Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/January 2007
From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
This is an archive for Commons:Featured picture candidates page debates and voting.
The debates are closed and should not be edited.
[edit] Image:Bark nunniong.jpg, not featured
Info: Uploaded and nominated by Fir0002 (self nom)
Support --Fir0002 www 02:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Oppose no species info: there are at least 748 different species of Eucalyptus (see here at Wikispecies)!! Lycaon 07:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Though I understand that what matters here is the composition, not the illustration of the species. Alvesgaspar 08:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Neutral the idea of that composition is really good. But with especally this tree it doesnt work...the background is too disctracting.--AngMoKio 11:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)- Oppose beacuse of distracting background and landscape format. --MichaelMaggs 18:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose sorry but Commons is not just a gallery of art, so I agree withLycaon : no identification, no featuring ! Anyway I don't find the picture uncommon. B.navez 18:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --Ansett 06:10, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
result: 0 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. 7 day rule. Diligent 18:21, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Moscow villa02 oct 2006.jpg, not featured
- Info: Uploaded and nominated by Fir0002 (self nom)
- Support --Fir0002 www 22:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose - Nice picture, correct composition, no obvious flaws. But subject matter uninteresting. Alvesgaspar 23:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose agree with Alvesgaspar --AngMoKio 12:44, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --Ansett 06:10, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose The texture of the roof is unclear: Could be ice, could be the sun reflecting, could be a bad white balance. The sky is overexposed. --Martinroell 13:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose I have no qualms with this image, but per Alvesgaspar and the fact that the cabin has graffiti all over it. Arjun 21:29, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. 7 day rule. Diligent 18:26, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Lepomis megalotis.jpg, not featured
- Info: created,uploaded, and nominated by --Halved sandwich 21:08, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Halved sandwich 21:08, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose ??? Lycaon 00:04, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose weird -- Gorgo 19:00, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose - I don't think this picture will get much feedaback from users. The fish should be in its natural environment. Alvesgaspar 19:03, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --Ansett 06:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Lestat 11:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. 7 day rule. Diligent 18:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:InfraredBeetle.png, not featured
- Info: created by mehmetaergun - uploaded by mehmetaergun - nominated by mehmetaergun --Mehmetaergun 04:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Mehmetaergun 04:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- Neutral interesting technique but the shadow of photografer on the right spoil the image. Also the shadow of a fence (?) on the car disturbs. However i like the composition. --Jacopo86 11:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose What kind of relevance could this photo have? Spoiled by shadows too. -- AM 16:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose I don't see any relevance either. Why is a png file used? Alvesgaspar 17:13, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose shadow, composition -- Gorgo 19:05, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --Ansett 06:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Lestat 11:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose I strongly oppose as first 1. Why is the png file used? 2. Very blurry 3. Too much image noise 4. and per others. Arjun 21:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 7 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. 7 day rule. Diligent 18:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Piotr Szulkin.jpg - featured
- Info: Created by Rafał Guza - uploaded by Przykuta - nominated by odder 21:50, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
- Support —the preceding unsigned comment is by odder (talk • contribs) norro 22:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
- Heh, I didn't want to vote in this voting, but if I have to... :) -- odder 15:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- Neutral - If we go over all FP we will verify that there are very few portraits. In many Commons photos of people the human presence only serves to illustrate some activity or event (like in here) or it is just a part of the composition (like in here). In others, there is some kind of “exotism” or specific theme which deviates the attention from the person and, in some way, becomes the very subject of the photo (like in here, here and here). It is very difficult to evaluate the portrait of a living person when we don’t know him. Note that even the human expression may not be characteristic of that person. All we can do is to examine the technical quality of the picture. Alvesgaspar 12:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
- Support - Piotr Szulkin - Polish film director (during making his film Ubu Król) Przykuta 19:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose portraits need to be truly outstanding for FP, as per above. The black area to the right of the head is distracting and cluttery. Stephen.job 00:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
- Support / tsca @ 16:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- Support I like it because there is nothing 'special' about it. Authentic. -- AM 22:32, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- Support Ziga 22:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- Support--Albert 15:39, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --Ansett 06:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --Lycaon 11:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
6 support, 1 neutral, 3 oppose >> featured Alvesgaspar 21:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:ParusMajorA.jpg - not featured
- Info: created by, uploaded and nominated by Thermos --Thermos 13:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Thermos 13:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Very nice picture. But there is visible noise in some of the feathers. Maybe a corrected version can be uploaded. Alvesgaspar 15:57, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment Uploaded a new version (19:47, 17 December) with noise reduction and small adjustments. Please refresh to ensure that you view the latest file. --Thermos 19:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)- Support i like it a lot --AngMoKio 22:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I like it too, but there are still ugly artifacts in the feathers, quite visible in full resolution. The problem is we have now quite high standards in this domain, after the excellent photos of mdf. Alvesgaspar 11:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Agree with Alvesgaspar. --MichaelMaggs 17:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Agree with Alvesgaspar. --Digon3 19:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Agree with Alvesgaspar --Stephen.job 00:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --Ansett 06:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- Neutral A shame really as this is a nice shot and a beautiful bird. But per Alvesgaspar. Arjun 00:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
2 support, 1 neutral, 5 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 21:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Map of St Petersburg - not featured
- Info: created by C.M. Roth - uploaded by Balcer - nominated by Diligent. This 1734 map has difficulties being nominated and I find the 1776 map even more beautiful. Knowing Russia and her history, you have to love the reference to the exactness of the map, according to the archives of the Police... --Diligent 11:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Diligent 11:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
- Support This a gorgeous map! What is the "original" the title in the cartouche is referring to? Alvesgaspar 16:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
- probably, the original military map. One has to understand that maps had a high military value (acces to the city, location of arsenals, etc.) and their publication was, indeed, subject to approval. Better control the map and be the source (original) of what would be published than victim of an earnest and complete cartographer disclosing all details. Diligent
- Support Fine historic dokument. -- AM 22:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --Ansett 06:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- Support ack Alvegaspar Cary "Bastiq▼e" Bass demandez 15:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
4 support, 1 oppose > not featured Alvesgaspar 12:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Butterfly sucking a banana.JPG - not featured
- Info: created by Donar Reiskoffer Shot at the Butterfly Farm in La Guacima near Alajuela in Costa Rica. - uploaded by Donar Reiskoffer - nominated by Donar Reiskoffer --Donarreiskoffer 12:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
- Support I like this macro shot I took very much. I must however admit that it would be nice if the species could be identified. --Donarreiskoffer 12:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
- Support - Very illustrative picture, with an amazing technical quality. I don't care about the species id, someone will eventually get it. Alvesgaspar 18:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
- Support --MichaelMaggs 22:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose DOF,unclear, bad light.--SvonHalenbach 23:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose DOF, Composition -- Simonizer 10:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose DOF, composition, missing id Lycaon 13:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --Ansett 06:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Lestat 11:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
3 support, 5 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 12:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:ICE 3 Kalmykov D. 2006.JPG
- Info: created by ecomuseum - uploaded by ecomuseum - nominated by ecomuseum --Ecomuseum 15:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Ecomuseum 15:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- Contra Much too dark, could be anything. Strange composition, only small part of the object to be seen. -- AM 16:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Could be interesting if not so dark. This way it reminds me of Alien (no offense intended).Alvesgaspar 20:53, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Thank you for your imagenation!!! It because I made this picture - I did see Alien design in this train! And it is main reason why this picture so dark. It is not Alien train with usual light - it just boring usual train.Ecomuseum 14:24, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
- Neutral excellent. But it's a little bit noisy and has lots of jpeg artefacts. Can you upload a less compressed version? norro 14:24, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Thank you for your evaluation! Unfortunately I had too small memory card and it is original file. :-)
- Oppose agree with Alvesgaspar --AngMoKio 12:44, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose as per AM. --Doco 00:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --Ansett 06:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- why do you think that DeBarcader wasn't loged in? --Anna reg 14:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose agree with AM. --Martinroell 13:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
1 support, 6 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 7th day) Lycaon 00:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose I completely concur with AM. Arjun 21:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
- Support This is a fine image, looks like a scene from the future but yet it's a picture from the present. Underexposing the image allows the attention to be drawn to the train, and the surrounding lights create a very moody atmosphere. What I don't like (but I still vote for the image) is the quality of the image, which is very poor: very noisy and with lots of compression artefacts. Ecomuseum, try doing some more post-processing (some Photoshopping), you can definitely improove the image quality. --Andy 11:56, 01 January 2007 (UTC)
- Info: Here is a slightly edited version, which in my opinion improves the overall quality of the image. It's less noisy, and looks more futuristic. I've done an edge-preserving blur, and then several soft blurs for the lights to make them look anti-aliased (original image is very sharp). I know voting finished, but I like this image and I felt it deserved some post-processing. -- User:Atoma 12:28, 03 January 2007 (UTC)
- Support I love this picture!! I think it would be a great picture of the day. Also, I don't really see a difference between the 2 pictures... 12.227.160.225 14:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Kea.jpg - not featured
- Info: created by Dilaudid - uploaded by Dilaudid - nominated by B.navez --B.navez 15:00, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
- Support --B.navez 15:00, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Very noisy at full resolution. A downsampling might help but it's not certain. Alvesgaspar 18:57, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose the composition is nice but it is really too noisy --AngMoKio 19:12, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Uploaded a new version with some noise reduction (on the right) for the benefit of the nominator --Thermos 20:31, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Uploaded another downsampled version with noise reduction and a little higher brighness. Olegivvit 17:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
- I'm afraid this is not enough. The noise is still visible and some artifacts appeared. Alvesgaspar 20:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --Ansett 06:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Very, very noisy at the full resolution. Nice parrot but that is not enough. Arjun 00:41, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
1 support, 4 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 7th day) Alvesgaspar 21:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Menochilus sexmaculatus Lak-tiau phiau-thiong ti hoe lin.jpg - not featured
- Info: created by Albert - uploaded by Albert - nominated by Albert. The three ladybugs hid in a sunflower’s bud in a cold autumn’s morning. --Albert 03:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Albert 03:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose This is a nice picture and an uncommon shot. It's a pity that the quality of the photo doesn't match its interest. It is unsharp and the main subject is noisy at full resolution. Also, there is too much light, which makes the colours a bit washed out. Finally, I think the framing is too tight. Alvesgaspar 10:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --Ansett 06:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose This could be an interesting picture. It's unsharp though. --Martinroell 13:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for both your comments. The photo is not sharp enough, I think so, too.--Albert 01:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
1 support, 3 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 7th day) Alvesgaspar 15:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Jefferys - The Russian Discoveries.jpg - not featured
- Info: created by Thomas Jefferys - uploaded by Frank Schulenburg - nominated by Jon Harald Søby Jon Harald Søby 08:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- Support Jon Harald Søby 08:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- Neutral for now. Amazing detail and good rasterization (including a drop of champgne, or vodka, near the legend...). Also high historical interest, showing a time when Alaska was an unknown land. I have also noticed that the information about the map contains its dimensions, authorship and date, all important elements. But I'm not sure it should be featured, as an image. Alvesgaspar 14:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- Support Rather detailed historical work. Cary "Bastiq▼e" Bass demandez 15:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --Ansett 06:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Not interersting enough but good snap. Agree with Alvesgaspar.
- This entry was from user Jylesa. Alvesgaspar 23:10, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- Neutral you should try in quality images-LadyofHats 19:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
2 support, 2 neutral, 2 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 08:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Tranby house 49 gnangarra.jpg - not featured
- Info: created by Gnangarra - uploaded by Gnangarra - nominated by Gnangarra 13:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Gnangarra 13:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose No one seems interested in evaluating this photo, although it is a correct, good quality picture. But, IMO, also trivial and with little relevance. The lamp is not old enough, or beatiful enough, to be interesting. Alvesgaspar 20:59, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose boring composition norro 14:25, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
- Support I like it --Jeses 10:58, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --Ansett 06:10, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Lestat 11:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose bad light Metoc 20:27, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose same as above-LadyofHats 19:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
2 suport, 6 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 13:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Urocyon littoralis full figure.jpg - delisted
- Info: nominated for delisting by Alvesgaspar. Original nomination by Conti --Alvesgaspar. 18:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delist I don't like to propose images for delisting or to vote in this section because I think we should preserve the history of FP. But I believe this one was an obvious error of judjement. The image is small and unfocused, the composition is poor, there is even a rectangle within the photo, framing the fox, with different colouring! How was this possible: 10 support votes, 0 oppose ?...Alvesgaspar 18:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delist Very strange. Anyway, the quality falls far below what we should expect.--MichaelMaggs 18:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delist particularly because of the rectangle of edited colour balance - MPF 21:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delist aggree -- Gorgo 23:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delist obvious -- Lycaon 10:11, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delist aggree with Alvesgaspar -- Simonizer 08:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
0 keep, 6 delist >> delisted Alvesgaspar 08:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Panorama Frankfurt vom Maintower.jpg - not featured
- Info: created by Schlaengel - uploaded by Maros - nominated by Doco --Doco 00:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Doco 00:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Would be better if tower were not cut off. --MichaelMaggs 07:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose It is sharp, but it has other than the weather is boring, at least one flaw from stitching the pics together. That disqualifies it as a Featured Picture, because we believe here that a FP should just be the best pictures of all. --SvonHalenbach 15:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose cut tower B.navez 18:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
- Support / tsca @ 12:32, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
- Support Nice //moralist 12:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --Ansett 06:10, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- Support i like it -LadyofHats 19:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
4 support, 4 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 08:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:PondLilly.jpg - not featured
- Info: created by Darkwater - uploaded by Darkwater - nominated by Darkwater --Darkwater 12:10, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Darkwater 12:10, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Schönes Detail der Blüte, leider mit JPEG-Kompressionsartefakten. Das Gesamtbild der Pflanze wird nicht klar: Wie hoch sitzt die Blüte über dem Wasser? Wie lang ist der Stengel? Wie groß ist diese Blüte überhaupt? --Martinroell 13:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose This is a beatiful flower but there are a few issues which ruins the image as a FP: pixelated at full resolution, overexposed and inadequate crop. Might support if the nominator is able to address these problems with success. Alvesgaspar 13:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose no id. - Lycaon 18:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry but per Alvesgaspar, I would've rather seen the flower centered. Arjun 00:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
1 support, 4 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 7th day) Alvesgaspar 09:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Statueman.jpg - not featured
- Info: created by Darkwater - uploaded by Darkwater - nominated by Darkwater --Darkwater 12:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Darkwater 12:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose The situation is not clear to me. Lighting is not optimal - the person'S face is in the shade. --Martinroell 13:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Interesting subject, but more care could have been taken with the camera angle, to avoid the distracting background. The face is very dark, too. --MichaelMaggs 16:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
1 support, 2 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 7th day) Alvesgaspar 09:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Frauenkirche Munich - View from Peterskirche Tower.jpg not featured
- Info: created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Doco --Doco 17:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Doco 17:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose A nice snap, but not of FP quality. --MichaelMaggs 18:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
- Support very sharp and fine details, well chosen point of view (not easy to find a good one when you see the buil