MPF 23:03, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support pfctdayelise 02:18, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rex 02:26, 18 December 2005 (UTC) – Indeed a very interesting historical photograph.[reply]
Support --Romeo Bravo 02:42, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Luc Viatour 10:06, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Godewind 11:10, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wow! Husky 12:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Get_It (Talk) 18:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Not your usual mushroom. Solipsist 19:01, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support LoopZilla 21:53, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Gloumouth1 22:32, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Shizhao 02:07, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Rama 16:52, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Splendid picture. villy ♦✎ 18:00, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good work --fir0002 03:51, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hein 08:28, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Atamari 04:13, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support ♦ Pabix ℹ 12:46, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

18 support, 1 Oppose => Featured--Shizhao 08:13, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:SFO at night.jpg, Featured[edit]

Nominate

-- Sam916 19:33, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Sam916 19:33, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Romeo Bravo 19:52, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support - looks like a space shuttle from a science-fiction movie but is real --SehLax 21:47, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow, this is really great norro 23:42, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very out of this world! pfctdayelise 02:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rex 02:27, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Urban 05:24, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --FML ^hi 05:27, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Luc Viatour 10:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Godewind 11:12, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Husky 12:20, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- YolanC 14:44, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Fastfission 16:24, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support 10/10 -- Get_It (Talk) 18:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- superb Solipsist 19:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Gloumouth1 22:28, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Rama 16:52, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --che 20:49, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral --Atamari 04:13, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support ♦ Pabix ℹ 12:47, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

19 support, 1 neutral => Featured--Shizhao 08:10, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Air Force One over Mt. Rushmore.jpg, Not Featured[edit]

Nominate

—Petrus 17:50, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support —Petrus 17:50, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Husky 18:37, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Romeo Bravo 19:52, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --SehLax 21:49, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --69.163.150.70 22:32, 17 December 2005 (UTC) Please sign in to vote. norro 23:45, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Neutrality 22:33, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition. On of the four faces is hidden. Needs saturation norro 23:45, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The faces are easy to miss, in which case it just looks like a random rock. pfctdayelise 02:21, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Composition Luc Viatour 10:10, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- YolanC 14:42, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Tbc 17:47, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Get_It (Talk) 18:14, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Amazing juxtaposition! LoopZilla 21:55, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Shizhao 02:08, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The monument can't be seen well, and the composition looks propandistic. Rama 16:46, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- striking! Renata3 17:27, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good photo but bad sharpen. --FML ^hi 14:27, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Hein 08:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

6 Support, 9 Oppose, 2 Neutral => Not Featured--Shizhao 08:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:WikiChristmasTree.jpg, Not Featured[edit]

Pictures forming a wiki-tree for Christmas use

Nominate

byj 15:43, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support byj 15:43, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
uh? Oppose. villy ♦✎ 17:02, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't get it. What is a wiki-tree and why is this christmas? norro 17:54, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ACK norro --SehLax 18:01, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose what is this? --Romeo Bravo 19:53, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sort of allegoric vision of Wikipedia: traffic, history, art, landscape, sea, mystery and childhood altogether into a tree shape. Not very successful, it seemed, snif... byj 21:47, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

***Neutral*** Sorry, didnt mean to be so harsh, good pic, and I like the idea, but not realy a "featured" pic. --Romeo Bravo 22:27, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - doesn't do anything for me - MPF 23:04, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Get_It (Talk) 18:14, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Dr. Marcus Gossler 15:30, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Oppose Hein 08:26, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Atamari 04:11, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1 Support, 9 Oppose, 1 Neutral => Not Featured--Shizhao 08:08, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Chestnuts.jpg, Featured[edit]

Nominate

norro 13:40, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support norro 13:40, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Shizhao 16:37, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Petrus 17:51, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support - MPF 23:05, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support pfctdayelise 02:22, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support --FML ^hi 05:28, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Luc Viatour 10:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Get_It (Talk) 18:13, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Solipsist 19:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – slightly overexposed – Rex 00:34, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ditto to Rex --SehLax 13:32, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --FML ^hi 14:29, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 13:58, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Hein 08:24, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Atamari 04:11, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

9 support, 3 Oppose, 2 neutral => Featured--Shizhao 08:04, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Autumn leaves.jpg, Not Featured[edit]

Nominate

norro 13:40, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support perfect autumn for me norro 13:40, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Shizhao 16:37, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Husky 18:37, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Shadows and colours don't seem quite right. pfctdayelise 02:23, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- nothing special Luc Viatour 10:13, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Get_It (Talk) 18:13, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Urban 03:19, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Hein 08:24, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

2 Support, 5 Oppose, 1 neutral => Not Featured--Shizhao 08:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Lachmoewe2cele4.jpg, Featured[edit]

Nominate

norro 13:40, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support norro 13:40, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Petrus 17:51, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fantastic shot! pfctdayelise 02:24, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --FML ^hi 05:28, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Luc Viatour 10:14, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ignis* 17:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Get_It (Talk) 18:13, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- sharp and captures the movement Solipsist 19:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support If all images of birds could be like this one... Rama 16:50, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --che 20:52, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mikel 11:47, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support - but I miss the top of the wing. Calderwood 17:33, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Atamari 04:10, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Neutrality 04:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Merops 09:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

15 Support => Featured --Shizhao 08:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Albert Harris - Coconut shy B.jpg, Featured[edit]

Nominate

norro 13:40, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support norro 13:40, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support LoopZilla 16:03, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Petrus 17:52, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Husky 18:37, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fastfission 21:59, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I love it too, but has the subject given his permission for this image to be used? I mean, images are being deleted on COM:DEL for this same reason, so it seems a little inconsistent to delete some and feature others. If so, the information should be put on the image description page. pfctdayelise 02:25, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, pfctdayelise. Thanks for that hint. ~~I asked the uploader for that and will post the answer.~~ See Solopsists statement below. norro 21:21, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The answer is yes. I talked to Mr Harris for quite a while (as well as several other people of whom I took portraits during Cambridge Midsummer Fair) and explained how the images would be used. In addition to this the image was taken in a public place - in the UK it is fine to use images of people taken in public, even for commercial use, so long as the image isn't defamatory or used for advertising. -- Solipsist 17:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --FML ^hi 05:29, 18 December 2005
Support -- Luc Viatour 10:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- One of my own favourites. Solipsist 17:53, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Get_It (Talk) 18:12, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mikel 11:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Everybody seems to love this picture, but I simply can't see why. Calderwood 18:15, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Atamari 04:08, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Neutrality 04:16, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

10 Support， 2 oppose， 2 Neutral => Featured--Shizhao 07:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Slingshot (weapon).jpg, Not Featured[edit]

Nominate

-- A clear pic to illustrate Wikipedia. Yug (talk) 18:06, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose -- doesn't do anything for me... Romeo Bravo 04:52, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Did the same, talk after. =.o Yug (talk) 02:52, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose —MRB 10:33, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

idem............. Yug (talk) 02:52, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose -- unsigned comment by User:Urban

>0< ............ Yug (talk) 15:49, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose -- Get_It (Talk) 18:12, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mikel 11:54, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Hein 08:18, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1 Support, 5 oppose => Not Featured--Shizhao 02:09, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Mumbai Gateway of India01.jpg, Not Featured[edit]

Nominate

- I'll throw my hat into the ring and see what people think QuartierLatin1968 20:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support - QuartierLatin1968 20:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Shizhao 16:38, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose looks like an ordinary tourist shot. --SehLax 18:03, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's what it is! Ha ha. All right, I'll give up on trying to promote my holiday snaps. :-) QuartierLatin1968 21:10, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Ack SehLax. pfctdayelise 02:26, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- —the preceding unsigned comment is by Urban (talk • contribs) 16:25, December 18, 2005
Oppose -- Get_It (Talk) 18:12, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The picture is boring. By the way - is there anyone here who knows the rules well enough to answer the following question: Is it okay or not to give a support vote in case of a self-nomination? Calderwood 17:28, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1 Support, 6 oppose => Not Featured--Shizhao 02:08, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:BrockenSnowedTreesInSun.jpg, Featured[edit]

other color variant removed again because it was not regarded better than this

Merry Christmas to all voters, Brocken, Germany
I just added the other color variant to the voting page. The picture on the left comes quite close to the original slide, but I'm unsure about the effect of the picture on the right. At least one voter prefered the right one and others had trouble with the color of the left one. IMHO only one of these should stay in WikiMedia to not to blure the database with similar images. Andreas Tille 07:27, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Self- Nominate

Andreas Tille 07:29, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Shizhao 14:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Husky 18:16, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No vote -- I think I prefer the 2^nd one. ♦ Pabix ℹ 16:15, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Seems extremely leaning to me. Why is everything blue (even the snow)? Dito to Sehlax: This one is much better. norro 17:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's definitely not leaning - it's just a hill side. The trees are leaning in the direction of the wind which is often quite heavy on mount Brocken. For the color: What about reflection of the blue sky in the snow? What color would you expect in the shadow on a snowed landscape? Andreas Tille 20:54, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Romeo Bravo 19:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support - MPF 23:25, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful --○rz 03:55, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. villy ♦✎ 17:03, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I like this one better. --SehLax 18:05, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
ACK. Composition is much better and snow is nearly white ;) norro 23:50, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem to also put the other picture in FPC, but what color whould you call the snow in the small parts that are in the shadow of the trees. IMHO it is quite similar to the color on this picture - and here most of the snow is in the shadow. Andreas Tille 12:12, 18 December 2005 (UTC) [reply]

I agree to Andreas Tille that this blue snow colour is right and natural. But I personally like the other one better because it's just not that blue. But that's maybe a matter of taste (sorry, I just invented this word ;-) --SehLax 16:52, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support (this one) pfctdayelise 02:27, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Get_It (Talk) 18:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lacks contrast, so the trees are hard to distinguish. --che 20:57, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose —the preceding unsigned comment is by FML (talk • contribs) 01:30, December 24, 2005

Who opposes is mandatory and why this is opposed would be nice. Andreas Tille 17:04, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support the left one only -- YolanC 11:07, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

8 Support, 3 Oppose, 2 Neutral => Featured--Shizhao 08:36, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Peru Machu Picchu Sunset.jpg, Featured[edit]

Nominate

--Shizhao 03:33, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Shizhao 03:33, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- But is this really a sunset? The shadows are not really large and the colors are not that warm as I would expect at sunset. Andreas Tille 07:33, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - It's not a sunset. Unless Machu and Wayna Picchu's somehow got flipped around 180 degrees before the picture was taken. Needs a title correction. Other than that it's an excellent example of the sunrise cloud effect at the site.Gropo 18th Jan, 2007
Support -- Fabien1309 10:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Rama 10:44, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - Interesting perspective, unfortunately overexposed sky -- Godewind 11:19, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Zapping 13:00, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Tbc 14:32, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Yug (talk) 17:49, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support - QuartierLatin1968 18:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- user:zanimum
Oppose A good picture, but not excellent due to overexposed sky that looks ugly. --Ikiwaner 19:49, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I like the cloud effects (agree with Andreas Tille, the shadows are too short for a sunset, though) - MPF 23:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --FML ^hi 00:18, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Petrus 17:54, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Get_It (Talk) 18:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- From what I've read, this isn't an easy subject. Solipsist 19:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Knutux 11:32, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support
Neutral Hein 08:22, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Merops 09:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Knutux 11:32, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support —FoeNyx 16:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

17 support, 1 Oppose, 3 neutral => Featured--Shizhao 02:04, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:LithuaniaHistory.png, Featured[edit]

Nominate

- created by user:Knutux, the source file is here: Image:LithuanianHistory.svg. It is an overview of history of Lithuania (from 1261 to present day) and thus is not too detailed. And in general, we need to encourage maps and drawings, and Knutux does a very fine job. —Renata3 17:40, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support —Renata3 17:40, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Dirgela 21:17, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely! pfctdayelise 01:16, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Multilingual? --Shizhao 01:22, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment We have three featured maps (Template:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media#Maps) and none of them are any more multilingual than this one. pfctdayelise 01:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment#2 Knutux also posted the source file - people can modify it to fit their language. Renata3 03:10, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ok. But I support Image:LithuanianHistory.svg--Shizhao 02:22, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support - MartinD 08:10, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Godewind 12:48, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Tvpm 19:56, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - Get_It (Talk) 02:53, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not that outstanding. I can imagine a script, that generates thousands of similar cards for every part of the world. If we feature this map, we perhaps have to feature umpteen similar maps in future norro 00:03, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- if so, it would be proof that there were lots of high-quality maps on wikimedia. QuartierLatin1968 22:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mister X 11:09, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Algirdas 16:11, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Mikel 11:42, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support (of course) :) Halibutt 04:33, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not wildly supportive, but supportive. (Raspberry to .svg files, they've been shoved down our throats in the most ungentlemanly fashion here.) Props to good solid map-making – one of the most useful things that ordinary people get from wikimedia. QuartierLatin1968 22:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i do not understand clearly. Tatoute 18:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

10 support, 3 Oppose, 1 Neutral => Featured--Shizhao 02:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:2003 Okanagan Fire McCulloch.jpg, Not Featured[edit]

Nominate

from the National Archives of Canada. pfctdayelise 15:08, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support pfctdayelise 15:08, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the border and the vertical stripes disturb it, don't they --SehLax 15:17, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I've cropped the border off, but can't do anything about the vertical stripes - MPF 23:26, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Shizhao 01:23, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose-- Urban 05:30, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Get_It (Talk) 02:52, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1 Support, 5 Oppose => Not Featured--Shizhao 02:31, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Refusal of treatment form.jpg, Not Featured[edit]

Nominate

Uploaded from flickr. Maybe some people will think it is too purposefully "arty"? pfctdayelise 15:08, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support pfctdayelise 15:08, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Husky 17:04, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just don't know if we should copy every good photo from flickr or wheresoever !? The servers will be flooded ... I'd like to hear your opinions about these "arty" images. --SehLax 15:20, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- It was uploaded as part of the Flickylickr project, run by User:Eloquence. See User:FlickrLickr. pfctdayelise 01:17, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- So far we have uploaded 4,132 photos to Commons and reviewed 61,043. Commons hosts about 350,000 files, including some large videos, so we are not "flooding the servers" by any measure. Flickr pictures are reviewed according to a number of different criteria, including potential relevance to the Wikimedia projects. I personally selected this one because I thought it might be illustrative for a Wikipedia article on health care, particularly one that deals with a dry subject that is not easily illustrated. It might also come in handy as a stock photo for a Wikinews article.--Eloquence 03:58, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - OK, thanks for your explanation. --SehLax 17:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - doesn't do anything for me - MPF 23:27, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Get_It (Talk) 02:52, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Fabien1309 13:54, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like this kind of pictures in general, but this one is not too good. This black object in the background (top) disturbs me and the image has a clear brown tint. norro 00:06, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support yes, it has a brown tint, but i would not call it arty. This is an excellent image to illustrate an article that would otherwise stay non illustrated. The glasses and the brown tint tell us that often elderly people are affected by this topic. --Ikiwaner 11:32, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, Living will, Patient_refusal_of_nutrition_and_hydration and Patientenverfügung had no images till now. --Ikiwaner 11:51, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Mikel 11:43, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Tatoute 18:15, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Hein 08:06, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

4 Support, 4 Oppose, 2 neutral => Not Featured

Image:Cat eye.jpeg, Not Featured[edit]

300px|Cat's eye

Nominate

Uploaded from a website, nominated by pfctdayelise 15:06, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support pfctdayelise 15:06, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wikimol 15:30, 21 December 2005 (UTC) nice , illustrative.[reply]
Oppose - DOF too low -- Godewind 15:31, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - agree with Godewind - MPF 23:19, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Shizhao 01:23, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Get_It (Talk) 02:52, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Rex 17:37, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice picture of a cat's eyebrow, but not of the eye itself --Buchling 15:40, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Atamari 04:19, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

5 Support, 4 Oppose => Not Featured--Shizhao 02:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Redheadedbella.jpg, Not Featured[edit]

Smiling red-headed woman

Nominate

I don't think there are many FP that are of people. Uploaded from a website, pfctdayelise 15:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support pfctdayelise 15:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A bit blurry and I think there are better portraits on the net. --SehLax 15:13, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think it's not interesting for a encyclopedia --Godewind 15:37, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not a valid reason for an objection, the purpose of the commons is not just to host images for use in Wikipedia. —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 00:32, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Yukk. - MPF 23:18, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Shizhao 01:24, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Get_It (Talk) 02:51, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Hein 08:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Redheaded solidarity. QuartierLatin1968 22:38, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2 support, 4 Oppose, 3 neutral => Not Featured--Shizhao 02:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:P7032101 small2.jpg, Featured[edit]

Nominate

Maybe someone will want to remove the black border. Taken by User:Eric Pouhier, nominated by pfctdayelise 15:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- version without border: Image:P7032101 small2 crop.jpg -- Godewind 16:07, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support pfctdayelise 15:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great photo, but the border should be removed for e.g. a use on WikiPedia. --SehLax 15:12, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow norro 16:40, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Comment - is this one going to fall foul of the French privacy laws? Did the man in the pic give his permission for the photo to be released under Creative Commons? If yes, then I'd support the cropped version - MPF 23:31, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I left this question on the photographer's Talk page. pfctdayelise 02:28, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Shizhao 01:24, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose-- Urban 05:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Get_It (Talk) 02:51, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Good, but low res. --FML ^hi 14:24, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. And the Wikimedia commons is not bound by french law. —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 00:33, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- It was taken in France, common practice right now is that laws of the country the picture was taken in apply -- Gorgo 22:23, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Husky 17:04, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree --Braegel 19:25, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mikel 11:46, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Over-processed and low rez. Lycaon 21:28, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Hein 08:21, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support - very nice Renata3 16:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

8 Support, 3 Oppose, 4 neutral => Featured--Shizhao 02:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ruppberg gipfel bank.jpg, Not Featured[edit]

Nominate

(self-nom) --SehLax 12:03, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - should've been there the day before, before the snow got trampled! - MPF 14:56, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose — Agree with MPF. ADSR6581 16:15, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Shizhao 01:25, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Get_It (Talk) 02:50, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Hein 08:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

5 oppose => Not Featured--Shizhao 02:23, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Vessertal wiesenknoeterich.jpg, Not Featured[edit]

Nominate

(self-nom) --SehLax 12:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support - MPF 14:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support — ADSR6581 16:12, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Shizhao 01:25, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Rex 01:41, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose-- Urban 05:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- I find this picture is relaxing. -- YolanC 13:04, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support lovely Tvpm 19:58, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Get_It (Talk) 02:50, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Romeo Bravo 16:10, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- I don't like the fence and the bloom in the front isn't sharp enough --Buchling 00:19, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Calderwood 17:59, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Hein 08:20, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice, but not outstanding norro 00:54, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

6 Support, 4 Oppose, 3 neutral => Not Featured--Shizhao 02:23, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Myslivny bozi dar lake.jpg, Featured[edit]

Nominate

(self-nom) --SehLax 12:02, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support The colour in the water is beautiful. pfctdayelise 12:42, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very intersting colour effect. Rama 13:56, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Idyllic and very nice . . . except for that line of telegraph poles, which spoils the pic for me - MPF 14:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral — Don't like the sky colour. Was the sky really this colour when you took the shot? Sometimes the sky is that colour, but most of the time its the fault of Fuji's Super CCD. - ADSR6581 16:11, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think the sky was that colour. Or do you think it's too green? --SehLax 16:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It does look like it has too much green in it. I wouldn't question the colour if it was Canon or Nikon, but the Fuji has this particular problem, because the Super CCD has more green photocells than normal CCDs. ADSR6581 16:47, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I reduced green a bit and overwrote the old version. Think it should be better now. --SehLax 13:06, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Knutux 11:34, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Tvpm 20:01, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Get_It (Talk) 02:50, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. villy ♦✎ 20:36, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressive, very impressive! Excellent work, really! Mister X 11:11, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- removed telegraph poles Tatoute 18:29, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Hein 08:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

8 Support, 1 Oppose, 2 neutral => Featured --Shizhao 02:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Glacier mouth.jpg, Featured[edit]

Nominate

(self-nom) --SehLax 11:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support - MPF 14:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support — ADSR6581 15:51, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support - good quality and good subject - Tvpm 20:00, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Get_It (Talk) 02:49, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. villy ♦✎ 20:07, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition. I don't get an idea of the surrounding area/the glacier. Water is overexposed norro 17:55, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to note that you can see the whole glacier here. This picture has been taken right at the left end of the glacier. --SehLax 18:42, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

5 Support， 1 Oppose => Featured--Shizhao 02:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Desert - Inner Mongolia.JPG, Not Featured[edit]

300px|Calderwood's edit

Nominate

(self-nomination) pfctdayelise 03:02, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support (I support either version) pfctdayelise 03:02, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Both --fir0002 03:43, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - the two people look too much like tourists. Would support if they'd been in local dress - MPF 15:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral ACK MPF. And I like the edited version better, the colours seem more natural as there is too less contrast in the original. --SehLax 15:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral — Prefer the edited version. ADSR6581 15:50, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ACK MPF norro 16:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Rex 01:40, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose-- Urban 05:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Get_It (Talk) 02:49, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The people ruin the picture. villy ♦✎ 20:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I cropped the picture to get rid of the tourists. This one I Support, but not the others. Calderwood 17:54, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but only one with the people - without them it's boring --Buchling 14:45, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support without people ♦ Pabix ℹ 12:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

5 Support, 5 Oppose, 3 Neutral => Not Featured--Shizhao 08:33, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Fistulina hepatica.jpg, Not Featured[edit]

Nominate

Beautifull and impressive.--Ananda 15:22, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Ananda 15:22, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose composition --SehLax 16:12, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support composition - Tvpm 19:54, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose composition Rex 21:29, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not in its natural environment (should be attached to a tree trunk, not lying on the ground) - therefore not too helpful as an indicator of the species - MPF 21:46, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Shizhao 02:10, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Get_It (Talk) 02:53, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Urban 04:44, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Mister X 11:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Husky 12:40, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Mikel 11:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Hein 08:06, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

2 Support, 10 oppose => Not Featured--Shizhao 01:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Santa Cruz Boardwalk.jpg, Not Featured[edit]

Nominate

— Fabien1309 13:50, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support — Fabien1309 13:50, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. villy ♦✎ 20:04, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Wikimol 12:40, 24 December 2005 (UTC) - don't like the trees and objects growing from the bottom edge.[reply]
Oppose - Its quite good, but I prefer my own picture of a Freak Out ride. -- Solipsist 14:39, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Trees, plus a featured picture of a ride should give some sense of the movement I think. pfctdayelise 14:48, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral It's good, but it isn't very sharp, downsizing it might help. ADSR6581 15:11, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose doesn't do anything for me - MPF 15:55, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'd prefer a more dynamic picture of this subject. Rex 16:27, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Get_It (Talk) 16:43, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support I came here to nominate this photo but you were three days ahead of me! Thuresson 03:08, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Atamari 04:20, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Neutrality 05:36, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

3 support, 8 Oppose, 1 Neutral => Not Featured--Shizhao 13:40, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Jeu de lumiere aux deux alpes 01.JPG, Not Featured[edit]

Nominate

— Fabien1309 13:50, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support — Fabien1309 13:50, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Most of the picture is too dark. --che 16:40, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Shizhao 16:44, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose-- Urban 05:01, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support pfctdayelise 14:49, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose — Too much noise in the clouds for my liking. ADSR6581 15:17, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I think the sky is the best bit! But the pic isn't straight, note the tilt in the church and tree, and the foreground just a bit too dark - MPF 15:48, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Get_It (Talk) 16:42, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well its dark and very nice! --Braegel 19:23, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good shot but a bit dark. --Neutrality 05:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --FML ^hi 01:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

4 Support, 7 Oppose => Not Featured--Shizhao 13:39, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ggb by night.jpg, Featured[edit]

Nominate

— Fabien1309 13:49, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support — Fabien1309 13:49, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Godewind 15:19, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose noisy, not very sharp --SehLax 15:51, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Shizhao 16:44, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I am confused by what the strange angle on the right is... or is just the surface of the water? pfctdayelise 14:50, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say it's light from a lamp behind the tower, reflected off the water - MPF 15:53, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support - MPF 15:53, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Get_It (Talk) 16:42, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support — The noise level is acceptable for a night shot. ADSR6581 17:51, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Romeo Bravo 18:31, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Husky 17:02, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Tvpm 15:10, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. villy ♦✎ 20:17, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support-- Urban 06:46, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice -- Gorgo 22:42, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support i corrected the perspective. Tatoute
Support--Mikel 11:38, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Neutrality 05:43, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - cut at the top ok, I didn't know - so Neutral --Buchling 20:52, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thats just the edit. I posted a link on the pics talk page to the high-res original. Perspective correction can be done without cutting the top. --Dschwen 19:45, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I tried to do the perspective correction myself now and like it better this way. --Dschwen 23:50, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

but now it is leaning... you do not think so Dschwen ? ... Tatoute 00:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, my god, you are right. I was so focussed on the towers that I didn't notice the horizon :-). I'll try again tonight. --Dschwen 12:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

last try ;-) Tatoute 13:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support FML ^hi 01:12, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support —FoeNyx 16:16, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - most of what you want from a picture of the Golden Gate bridge. -- Solipsist 09:28, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

16 support, 2 Oppose, 3 Neutral => Featured--Shizhao 13:36, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Hockenheimring Mini Challenge 2005.jpg, Not Featured[edit]

Nominate

— Fabien1309 13:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support — Fabien1309 13:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support — YolanC 02:46, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Doesn't do anything for me. Just another traffic jam. - MPF 15:51, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Get_It (Talk) 16:42, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Same opinion that MPF - Tvpm 15:11, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I like the colors (pink ...) in the tiers. villy ♦✎ 20:20, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose boring -- Gorgo 22:42, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Calderwood 18:07, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

3 Support, 5 oppose => Not Featured--Shizhao 13:35, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Leirhnjukur.jpg, Featured[edit]

Hot spring at Leirhnjúkur, Iceland

Self- Nominate

Andreas Tille 07:07, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Blurry, seams to be leaning a bit, composition is kinda boring norro 11:05, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition is not that outstanding so I can't ignore the sharpness problems --SehLax 11:30, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Not bad, but not sharp, leaning picture -- Fabien1309 13:52, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Because you are the second voter who thinks the image is leaning: From what sign are you concluding that it is leaning? Andreas Tille 17:06, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

the water area appears not horizontal Tatoute

There is no horizon visible - and without it you cannot say if the water is horizontal or not. By the way:

Support --Calderwood 17:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome. By the way take the water in gimp & rotate it 20 degree: you will see it.Tatoute 18:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

But I hope you will not override my image with a rotated one. The shape of that pool is really strange and I can not believe that someone who is not standing at the same point where I shot this image might be able to decide about it is leaning or not. Andreas Tille 22:17, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sure i don't. You said no leaning, so for me it's ok. Tatoute 23:25, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support --FML ^hi 14:22, 23 December 2005 (UTC) I like it.[reply]
Oppose--Shizhao 16:44, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- LoopZilla 23:47, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rex 00:27, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support it looks like God himself has opened the heavens to shine on it. pfctdayelise 14:52, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support - MPF 15:20, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Get_It (Talk) 16:42, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. --Erin (talk) 22:47, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tvpm 15:13, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. villy ♦✎ 20:25, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. --MarkSweep 12:08, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dr. Marcus Gossler 09:15, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mister X 11:04, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tatoute
Support Hein 08:04, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kessa Ligerro 21:28, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - there is a lot to like, but the large lens flare is confusing. Even without a horizon, clouds tend to form in horizontal layers, which can tell you a lot about whether a picture is level. -- Solipsist 09:26, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

15 support, 5 oppose, 1 Neutral => Featured--Shizhao 13:32, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Australian war memorial by night03.jpg, not Featured[edit]

Self Nom --fir0002 05:39, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Nice composition but not spectacular. The guardrails are distracting. Neutrality 06:11, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Would have preferred symmetrical composition. --SehLax 11:28, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Shizhao 16:44, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Get_It (Talk) 16:42, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. villy ♦✎ 20:27, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1 support, 4 Oppose => not Featured--Shizhao 13:31, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Crepuscular ray sunset from telstra tower edit.jpg, Featured[edit]

Self Nom --fir0002 05:38, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- (the sun behind the clouds :) -- YolanC 06:34, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Deep picture with a beautiful sky ! -- Fabien1309 13:53, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. villy ♦✎ 20:05, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support pfctdayelise 14:52, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support - MPF 15:23, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rex 16:29, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Get_It (Talk) 16:42, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great composition, great colors! --Malene Thyssen 22:51, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dr. Marcus Gossler 09:17, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Husky 12:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lycaon 17:37, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Calderwood 18:03, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --che 00:46, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Solipsist 09:19, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

13 Support, 1 Neutral => Featured--Shizhao 13:28, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Canon powershot a95.jpg[edit]

Self Nom --fir0002 05:41, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Ordinary advert-type shot, not striking. Neutrality 06:10, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose lighting is not too good, rear part of the camera is blurry (too low DOF) norro 11:02, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm afraid this is just a picture of a digital camera to me. Quite OK as an illustration in an article on digital cameras, but I can't see that it is in any way "outstanding". So sorry! MartinD 12:11, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Ordinary -- Fabien1309 13:53, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Shizhao 16:45, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Get_It (Talk) 16:41, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- As MartinD said: nice for a WP article, but not as a featured picture. Husky 12:40, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Hein 08:05, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

8 oppose => Not Featured--Shizhao 13:27, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Rocket man - melbourne show 2005.jpg, Not Featured[edit]

Self Nom --fir0002 05:36, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, rather busy. Neutrality 06:14, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose composition norro 11:01, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Shizhao 16:45, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose pfctdayelise 14:53, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Get_It (Talk) 16:41, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Tvpm 15:14, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Calderwood 18:04, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

7 oppose => Not Featured--Shizhao 13:27, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Remebrance poppy ww2 section of Aust war memorial.jpg, Not Featured[edit]

Self Nom --fir0002 05:36, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- too blur -- YolanC 06:32, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition. Would perhaps support if the seam was vertical and the upper pink wasn't cut. norro 11:00, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Shizhao 16:45, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support pfctdayelise 14:54, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Get_It (Talk) 16:41, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Romeo Bravo 16:10, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Hein 08:05, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- way too blurry. Renata3 15:58, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the use of DOF, it emphasizes the feeling of contemplativeness. --Dschwen 21:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3 Support, 5 oppose, 1 Support => Not Featured--Shizhao 13:27, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Stephanie smith human cannonball - melbourne show 2005.jpg, Not Featured[edit]

Self Nom --fir0002 05:35, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- I like the picture but there are some advertissments and we can not see the whole cannon. -- YolanC 06:30, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition. Leaning, we can't see the whole cannon, disturbing background norro 11:06, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ACK norro --SehLax 11:25, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Shizhao 16:45, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral That's pretty amazing. But... ack YolanC. pfctdayelise 14:56, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Get_It (Talk) 16:41, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Tvpm 15:14, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. At least it is illustrative of a human cannonball. We need illustrations! villy ♦✎ 20:33, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Calderwood 18:01, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Atamari 04:20, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Neutrality 18:42, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1 support, 8 Oppose, 2 neutral => Not Featured--Shizhao 13:26, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Pobblebonk02.jpg, Not Featured[edit]

Self Nom --fir0002 05:39, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose- DOF too low and I don't like the cord -- Godewind 09:25, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ACK Godewind, lighting (hard shadow), background nearly the same colour as the toad norro 11:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ditto to Norro --SehLax 11:24, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support If the background was a different colour to the toad, I am sure there would be complaints about the unnatural landscape. pfctdayelise 14:57, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - nice, tho' I agree with Godewind about the cord; a bit more depth of focus would have been good too - MPF 15:25, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Get_It (Talk) 16:41, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I like, background logical, natural environment :s - Tvpm 15:14, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

2 Support, 3 Oppose, 2 Neutral => Not Featured--Shizhao 13:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Cellarius_ptolemaic_system.jpg, Featured[edit]

Nominate

This plate represents the essence of what people have believed to be structure of the universe for millenia. The Harmonia Macrocosmica by Andreas Cellarius from 1660/1. from which it is taken, is regarded as the highlight of astronomical illustration in the Renaissance --Rivi 02:33, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Rivi 02:33, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Get_It (Talk) 02:53, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support pfctdayelise 03:00, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- YolanC 06:28, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Shizhao 16:45, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Tvpm 15:15, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Husky 17:02, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mister X 11:05, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mikel 11:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Calderwood 18:35, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Roger McLassus 10:31, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --FoeNyx 12:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

11 support, 1 Neutral => Featured--Shizhao 13:22, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Anas platyrhynchos with ducklings reflecting water.jpg, Not Featured[edit]

Nominate

—Wikimol 22:36, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support —Wikimol 22:36, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – confusing composition, very high light reflection in the water, useless white border around the picture (now fixed), ducklings not sharp. Rex 00:26, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Shizhao 01:59, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - ditto to Rex - MPF 11:24, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Now its without the border. Reflection - that's a problem as long as you treat it as a zoological illustration of duck. --Wikimol
Oppose-- Urban 06:46, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. villy ♦✎ 13:46, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too dark. pfctdayelise 12:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurry, lighting -- Gorgo 22:40, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Get_It (Talk) 02:36, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --che 11:07, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wonderful. --Neutrality 05:32, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

4 support, 7 Oppose => Not Featured--Shizhao 02:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Passionfruit flower07.jpg, Featured[edit]

Support Self Nom Other versions can be found at Passiflora edulis --fir0002 01:57, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support LoopZilla 12:37, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. Green background a bit too present. villy ♦✎ 20:13, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mister X 11:02, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support pfctdayelise 12:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Get_It (Talk) 02:36, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral norro 22:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral --Atamari 04:21, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Neutrality 05:34, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Can I ask why? --fir0002 07:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --che 00:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral this is really close for me, but just a bit short. I find the blur in the front a little distracting and I wish the subject wasn't darker than the background. Great pic though. --Quasipalm 20:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose TeunSpaans 08:30, 7 January 2006 (UTC) I find Image:Passionfruit flower.jpg much clearer.[reply]

5 Support, 2 Oppose, 5 neutral => Featured --Shizhao 02:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Red Plums on tree.jpg, Not Featured[edit]

Nominate

Self nom. --Erin  (talk) 04:55, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Erin (talk) 04:55, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose composition --SehLax 10:33, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Wikimol 12:38, 24 December 2005 (UTC) - nothing exceptional, composition.[reply]
Oppose I don't like the cut off fruit on the right. But I feel kinda hungry :) pfctdayelise 14:46, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Boring composition. ADSR6581 15:00, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - ditto on the cut-off plum - MPF 15:56, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – lighting – Rex 16:28, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Get_It (Talk) 16:43, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Shizhao 02:00, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mikel 11:37, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Neutrality 05:33, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Buchling 13:30, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2 Support, 10 Oppose => Not Featured--Shizhao 02:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:George III of the United Kingdom-e.jpg, Not Featured[edit]

Nominate

--Shizhao 17:07, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Shizhao 17:07, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is a splendor. Support. villy ♦✎ 20:31, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Wikimol 11:21, 27 December 2005 (UTC) Sorry, I hate reproductions doing substantial cropping of the original work of art. Especially if it is not stated and the original is not availiable.[reply]
Oppose --Dr. Marcus Gossler 09:24, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Get_It (Talk) 02:37, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Urban 06:11, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Calderwood 18:12, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There are better royal portraits available. --Neutrality 05:27, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

2 Support, 6 Oppose => Not Featured--Shizhao 01:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Bovidae and landscape Aubrac.jpg, Not Featured[edit]

Self Nom Nouly 13:08, 26. December 2005 (UTC)
Neutral looks like a still of a good documentary film about "the roughness of Aubrac", but the foreground is maybe too dark for an excellent picture here --SehLax 12:58, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Shizhao 14:42, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. villy ♦✎ 20:32, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I like it - MPF 19:16, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support pfctdayelise 12:05, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose lighting, white sky, bad composition (half of the picture is just sky) -- Gorgo 22:38, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Get_It (Talk) 02:37, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Urban 06:10, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Hein 08:03, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Neutrality 05:28, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I like the composition > the tree in the background is a good counterbalance(?) [<- please excuse my English] to the hill on the right... - 'like that picture --Buchling 01:31, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3 Support, 7 Oppose, 1 Neutral => Not Featured--Shizhao 01:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Beach Stones 2.jpg, Not Featured[edit]

Nominate

Thuresson 05:20, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support Thuresson 05:20, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Shizhao 05:44, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support LoopZilla 10:51, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral colours could be more vivid for my taste --SehLax 12:55, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Colours have been corrected now --SehLax 17:38, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. villy ♦✎ 21:02, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose-- Urban 06:45, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose norro 10:34, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Romeo Bravo 16:10, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Get_It (Talk) 02:36, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Mikel 11:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lycaon 21:22, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Renata3 15:55, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Atamari 04:21, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Neutrality 05:31, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose since the subject matter is not spectacular the quality should at least be. This pic has blown out parts and its reolution is too low. --Dschwen 14:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Andrejj 16:56, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I don't see anything special there --Buchling 23:59, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

9 Support, 7 Oppose, 1 Neutral => Not Featured--Shizhao 01:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:NewportBeach California USa.jpg, Not Featured[edit]

[[Image:NewportBeach California USa.jpg|300px|Newport Beach, California]]

Nominate

Thuresson 04:58, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support Thuresson 04:58, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Shizhao 05:37, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support-- Urban 06:44, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- YolanC 09:29, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. villy ♦✎ 13:47, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Doesn't do anything to me. Husky 17:00, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Ditto to Husky. There's also something wrong with the colour balance, the light doesn't look natural (or is that what Los Angeles smog is like?) - MPF 19:19, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Is this really a beach?? It looks like a farm being sprayed! pfctdayelise 12:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so; Newport Beach is just the name of a town. QuartierLatin1968 22:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, judging from another similar photo by Thomas Hawk on Flikr, this is in fact a beach and I guess this is a BayWatch style lifegaurd's tower. -- Solipsist 09:54, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose not that great, low resolution (0.6 mp) -- Gorgo 22:33, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Get_It (Talk) 02:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Neutrality 04:20, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - I've uploaded a larger version from the original source. Its a very nice picture, but I am a little stumped by the lack of explanation about where/what this is, or what the small figures in the early morning mist are doing. If I had a better idea of what we were looking at I would probably support. -- Solipsist 09:54, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

6 support, 4 Oppose, 2 Neutral => Not Featured--Shizhao 02:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Dendroica petechia3.jpg, Not Featured[edit]

Nominate

villy ♦✎  00:35, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support villy ♦✎ 00:35, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Shizhao 02:23, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- YolanC 08:31, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose needs colour correction. It's too much blueOK, now Neutral --SehLax 08:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like the composition, but the stick in front of the bird and its shadow are bothering norro 10:37, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral --Wikimol 11:25, 27 December 2005 (UTC) ack SehLax - blue tree, even the yellow bird is blue[reply]
Neutral I corrected the blue light Tatoute
Support --Romeo Bravo 16:10, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support - MPF 19:17, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Urban 05:33, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Get_It (Talk) 02:38, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mikel 11:33, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Atamari 04:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Neutrality 05:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
no vote - I've added an alternative version without the stick and its shaddow --Buchling 00:47, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support of the original version —FoeNyx 16:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose color balance. Rex 02:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

7 Support, 5 Oppose, 4 Neutral => Not Featured--Shizhao 02:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Stabkirche von Ringebu Norwegen.JPG, Not Featured[edit]

Nominate

villy ♦✎  00:35, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support villy ♦✎ 00:35, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Shizhao 02:23, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support--YolanC 08:29, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose top and bottom is cut and it seems to be leaning. --SehLax 09:01, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Cut --Willtron 11:56, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - as per SehLax - MPF 19:17, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose leaning pfctdayelise 12:05, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose cut -- Gorgo 22:35, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose cut -- Get_It (Talk) 02:37, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose cut --Atamari 04:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Neutrality 05:24, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

3 Support， 8 Oppose => Not Featured--Shizhao 02:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Corp2739.jpg, Not Featured[edit]

Nominate

. I know there had been a lot of sunsets already. This one brings me peace. villy ♦✎ 23:22, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support. villy ♦✎ 23:22, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cute. Husky 20:20, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Get_It (Talk) 02:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Boring. Quality is not too good (blurry, noisy) norro 22:38, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Shizhao 01:25, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Wait a few seconds longer for the green ray. --MarkSweep 02:31, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral --Neutrality 05:12, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - also slightly tilted - MPF 22:16, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I see nothing special. It's necessary to mend the inclination of the horizon at least. --Morio 17:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ditto to Norro --SehLax 18:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I like the colours --Buchling 21:17, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose leaning and very blurry. Not FP quality. --Dschwen 14:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sorry, not feeling it --Quasipalm 20:08, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

4 Support, 6 oppose, 2 Neutral => Not Featured--Shizhao 01:15, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:MontreuxBeiNacht.jpg, Not Featured[edit]

Nominate

Self nom --Braegel 19:05, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The wall is distracting and it's a bit leaning --SehLax 20:52, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Ditto SehLax. villy ♦✎ 21:27, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose composition -- Gorgo 22:28, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Get_It (Talk) 02:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Shizhao 01:25, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Hein 08:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Neutrality 05:13, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I like the colourful reflections on the water --Buchling 21:25, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1 Support, 7 Oppose => Not Featured--Shizhao 01:14, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Iceland Grimsvoetn 1972-B.jpg, Featured[edit]

Self Nom --Roger McLassus 12:51, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I did a colour correction and now I Support this pic --SehLax --Shizhao 01:16, 12 January 2006 (UTC)13:11, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Husky 16:40, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- YolanC 17:19, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. villy ♦✎ 21:28, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not that exceptional -- Gorgo 22:30, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Get_It (Talk) 02:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mikel 11:30, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Calderwood 18:24, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ACK Gorgo norro 22:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Shizhao 01:25, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hein 08:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
{{}} — Picture is too soft and grainy at 2000+ pixels, would look far better downsized. ADSR6581 13:48, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kessa Ligerro 21:22, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Neutrality 05:13, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support I am not sure if I am allowed to support my own picture. Many self nominees do not, but I could not find any rule saying that I should not either. In case there is one, which I now violate, please stroke out my vote. But if self-supporting is just regarded as a breach of etiquette, I don't agree. If not even the photographer himself thinks that his picture is worth being favoured - why should anyone else? --Roger McLassus 17:34, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. You are welcome to vote for your own pictures. No problem :) Kindly, norro 00:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Has a consensus ever been reached about self-voting? I can't find such a discussion about it on the commons. —Pixel8 21:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO, it makes no sense to put a picture on the FPC list and not supporting it. So I would count a nomination as implicite supporting vote in any case because I could have spend the time I need to put a picture on the list for other images I really would support otherwise. That's why I personally have not voted for any picture I putted on the list. Andreas Tille 07:23, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You'd think that would be obvious, but the closing instructions insist that a nomination doesn't count as a vote. If it comes down to one vote, wouldn't you rather have voted? I would always vote. pfctdayelise 10:15, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have read the closing instructions - but I disagree personally and follow this disagreement as personal policy. Nobody will be hurd by the consequence that the criterium for acceptance is a little bit sharper for my own pictures in case I nominate one of my own works. ;-) Andreas Tille 12:24, 3 January 2006 (UTC) [reply]
Support - MPF 22:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - ACK Gorgo and ADSR6581; Sorry as an Iceland fan I would have loved to be at this place but I guess there are more typical images possible at this location Andreas Tille 07:23, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support —FoeNyx 16:07, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Buchling 21:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support — I see the image and I wan to be there Rama 14:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

14 support, 5 Oppose, 1 Neutral => Featured--Shizhao 01:16, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Cymbidium05.jpg, Not Featured[edit]

Self Nom --fir0002 09:16, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support pfctdayelise 12:01, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Husky 12:38, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. villy ♦✎ 21:28, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Get_It (Talk) 02:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – composition, cut. Rex 02:55, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment added edit --fir0002 04:31, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Urban 05:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose –-Neutrality 05:15, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support the edited version. But please use better filenames next time --SehLax 18:37, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - well done! --Buchling 21:30, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose YAFP. --Dschwen 14:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

4 Support, 5 Oppose, 1 Neutral => Not Featured--Shizhao 01:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:MG 9573.jpg, Not Featured[edit]

File:MG 9573.jpg

Self Nom --fir0002 09:17, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Don't like the background. pfctdayelise 12:02, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Husky 12:38, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it --Braegel 19:19, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. villy ♦✎ 21:29, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Get_It (Talk) 02:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – too artificial. Rex 02:54, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Urban 06:12, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Shizhao 01:26, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose If the blue aura was removed I would consider supporting. And please change the file name. –-Neutrality 05:17, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ACK Neutrality --SehLax 18:37, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - not as good as the picture above --Buchling 21:31, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3 Support, 6 Oppose, 2 Neutral =>Not Featured --Shizhao 01:11, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:MG 0648.jpg, Not Featured[edit]

File:MG 0648.jpg

Self Nom --fir0002 09:18, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Husky 12:38, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Get_It (Talk) 02:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Shizhao 01:26, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Please change the file name. –-Neutrality 05:17, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Have you got a real reason for opposing? --fir0002 07:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - not one of the blooms is completely sharp --Buchling 21:34, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Unidentified uncategorized purple flower called MG 0648.jpg. While FP on commons don't have to be illustration of one particular subject, media on commons should be useful for wikimedia projects. Lack of meaningful name and cateorization makes usage very difficult. --Wikimol 12:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

6 Oppose => Not Featured--Shizhao 01:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Graz Rosenhain tree-face.jpg, Not Featured[edit]

Self nomination --Dr. Marcus Gossler 09:04, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose bad composition, blurry --SehLax 10:29, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Husky 12:38, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ditto sehlax -- Gorgo 22:31, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, but it's a tree ;) --Buchling 00:25, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Get_It (Talk) 02:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Mikel 11:32, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Shizhao 01:26, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose but the face is funny Kessa Ligerro 21:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good picture, but not quite featured-quality. –-Neutrality 05:18, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination - there is no longer any point in voting. --Dr. Marcus Gossler 15:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

9 Oppose => Not Featured--Shizhao 01:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Latin dictionary.jpg, Not Featured[edit]

Self nomination --Dr. Marcus Gossler 08:17, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Husky 12:37, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose bad lightning --SehLax 10:29, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- I like the composition and the quality is good. -- YolanC 17:08, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ACK Sehlax + composition norro 17:56, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Get_It (Talk) 02:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Urban 06:12, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mikel 11:31, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- wood with stains, poor quality of book paper. Tatoute 18:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good composition and colors. Catches the atmosphere of old books and libraries. Calderwood 18:30, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Shizhao 01:26, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hein 08:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support ACK Calderwood Kessa Ligerro
Support LoopZilla 23:52, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Neutrality 05:00, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support - ditto to Calderwood - MPF 22:11, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - the books on the left are not in the right order ;-) and I don't like the button on the lamp --Buchling 21:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - I think this is really cool, but it feels somehow off balance. If a bit more were cropped off of the right-hand side, maybe? QuartierLatin1968 22:15, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I love the smell of old paper in the morning. Rama 14:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

9 Support, 8 Oppose, 1 neutral => Not Featured--Shizhao 01:09, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Orang-Utan.jpg, Not Featured[edit]

Self Nom --Buchling 15:54, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The animal is hardly visible. I just see a boring cage in grey. Calderwood 18:20, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I only wanted to say, that this composition was chosen consciously and that my aim was NOT to show how a orang-utan looks like in detail. --Buchling 19:04, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Shizhao 01:23, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- YolanC 05:32, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Hein 07:59, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Atamari 04:24, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Neutrality 05:04, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Husky 23:33, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pretty depressive. But that is probably what the author wanted to show. 85.70.255.168 13:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- you got it - but unfortunatly: "Votes by anonymous contributors aren't counted" --Buchling 14:15, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I like the mood and the intention/statement of this picture, but i don't support, because the animal is just to hard to identify norro 17:45, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Get_It (Talk) 00:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1 Support, 8 Oppose, 1 neutral => Not Featured--Shizhao 02:01, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Case à la chefferie de Bana.jpg, Not Featured[edit]

Self Nominate

— African Hut at Bana, a small village of Cameroon Tatoute 14:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support —Tatoute 14:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Mikel 16:24, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Shizhao 01:24, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support ♦ Pabix ℹ 12:06, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't like the composition that much (totally centered), it surely is a nice picture to illustrate the hut, but not that exceptional -- Gorgo 22:40, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral --Atamari 04:23, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Neutrality 05:05, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Buchling 18:07, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Ditto Gorgo. villy ♦✎ 18:40, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - MPF 22:21, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ACK Gorgo --SehLax 18:32, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose composition --che 00:58, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Get_It (Talk) 00:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Ack Gorgo. pfctdayelise 05:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

5 Support, 7 Oppose, 2 neutral => Not Featured--Shizhao 02:02, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Liocarcinus marmoreus 2.jpg, Featured[edit]

Self nomination — Liocarcinus marmoreus. Photo taken on board of RV Belgica at Westhinder Bank on 03/10/2005, and background removed.— Lycaon 11:37, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I like it --Buchling 12:50, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Shizhao 01:24, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Neutrality 05:06, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Godewind 13:31, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - because of removed background (tho' I suppose the background was also un-natural?) - MPF 22:20, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Removal of the background made this picture more strikingly focussed on its topic. These animals are photographed outside of their natural environment to be able to show all significant details. This is however not what one should do with e.g. a bird or a mushroom. Do have a look at 'Lycaon's Images' for more. Some pictures were taken under a microscope, and as such have no 'natural' background anyway... -- Lycaon 23:48, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Just found out it's OK to vote for your own picture ;-). —— Lycaon 15:44, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support —FoeNyx 15:15, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but higher resolution would be even better --che 00:56, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Get_It (Talk) 00:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - and there is plenty more to like in Lycaon's image gallary. -- Solipsist 10:00, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

9 support, 1 Oppose =>Featured--Shizhao 02:04, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:San Juan fountain zumaia.jpg, Not Featured[edit]

Nominate

&  Support--Mikel 11:26, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose -- dominant magenta, deep correction does not give good result. Subject quite common, see for example: Image:IMGP1746.JPG, Image:White-Christmas-1775.jpg Tatoute 18:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Calderwood 18:22, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Shizhao 01:24, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Hein 07:59, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Neutrality 05:07, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral great atmosphere, but what about Copyright 1985 by ...? PS: There's a black line at the bottom --SehLax 18:34, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Buchling 21:15, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1 Support, 6 Oppose, 1 Neutral => Not Featured--Shizhao 02:00, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Bw wine grapes.jpg, Not Featured[edit]

I like this photo in an "artsy" kind of way

Self Nom --fir0002 10:50, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose part of the front of the bunch is out of focus, also the other bunch behind interferes, looking like it is part of the same bunch yet blurred. Also I would prefer it in colour. Justinc 12:04, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Shizhao 01:24, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Hein 08:00, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Neutrality 05:10, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

4 Oppose => Not Featured--Shizhao 01:59, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Fire02.jpg, Featured[edit]

Self Nom Believe it or not the flames in this photo were solely generated by a burning weed - no petrol etc was used! --fir0002 05:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support ♦ Pabix ℹ 13:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose LoopZilla 23:51, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --FML ^hi 02:19, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral --Neutrality 05:11, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support - It's nice --Buchling 18:11, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - No bad. But I think that the blank in the left end is a little too wide. não? --Morio 17:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support The blank spaces are necessary for composition and contrast – but maybe just a hair too wide. Support anyway. QuartierLatin1968 22:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dschwen 14:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support not perfect, but good enough considering the difficulty involved. --Quasipalm 20:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

6 Support, 1 Oppose, 2 Neutral => Featured--Shizhao 01:57, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:France, Romans-sur-Isère, Jardins du musée, 1.jpg, Not Featured[edit]

Self nomination, no vote. Made with Panotools, hugin, EnBlend and Autopano-sift. If you would like to get the 11 source photos to make a better panorama, please e-mail me. ♦ Pabix ℹ 11:28, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral --Neutrality 05:03, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose interesting colours, but the wall ist cut --SehLax 21:44, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - because it's snowing --Buchling 20:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Get_It (Talk) 00:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Besednjak 17:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1 support, 1 Oppose, 3 Neutral => Not Featured--Shizhao 13:12, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ostrea edulis p1040848.jpg, Not Featured[edit]

self- Nominate

—David.Monniaux 21:58, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Fascinating. Husky 23:36, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- --Morio 04:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support ♦ Pabix ℹ 09:52, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Buchling 12:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose would have liked a natural background (maybe darker) --SehLax 18:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Janeznovak 20:46, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Urban 05:23, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Shizhao 02:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Get_It (Talk) 01:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Neutrality 05:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3 Support, 7 Oppose => Not Featured--Shizhao 02:13, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Friedhof Zale in Ljubljana.jpg, Not Featured[edit]

Nominate

—Tone 11:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support —Tone 11:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Janeznovak 22:18, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- It's right that photos of Ljubljana are not many on Commons or Wikipedia, but this one is not espacially featured for me; with more contrast and the whole building (it's cut) it could be. ♦ Pabix ℹ 20:51, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - the building is cut & I don't like the exposure (white sky) --Buchling 21:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Husky 23:31, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose cut at the top and much street at the bottom --SehLax 18:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Shizhao 02:43, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Get_It (Talk) 01:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Neutrality 05:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Hein 14:29, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2 Support, 8 Oppose => Not Featured--Shizhao 02:12, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Mjmhg009-renxiong.jpg, Not Featured[edit]

Ren Xiong (1822—1857), After a poem of Yao Xie(1805—1864): playing an exotic tune with a hulei (a pipa-like instrument), after dismounting

nomination --Shizhao 08:05, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Shizhao 08:05, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Phe 16:40, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. villy ♦✎ 18:39, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Husky 23:32, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - it's not bad, but I see nothing special --Buchling 19:44, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Can someone please add an english or german image description? Perhaps then i can understand the reason for featuring it (very old, historical, ...). Until then i see a not to high resolution, a streaky image and jpeg-artefacts. norro 17:41, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose What is this? Rex 22:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support —FoeNyx 15:15, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Get_It (Talk) 01:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Neutrality 05:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ACK norro Hein 14:31, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support beautiful --Briseis 17:32, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

6 Support, 4 Oppose, 2 Neutral => Not Featured--Shizhao 02:11, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ulysses Grant 1870-1880.jpg, Featured[edit]

Nominate

—MarkSweep 02:26, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Neutrality 05:01, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Urban 06:01, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Shizhao 08:02, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support-- LoopZilla 09:32, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support-- Godewind 13:33, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Morio 07:31, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Husky 23:33, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - not bad, but not great, too --Buchling 21:16, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tatoute 00:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- particularly good ♦ Pabix ℹ 09:47, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Great work ! -- Fabien1309 21:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support —FoeNyx 15:15, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Gloumouth1 22:02, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

12 support, 1 Neutral => Featured--Shizhao 02:08, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Rød ræv (Vulpes vulpes).jpg, Featured[edit]

Self nomination --Malene Thyssen 23:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Malene Thyssen 23:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Janeznovak 23:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Husky 00:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --YolanC 08:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MartinD 08:34, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Lycaon 08:45, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thryduulf 09:07, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support even though it's not real (sob) pfctdayelise 10:04, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The fox is real - but behind bars at Scandinavian animal park in Denmark. Regards Malene Thyssen 12:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Godewind 11:24, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - it doesn't look natural --Buchling 14:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe I gave it a bit to much color - but it is indeed real - have a look here :-) Regards Malene Thyssen 21:45, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tatoute 14:56, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support —FoeNyx 15:15, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Gloumouth1 21:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --che 01:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alexan (♦♦♦♦) 01:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support ♦ Pabix ℹ 06:27, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Get_It (Talk) 01:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Neutrality 05:41, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dschwen 12:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - Nice, but oversaturated. Rex 02:33, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support FML ^hi 23:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

19 Support, 2 Neutral => Featured--Shizhao 02:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Le pont d'Avignon depuis l'île de la Barthelasse.jpg, Featured[edit]

I found this beautiful picture when categorising images of bridges. Thryduulf 15:46, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thryduulf 15:46, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --SehLax 18:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Pixel8 21:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - great --Buchling 19:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - It is really great but I would prefer a panorama (cutted some sky and foreground)
I wish I would have seen this motive when I was there ... Andreas Tille 10:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral composition is a bit too half-and-half. where does the bridge go, how come it seems to stop in the middle of the water? pfctdayelise 05:08, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Isn't stopping in the middle of the water the essence of the bridge - like leaning in case of tower of Pisa? --Wikimol 13:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Possibly, but how should I know that? There is no information on it in English, and I'm not European. Excuse my ignorance, but I think it's better to provide too much information on a photo's subject rather than too little. pfctdayelise 00:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I've translated the description into English and linked to the articles on en and fr. Thryduulf 02:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - By looking to Wikipedia - en:Pont d'Avignon - it's a pitty most images arent linked to articles. --Wikimol 13:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Neutrality 05:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral --Wikimol I think the image would be better if "the lacking part of the bridge" was more prominent. --Wikimol 13:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: now I noticed en:Image:Pont d avignon.jpg --Wikimol 13:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - That one is better, IMO. I would support that one (if it was uploaded at commons...) pfctdayelise 06:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Andrejj 16:58, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tatoute 00:00, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

6 support, 1 Oppose, 3 Neutral => Featured--Shizhao 02:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:MG 1383.jpg, Not Featured[edit]

Self Nom --fir0002 10:11, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support but I would really like an entomologist to identify this insect. The technique is very good. ♦ Pabix ℹ 12:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support and I'm not an entomologist but I would say it is a flower-fly --Buchling 14:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
thanks, it seems to be that. ♦ Pabix ℹ
Oppose bad naming, whats important in the pic, flowers or the flower-fly? Nothing special, I think. Darkone 15:11, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - I love it. But I think the purpose of this image is hard to understand. --Morio 17:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support good composition and excellent quality --SehLax 18:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too much background. A crop of the original image would be better IMHO. It seems more of a wallpaper rather than a illustrative image. — Pixel8 21:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I don't have much of a macro lens, and this is quite a crop off the original as it is. It's not quite 1:1, but I think the gain in quality from downsampling is worth slightly more background. 1:1 wouldn't be much more zoomed in anyway. --fir0002 06:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are features pictures in 800x600, so I think a crop of this image would still have enough resolution for a good quality. --che 18:15, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Commons featured pictures don't have to be illustrative of anything in particular. This is not w:WP:FP. pfctdayelise 05:10, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose -- Urban 05:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because of the composition; I'd probably vote for a better cropped version --che 01:04, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with che. --Neutrality 05:51, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Added 1:1 crop of the original photo --fir0002 07:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support the cropped version. (I quite agree with Pfctdayelise. My reason for not voting for the original version wasn't lack of "illustrativeness", but rather the fact it didn't have a clear central subject, so I didn't like it from photographic point of view.) --che 00:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support 2nd version only pfctdayelise 06:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support only the 2nd version -- Godewind 11:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cropped version. —Pixel8 11:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cropped version. Neutrality 02:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support 2nd version -- Tatoute 09:15, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose see Morio Lycaon 10:40, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

9 Support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral => Not Featured--Shizhao 02:40, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

:Image:Hoverfly03 crop.jpg 6 support, 1 oppose. => Featured --Shizhao 09:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Dust sunbeams through tree.jpg, Not Featured[edit]

Self Nom --fir0002 10:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tatoute 13:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - it's nice --Buchling 14:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --SehLax 18:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Husky 21:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- I don't love it. -- YolanC 13:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- I don't hate it. But can't recommend it. --Morio 17:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support pfctdayelise 10:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nothing special --Gloumouth1 22:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Shizhao 02:44, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - I like it but to be a featured image it needs some editing: Copy some clouds over the cutted tree on the left and it would be worth a support from me. Andreas Tille 10:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Get_It (Talk) 01:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Neutrality 05:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

5 support， 6 Oppose， 1 Neutral =〉Not Featured--Shizhao 02:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Grand Palais grande roue dsc07051.jpg, Not Featured[edit]

Self nomination --David.Monniaux 17:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)// don't forget to sign[reply]
Oppose very impressive but it's leaning extremely which doesn't seem to fit here --SehLax 18:55, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Get_It (Talk) 01:06, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too much distraction. pfctdayelise 05:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Urban 05:23, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Neutrality 05:45, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - ditto to Pfctdayelise - MPF 00:06, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Buchling 18:04, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Calderwood 15:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose Kessa Ligerro 09:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

9 Oppose => Not Featured--Shizhao 03:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Novo mesto Breg 2.JPG, Featured[edit]

Self nomination --Andrejj 17:04, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice one. --Tone 17:29, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Janeznovak 17:31, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --PIHNER 17:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not that exceptional --SehLax 18:55, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ACK SehLax norro 21:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Thryduulf 22:18, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Get_It (Talk) 01:06, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Shizhao 02:36, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support beautiful. pfctdayelise 05:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral --Neutrality 05:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MartinD 13:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Besednjak 17:34, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice. QuartierLatin1968 04:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice Winter Photo. Popski 16:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice enough, but doesn't quite enthuse me enough to vote for it - MPF 00:05, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Buchling 18:04, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Reflexion of the houses in the river is cut for the favour of boring sky. I would love to see more of the river on the left (perhaps even the bank. Andreas Tille 06:57, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

12 Support, 4 Oppose, 1 Neutral => Featured --Shizhao 03:13, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:BrockenSnowedTrees.jpg, Not Featured[edit]

When I putted Image:BrockenSnowedTreesInSun.jpg on the FPC list some voters (norro,SehLax) prefered this image and I have putted this image into WikiMedia according an explicite request of another member. So this image seems to have something ...

Self- Nominate

(I do not vote for my own pictures) Andreas Tille 10:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Looks good, but it is blurred -- Godewind 11:27, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tatoute 11:38, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MartinD 11:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
<joke>I prefered this so I have to Support now.</joke> But i really do. It's a good illustration for very snowed trees. If you want you could retouch the little part of another tree at the left side. --SehLax 15:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Too bad it's not christmas anymore. Husky 17:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support we can think of Christmas 2006 in advance :) --che 18:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Boring composition, hard shadows, blurry and partly overexposed norro 21:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ups, was Image:BrockenSnowedTreesInSun.jpg that bad, that even if you like this image much more you can not support it? I wouldn't have put it on the FPC list if you would not have added an explicite link. Andreas Tille 06:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't want to be hostile to you, but it doesn't matter, if i like this picture or not (i really like it). It just matters, if i think, that this is one of the best pictures of the commons. Due to the given reasons i think, it's not, so i vote against featuring it. I didn't want to mislead you with adding a link to this picture. Kindly, norro 16:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, the image is blury and there look to be some JPEG artifacts around the tops of the trees, particularly on the left of the image. Thryduulf 22:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Get_It (Talk) 01:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Shizhao 02:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Neutrality 05:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. It's either not in focus or a bad scan. At fullsize it looks very blurry. --Dschwen 21:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rex 02:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support yes, it's blurred at full size, but full size fills 6 computer screens and I've only got one so I don't look at it full size. At single-screen size, it looks great. - MPF 00:02, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral--Buchling 18:05, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

8 Support, 5 Oppose, 2 Neutral => Not Featured--Shizhao 03:11, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Cumulus clouds panorama.jpg, Featured[edit]

Self Nom --fir0002 07:34, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Shizhao 08:40, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support —FoeNyx 11:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support excellent quality as usual, good illustration --SehLax 15:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Get_It (Talk) 01:06, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support wow, lovely countryside. where was it actually taken? pfctdayelise 05:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was taken in a little middle of no where place called Swifts Creek, in the Great Alps of East Gippsland, Victoria, Australia --fir0002 09:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Neutrality 05:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support beautiful! --Dschwen 13:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, nice pic, though of a rather depressing scene (it could usefully be used to illustrate en:deforestation, with its collection of scattered senescent 'left-behind' trees slowly dying off with no regeneration) - MPF 23:57, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - good work --Buchling 18:05, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Malene Thyssen 22:24, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- YolanC 13:24, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kessa Ligerro 09:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

12 Support => Featured--Shizhao 03:08, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Mullerthal.jpg, Featured[edit]

Mullerthal in Luxembourg. More info at: Official site Mullerthal

Nominate

Self nomination --Vdegroot 19:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Vdegroot 19:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- YolanC 19:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Get_It (Talk) 23:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- very cute. Husky 00:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support lovely. pfctdayelise 00:56, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Shizhao 01:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- JeremyA 01:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thryduulf 02:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support QuartierLatin1968 04:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unsharp / CA's Darkone 14:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Gloumouth1 23:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - MPF 00:12, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Ceridwen 15:48, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I like the atmosphere --Buchling 17:55, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - when a picture makes me want to go there in person, that's a good thing --Bachrach44 19:01, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - One third on the right and one third of the top is boring = the scene could be cut near the rock on the side and in a certain distance over the bridge. This would also reduce the overall greenish impression. Longer exposure would be nicer. Andreas Tille 06:52, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Comment): disagree - cropping the top and right off would cut the bridge, and a longer exposure would spoil the appearance of the water - MPF 13:32, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Nature can be beautiful, but I don't think that this picture catches beauty. -CSamulili 22:42, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

13 Support, 4 oppose => Featured--Shizhao 01:48, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Bismuth crystal macro.jpg, Featured[edit]

Nominate

. Self nomination. A picture of a Bismuth single crystal. I think it turned out well, showing 90° crystal symmetry and coloration due to a thin oxide film. --Dschwen 12:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral It looks nice, but depth of field is quite low. Wouldn't it be possible to take the picture using a smaller aperture? --che 16:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The entire front face is in focus, so there wouldn't really be any information gain. But if it bothers more people I could try. --Dschwen 17:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support interesting macro, I never saw such a crystal before. Maybe you could make the background completely white? --SehLax 21:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support ♦ Pabix ℹ 21:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Get_It (Talk) 23:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Gloumouth1 23:07, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - agree with Che, I find the rear a bit too out of focus; would probably support a fully-focussed retake - MPF 00:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then stay tuned, I'll try again on monday (must not forget tripod...).--Dschwen 00:57, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support very good! FML ^hi 03:55, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral--Buchling 17:57, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tatoute 09:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Rama 14:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's good, but id don't think, that this is the best way to make a photograph of it (blurry, lighting) —norro 13:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral looking forward to see the retake :-) Malene Thyssen 22:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with norro --fir0002 11:45, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Briseis 17:26, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

7 Support, 2 Oppose, 5 Neutral => Featured--Shizhao 01:45, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Wild rose flower.jpg, Not Featured[edit]

Self Nom --fir0002 09:47, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- There are too many flowers here. Husky 00:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Shizhao 01:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - not enough depth of focus, only one of the petals is fully focussed - MPF 00:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - unsharp --Buchling 17:57, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

4 Oppose => Not Featured--Shizhao 01:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Tin vienna bread.jpg, Not Featured[edit]

Self Nom --fir0002 08:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Wikimol 13:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC) my impression: the bread is accelerating like Starship Enterprise, to warp 7 or something like.[reply]
Oppose. I suppose the blurring should put the focus onto the Vienna bread. It would have been more illustrative if it would have a) been the only bread in the picture b) would be cut to see the interior. --Dschwen 13:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Get_It (Talk) 23:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Husky 00:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Shizhao 01:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Tbc 14:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC) bread isn't supposed to be dynamic[reply]
Oppose - sorry, have to agree with Wikimol - MPF 00:10, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Buchling 17:58, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Calderwood 15:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Kessa Ligerro 09:57, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

10 Oppose => Not Featured--Shizhao 01:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Werdau Rathaus.jpg, Featured[edit]

Another picture of the day that I think deserves to be given a shot at being a featured picture.

Nominate. --67.70.21.56 08:36, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --FoeNyx 12:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wikimol 12:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC) despite owerblown whites and noisy walls in shadow. I appreciate it is in reasonable projection, straight lines are stright, verticals are vertical.[reply]
Support -- Godewind 13:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thryduulf 18:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Get_It (Talk) 23:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tvpm 23:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Shizhao 01:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- JeremyA 01:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - very nice - MPF 00:09, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - not that outstanding --Buchling 18:00, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - fine picture of the building, but I don't see anything very special --che 09:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

9 Support, 2 Oppose => Featured--Shizhao 01:42, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Sonnenuntergang Frankfurt.jpg, Not Featured[edit]

It was picture of the day before, so I thought it would be fitting for a featured picture star.

Nominate. --67.70.21.56 03:51, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support but let me guess a couple of objections: low res, and is it leaning? seems to be. pfctdayelise 04:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Neutrality 05:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --FoeNyx 12:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Get_It (Talk) 23:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Urban 05:24, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ygrek 20:39, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - sorry, doesn't do anything for me - MPF 00:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - if you give us a not leaning version, I'll give you a support --Buchling 18:02, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support good! --FML ^hi 20:07, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Leaning -- Fabien1309 22:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -CSamulili 22:43, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

4 support, 5 Oppose, 2 Neutral => Not Featured--Shizhao 01:40, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Sour dough loaves02.jpg, Not Featured[edit]

Self Nom --fir0002 01:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose--Shizhao 02:36, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't like the trippy effect, whatever it is. pfctdayelise 04:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with pfctdayelise. --Neutrality 05:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Get_It (Talk) 23:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Buchling 18:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Calderwood 15:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Gives me a headache. Erin (talk) 22:31, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Kessa Ligerro 09:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral lovely focus. Is this processing of some sort? What was your exposure? --G0zer 04:44, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

8 Oppose => Not Featured--Shizhao 01:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Schmuckkörbchen mit Biene.jpg, Not Featured[edit]

Neutral Own work, but I like it very much. So I have my first Try @ C:FPC :-) --Stefan-Xp 18:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like. Tvpm 22:26, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - MPF 00:16, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Excellent quality. Husky 11:48, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - really nice, but the bloom is cut at the top --Buchling 12:09, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Get_It (Talk) 16:12, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Janeznovak 10:42, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the details of the bloom are washed out, I think. Don't know really why, did you 'neat' it? / cut / nothing special / Cosmea and Sedum spectable together, like in our garden too ;). Darkone 10:53, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Cut -- Fabien1309 14:29, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Piolinfax 10:21, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Rex 01:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: composition, colors (clipped?). --MarkSweep 23:24, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

5 Support, 4 Oppose, 3 Neutral => Not Featured--Shizhao 15:31, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Palais de la Decouverte Tyrannosaurus rex p1050042.jpg, Featured[edit]

Self nomination --David.Monniaux 08:57, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wikimol 10:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Husky 13:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unsharp. Darkone 14:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support it is unsharp for an A4 print, for other uses it's fine, in my opinion --che 15:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral good quality, but a bit too monochrome ♦ Pabix ℹ 17:54, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I may say, the scene itself was quite monochrome, even to the human eye. The reason is that bones don't have much colour! David.Monniaux 02:11, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Malene Thyssen 19:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - agree with Pabix - MPF 00:15, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support He's smiling! I like it. pfctdayelise 04:24, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Urban 05:49, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Shizhao 13:20, 7 January 2006 (UTC)č[reply]
Support -- Get_It (Talk) 16:11, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support FML ^hi 03:55, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, I don't like the composition -- Fabien1309 14:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support- it's nice --Buchling 17:55, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral It looks ok at ~80% zoom, but at 100% it looks like its has been through a watercolour filter, very strange. —Pixel8 11:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Probably the camera's anti-shaking mechanism, which does well but cannot make miracles. The photo was taken without a flash in a dark museum room. You can of course diminish the blur by rescaling it down. :-) David.Monniaux 21:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Without the flash, heavy in-camrea noise reduction would also contribute to that effect. If you really want the additional support, I'll change my vote if it's scaled down a bit. ;-) —Pixel8 00:30, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support- Rama 14:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unsharp — Lycaon 10:42, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Piolinfax 10:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Romary 18:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

12 Support, 4 Oppose, 3 neutral => Featured--Shizhao 15:32, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Shisha smoker.jpg, Not Featured[edit]

self- Nominate

—che 02:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose -- lot of smoke, that's all (I think) -- YolanC 11:09, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nice, but it would be good if one could see the Shisha --SehLax 13:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - doesn't do anything for me - MPF 00:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Urban 05:49, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I like it --Buchling 16:01, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Get_It (Talk) 16:11, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support trip. pfctdayelise 06:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. villy ♦✎ 07:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Pouétique. Rama 14:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Calderwood 15:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Fabien1309 21:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Hein 14:27, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3 Support， 9 Oppose => Not Featured--Shizhao 15:30, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Eberswalde zoo 014.jpg, Not Featured[edit]

You can just hear Mr. Lion's wise thoughts already.

Nominate. --64.231.222.90 23:20, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Shizhao 02:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. villy ♦✎ 07:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - to me it looksjust as a zoo animal in a zoo shot, even with fence and european trees in the background. +bad resoltuion --Wikimol 10:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC) (althought I had seen Narnina yesterday)[reply]
Oppose Same. David.Monniaux 13:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Get_It (Talk) 00:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Hein 14:23, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support It is clearly a zoo animal in a zoo shot, even with a fence and European trees in the background but (or maybe partially because of it) I love it--Piolinfax 22:12, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support OK, now that I won't be the only one supporting this one. :) -- Spundun 05:13, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2 support, 6 Oppose => Not Featured--Shizhao 02:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Acacia heterophylla 1.JPG, Not Featured[edit]

There's something really peaceful and idyllic about this picture.

Nominate. --64.231.222.90 22:26, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --che 00:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Nothing special IMO. villy ♦✎ 07:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Urban 05:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Tbc 19:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - spoilt by the junk in the fence - MPF 02:24, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I really like it - Tvpm 16:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Get_It (Talk) 00:20, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Lycaon 10:47, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Hein 14:24, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

4 support, 3 Oppose, 2 Neutral => Not Featured--Shizhao 02:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Fishing harbour Setubal.JPG, Not Featured[edit]

Self nomination --OsvaldoGago 20:59, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support pfctdayelise 06:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. villy ♦✎ 07:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Godewind 10:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, too chaotic for me --che 19:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support David.Monniaux 21:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - same reason as Che -- Fabien1309 12:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like this chaos --SehLax 16:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ACK che (in particular the background) norro 13:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - ditto to Che - MPF 02:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Get_It (Talk) 00:20, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Hein 14:25, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support It is a good picture of chaos, then :) -CSamulili 22:39, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support This fishing harbor is a chaotic and colorful place. --OsvaldoGago 22:52, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Urban 05:03, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the way the bits of blue are scattered al over the image --Piolinfax 22:19, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Nothing special, the only cool part is the clear reflection of boats in the still water. -- Spundun 05:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There is nothing really special about it. Nice but not for featured images. --Dada 11:33, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

8 Support, 6 oppose, 3 neutral => Not Featured--Shizhao 02:27, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Resistin radicatz.jpg, Not Featured[edit]

Nominate

— I really like the way the picture captures the motion of the cheer and the look of the whole scene. Bachrach44 19:10, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Bachrach44 19:10, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Could do with a little colour correction though. Husky 11:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- I don't see a feature picture here -- YolanC 22:55, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Shizhao 02:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Bizarre. :) I'm not quite sure what they're doing, besides drugs. The picture makes them look very isolated. If they were joining a larger march, it would be cool if you could see that in the background or something. pfctdayelise 06:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. villy ♦✎ 07:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose When viewing the picture, you don't quite understand what it is about exactly, and the composition is not that great (background). David.Monniaux 21:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Urban 05:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice movement. Rama 14:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Calderwood 15:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Tbc 19:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - rather yucky - MPF 02:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Get_It (Talk) 00:19, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Hein 14:26, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Roger McLassus 10:34, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral --Piolinfax 22:22, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Kessa Ligerro 09:54, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3 Support, 11 Oppose, 3 Neutral => Not Featured--Shizhao 02:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:StatueCheminDeCroixCalac.jpg, Not Featured[edit]

Chemin de Croix de Callac (Morbihan, France)

Nominate

— Fabien1309 14:35, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support — Fabien1309 14:35, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support — YolanC 15:27, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't like how the foreground is in shadow and the background is lit. pfctdayelise 05:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Dr. Marcus Gossler 10:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - MPF 02:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral — cannot decide. I like the mood of the picture and the contrast of warm background with the statue. I don't like the distracting tree branch growing from her head. --Wikimol 11:06, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Urban 05:05, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ACK pfctdayelise --che 13:42, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Briseis 17:19, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Piolinfax 10:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -CSamulili 19:06, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

5 Support, 5 oppose, 1 Neutral => Not Featured--Shizhao 02:25, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Antony Gormley - Another Place - Crosby Beach 01.jpg, Not Featured[edit]

Another stellar picture of the day that deserves a shot at the title.

Nominate. --69.156.105.8 06:21, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Husky 13:47, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --che 16:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - GREAT --Buchling 17:31, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - it reminds me this photo that I took last summer... but this one is much better --Gloumouth1 22:38, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Shizhao 02:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support pfctdayelise 06:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I put it on PotD ... villy ♦✎ 07:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Gratuitously pouétique. David.Monniaux 21:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Makes my teeth ache. Rama 11:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose composition norro 13:43, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Don't like Gormless things - MPF 02:21, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - not my kind of picture ... -- Fabien1309 21:44, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think it is not a question whether someone likes Gormley or not. Composition and exposure are great. Andreas Tille 06:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose cf. David.Monniaux. — Lycaon 10:44, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Malene Thyssen 22:16, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -CSamulili 22:39, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- dark -- YolanC 13:24, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rex 20:32, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - since I took it. Though if I get a chance I may revisit the installation again to try and find a spot where I can get a more closely spaced group of figures in the frame. (Gratuitously pouétique - huh what?) -- Solipsist 13:44, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

12 Support, 7 Oppose => Not Featured--Shizhao 02:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Brooklyn Bridge at Night.jpg, Featured[edit]

Self nomination -- Sam916 05:24, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Urban 05:48, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stefan-Xp 09:10, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Janeznovak 13:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Looks as if it was painted. Excellent! Husky 13:47, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Fabien1309 14:27, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --che 16:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Composition is excellent. ~~I'm not sure, but it seems little bit leaning to me. Resolution is high enough, so perhaps you can try to straighten it?~~ Thanks norro 17:29, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - great --Buchling 17:53, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - it seems like irrealistic :'D Tvpm 18:39, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Get_It (Talk) 18:51, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --FML ^hi 20:00, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support very good picture —Newsflash 21:05, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support the shadows on the water's surface are fantastic. pfctdayelise 06:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Very artistic, beautiful, expressive, and surreal at the same time. —UED77 06:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Godewind 10:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral pouétique David.Monniaux 21:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support — woahhhh Tatoute 21:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Lycaon 10:43, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great Bladerunneresque atmosphere and irreal painterly texture --Piolinfax 23:37, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kessa Ligerro 09:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

19 Support, 1 Neutral => Featured--Shizhao 02:29, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Copper lion of Hall of Benevolence and Longevity(male)-feature.jpg, Not Featured[edit]

Self nomination --Shizhao 14:41, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Husky 18:43, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - MPF 01:01, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose bad cut --FML ^hi 03:53, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - composition -- Fabien1309 14:28, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - because of the same reason as Fabien1309 --Buchling 17:52, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bad vantage point (underneath). pfctdayelise 06:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support David.Monniaux 21:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dr. Marcus Gossler 10:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Urban 05:05, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Roger McLassus 10:32, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ygrek 01:25, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

5 Support, 6 Oppose => Not Featured--Shizhao 02:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Schnoodle2.jpg, Not Featured[edit]

A dog of the breed schnoodle, a cross between a schnauzer and a poodle.

Self nomination --Phoenix-Forgotten 05:21, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Doesn't do anything to me, but the quality of the picture itself is ok, although a little too purple. Husky 11:49, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Shizhao 13:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Janeznovak 14:27, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Get_It (Talk) 16:12, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Tbc 17:35, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Fabien1309 14:28, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral --Buchling 17:51, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'd like the full dog. David.Monniaux 21:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Hein 14:27, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

7 Oppose, 2 Neutral => Not Featured--Shizhao 02:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Grand Palaais 501590 fh000033.jpg, Not Featured[edit]

Self nomination --David.Monniaux 02:10, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- I think a shot would be much better in summer and with good weather. On the right side, there is too much noise; however the topic is particularly interesting. You could do the same with some Parisian stations (I'll try today, maybe). ♦ Pabix ℹ 07:44, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
and oops, you wrote grand palaais... ♦ Pabix ℹ
Neutral -- Same argument as Pabix here above. Too much noise, but the subject is interesting enough for a featured picture. Husky 11:48, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Get_It (Talk) 16:12, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Wikimol 21:45, 7 January 2006 (UTC) great subject, not that outstanding photo. Some thoughts - the subject is highly symmetrical, a symmetrical composition might be better. The sky could be more interesting.[reply]
Oppose - boring -- Buchling 23:09, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - quite interesting. Thuresson 23:37, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Piolinfax 10:24, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2 Support, 2 Oppose, 3 Neutral => Not Featured--Shizhao 02:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kiss![edit]

300px|kiss!

Nominate

— Tatoute 17:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support — Tatoute 17:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Malene Thyssen 22:04, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -CSamulili 22:37, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support even though it's disappointingly low-res (I checked flickr and for some reason that was the highest res) pfctdayelise 03:41, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Roger McLassus 10:33, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- YolanC 13:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Shizhao 13:11, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Husky 15:57, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose extremely low res -- Gorgo 08:15, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose res. Darkone 11:14, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nice, but resolution is really too low --che 13:34, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose low res, and the sky is noisy too — Pixel8 14:28, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Gloumouth1 23:32, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - resolution Tbc 00:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - MPF 13:24, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Worryingly, looking the user's flickr profile, he seems to be just collecting copyright photos and using the site as a photo blog. So this image is almost certainly not free. Proposing deletion at COM:DEL. ed g2s • talk 14:48, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose / tsca ✉ 11:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

deleted and delisted. ed g2s • talk 16:25, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Australian war memorial02.jpg, Not Featured[edit]

Self Nom --fir0002 22:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- is the light real? Tatoute 19:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Boring building with darkish weather around. David.Monniaux 20:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose lighting can't be real, the sky is fake. Darkone 21:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Get_It (Talk) 00:22, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral -- Get_It (Talk) 00:22, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- i like it -- the sky seems real to me --Quasipalm 05:30, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose composition -- Gorgo 08:18, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would support a guideline stating if such composite images are uploaded, in the description should be clearly noted what was done with the image (e.g. photo of australian war memorial, composed with sky from ...). Here the sky is clearly not the subject, but I can imagine cases where a photo would be used as illustration of something considered irrelevant, editeable by the photographer... most of usage of pictured from commons is in encyclopaedias - IMO such images are potentialy dangerous. --Wikimol 19:32, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. An opportunity to plug en:Wikipedia_talk:Featured_picture_candidates#Proposal.2C_labeling_touched_up_pictures - might be applicable for commons too. --Dschwen 23:04, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose.--Dschwen 23:05, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2 Support, 4 Oppose, 1 Neutral => Not Featured--Shizhao 02:24, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Spectre.svg, Featured[edit]

Self Nominate

— an svg shema internationalized Tatoute 22:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support — Tatoute 22:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Shizhao 01:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Lycaon 06:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support clear symbols, good illustration --SehLax 16:30, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Godewind 10:39, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Liquid_2003 - Discuter 20:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very clear and descriptive graphic. LoopZilla 23:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Get_It (Talk) 00:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support le Korrigan ^bla 13:49, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Big whoop, it's just the electromagnetic light spectrum. —the preceding unsigned comment is by 69.227.28.187 (talk • contribs)
- Anons can't vote. pfctdayelise 03:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Rex 01:52, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I reported the discussion onto Image talk:Spectre.svg Tatoute 12:27, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral the radio looks a bit like a camera to me :/ Rama 14:44, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

<smile>like a camera?</smile> i do not see that? Tatoute 15:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, a stylised older radio like this sort of looks a little bit like a modern compact digital camera... At least, that's what I first read at a first glance, I went "why is the visual domain so far right ?"; then I though "this is the definitely the domain of radio waves..."; and then I understood that this was actually a radio. Oh well, maybe I am weird :p Rama 12:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ohh... Maybe i the antenna is not very visible at the scale of the thumbs ... but in full page it seems ok? You do not think so? Nevertheless thanks for your comment, nothing weird in it ;-) Tatoute 21:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Things which are more typically "radio-like" would be

antenna
knob on the side
a grid on the loudspeaker

but frankly, it is quite all right :) Rama 13:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent suggestion (the knob on the side is present but too small i think)

I modified the picture (grid on the speaker, bigger knob), is the new version better? Tatoute 11:55, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see where Rama was going with this :), if you take out the antenna, it looks like one of the many new canon pocket camera models, but you pros probably never heard of anything other than SLRs :) --Spundun 05:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

8 Support, 1 Oppose, 2 Neutral => Featured--Shizhao 02:25, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you KIDDING me?![edit]

FEATURED?! Not only am I the first person to ever notice that this picture is BLATANTLY INCORRECT (it leaves out the ENTIRE IR BAND, and the microwave band is mislabeled), not only has it been copied a thousand times and added to a thousand articles, not only is it ugly and hard to understand, but with all that, it managed to get FEATURED? That's it, I'm done defending this place. The critics are right. We're idiots. Wikipedia is a dump. 146.6.205.99 18:18, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See File talk:Spectre.svg for a fix suggestion. 84user (talk) 02:20, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image:FELIN 501585 fh000035.jpg, Not Featured[edit]

Self nomination --David.Monniaux 17:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose can't see anything excellent about it. --SehLax 21:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nor can I --Calderwood 15:44, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nor can I norro 13:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Get_It (Talk) 00:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Hein 14:22, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Kessa Ligerro 09:57, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

6 Oppose =〉Not Featured--Shizhao 02:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Geitoneura klugii4.jpg, Not Featured[edit]

Good photo of Geitoneura klugii. More version by me can be found there. --fir0002 11:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose wrong focus -- Godewind 11:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose dito. Darkone 11:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose out of focus Tbc 19:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Shizhao 02:10, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - thnx for meaningful name. --Wikimol 23:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Get_It (Talk) 00:24, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Husky 01:13, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Hein 14:19, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

7 Oppose => Not Featured--Shizhao 02:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Furcifer pardalis (Caméléon), Not Featured[edit]

Nominate

—Tatoute 10:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support —Tatoute 10:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support David.Monniaux 13:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC) (They're hard to photograph since they're in the shade, and you can't use a flash if you don't want to make them blind.)[reply]
Neutral the head is too dark (in the shade) while the body right behind is too light... Rama 14:43, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral good composition but bad light...have you tried to brighten it a bit if it helps? --Tone 15:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Get_It (Talk) 00:24, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose bad light --SehLax 16:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Shizhao 02:10, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Husky 01:13, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I find it strangely interesting. I like it. For some reason the bad light is a plus. Alluring. --Piolinfax 22:01, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it's not good to change the versions during voting -- Godewind 19:12, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sure. The modification was made some time ago, & i revert it, and the modification came back now... Tatoute 21:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I re-loaded the picture from the original so it is a bit sharper. Please don't change the light to make it as if it was not in the shade : it is in the shade and that is why orange is naturally so bright (in the full sunlight, it would turn brown : it is a chamaeleon !). Thanks B.navez 03:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -CSamulili 19:07, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

4 support, 3 Oppose, 3 neutral => Not Featured--Shizhao 02:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Baby bird learning to fly.jpg, Not Featured[edit]

On face value this photo may not be remarkable, but the bird's striking resemblance to Winston Churchill makes it a pretty unusual photo.

Self Nom --fir0002 04:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - funny face but the rest of the composition is not good. --Tone 15:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC)--[reply]
Oppose ditto to Tone --SehLax 16:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Shizhao 02:10, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Get_It (Talk) 00:24, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Husky 01:13, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Hein 14:20, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

6 Oppose => Not Featured--Shizhao 02:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:New York Intrepid 501576 fh000009.jpg, Not Featured[edit]

Self nomination --David.Monniaux 03:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great picture, looks like a painting. But why is the person's face pixeled out? pfctdayelise 06:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Because I haven't got authorization from this person to post it online. But since this seems a problem, I'll ask the person. David.Monniaux 10:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)~~ Authorization granted.[reply]

Oppose Pixeling of face. —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 09:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support What a relief !! A photograph of military equipment with some humour, without too much gratuitous lyrical effects, and which does not look like the box for a plastic model intended for 13-year old or like a propaganda poster ! Rama 14:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ humourous picture, ~~but extremly noisy, pixeled face and it needs contrast --SehLax 16:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC)~~ - The colours seem to be right now, but it's less sharp now and maybe the composition is not that great it should be for FP. So I vote Neutral now. --SehLax 14:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Picture updated to fit the (justified) remarks of those in opposition. Removed pixeling (the person doesn't object) and re-scanned the image to get better contrast, less noise and better colour balance. David.Monniaux 22:19, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Shizhao 02:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. For me, this picture is like a poem -- the last thing I expected from David b ;-) villy ♦✎ 00:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - doesn't do anything for me - MPF 02:26, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ACK MPF + still very noisy norro 16:49, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Works well on many levels. LoopZilla 23:31, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Get_It (Talk) 00:23, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose — Lycaon 10:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Spundun 05:07, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

5 support， 6 Oppose， 1 Neutral => Not Featured--Shizhao 02:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Five Pagoda Temple, Huhhot, Inner Mongolia.JPG, Not Featured[edit]

Nominate

—Shizhao 13:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support —Shizhao 13:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose composition --SehLax 14:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Big building taken with short focal length without surroundings => big distorted mass, unnatural. Sorry. David.Monniaux 15:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Husky 01:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Hein 14:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose dito sehlax and david -- Gorgo 08:17, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Calderwood 16:21, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Klemen Kocjancic 06:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3 Support, 5 Oppose => Not Featured--Shizhao 01:32, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:View from connors hill panorama.jpg, Featured[edit]

Self Nom --fir0002 03:03, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --OsvaldoGago 08:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I like the panorama, but not the color -- Godewind 10:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Shizhao 13:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --SehLax 14:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow. Beautiful. Has a fantastic five-o'clock-about-to-rain feel to it. pfctdayelise 14:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lycaon 19:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- YolanC 19:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support —FoeNyx 09:17, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Get_It (Talk) 00:25, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Husky 01:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Malene Thyssen 22:09, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -CSamulili 22:37, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --che 13:38, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rex 20:28, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Wow, that looks stunning. Postprocessing? --Dschwen 22:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jon Harald Søby 15:39, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

15 support, 1 neutral => Featured--Shizhao 01:33, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Truck with motion blur.jpg, Not Featured[edit]

Self Nom --fir0002 03:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Shizhao 13:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Works well for me: dynamic LoopZilla 23:29, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Get_It (Talk) 00:25, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not only motion blur -- Godewind 10:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ACK Godewind and not that outstanding --SehLax 14:39, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Husky 01:13, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Hein 14:18, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thuresson 23:41, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rex 20:28, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Tbc 00:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Calderwood 16:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Dschwen 23:00, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MartinD 11:11, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

5 Support, 7 oppose, 1 Neutral => Not Featured--Shizhao 01:31, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Vasco da Gama Bridge 03.JPG, Not Featured[edit]

Self nomination --OsvaldoGago 20:14, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Get_It (Talk) 00:26, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Shizhao 01:55, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose LoopZilla 09:25, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Interesting angle. Thuresson 23:42, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Urban 05:03, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose leaning. Darkone 11:16, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too much cut off from the first pillar -- Godewind 14:20, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support looks fine to me — Pixel8 14:29, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Andreas Tille 15:11, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - agree with Godewind. Otherwise nice, though. - MPF 13:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Disagree with Godwind. Photo chosen among others with more pillar. --OsvaldoGago 22:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

6 Support, 5 Oppose => Not Featured--Shizhao 02:06, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Fishermen_-_Tamandaré_-_Brasil.jpg, featured[edit]

Nominate

—Cyc 16:40, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support —Cyc 16:40, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - MPF 13:36, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - MartinD 11:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but prefer the panorama-version -- Godewind 11:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support ack Godewind — Lycaon 17:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support panorama pfctdayelise 02:14, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support panorama version is much better, with just enough sky and more focus on landscape and the boat.(actually panorama is a kinda misnomer here, isn't it?) --Spundun 04:44, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support The panorama --Boris23 20:28, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Klemen Kocjancic 06:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- the panorama -- YolanC 13:49, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured —Cyc 14:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]