Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/January 2008

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


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


Contents

Image:Hiroshige - Evening Shower at Atake and the Great Bridge.jpg, not featured[edit]

Hiroshige - Evening Shower at Atake and the Great Bridge.jpg

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Uploaded by Kuxu76 - nominated by Kuxu76 --Kuxu76 02:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Woodcut Evening Shower at Atake and the Great Bridge (1857) by Hiroshige (1797-1858), considered as one of the outstanding figures of Japanese woodblock printing. The drawing has some flaws, but is very well executed and I find it very expressive.
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Kuxu76 02:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I like the image, but resolution and sharpness are not good enough for me. --startaq 08:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Nuvola apps important yellow.svg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because too small Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

--MichaelMaggs 09:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It's a great painting but what or who are we featuring ? Ichiyusai Hiroshige, the painter ? Uoya Eikichi, the publisher? visipix.com, the website ? For me, it makes no sense featuring pictures just picked off. Though, I feel opposed to the other oppositions : 1) it is a wood painting so low resolution is due to the painting process and 2) why the hell 2 megapixels would be a fatal barrier ("should" is not "must")--B.navez 14:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I admit that the picture hasn't a very high resolution quality but it's a woodcut of 1857, not a modern picture made with the last digital camera with 10 megapixels. And of course, I propose to vote for the painting itself, not Hiroshige or the publisher or visipix.com (what interest?). But maybe Commons doesn't feature old paintings, but just actual and original works ? As I am a french-speaker, I hope you'll understand my poor english. Kuxu76 22:23, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Diagrama bicicleta.svg, delisted[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Per Featuring and delisting rules.4: Two virtually identical bikes (but for the colour) are now featured against agreement (quote:"Please start a new vote for the green bike. If that one get featured too, this one get delistet. ") (Original nomination). The other FP is at Image:Bicycle diagram-es.svg
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist -- Lycaon 23:04, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist --Simonizer 13:19, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist --Richard Bartz 11:49, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist -- Alvesgaspar 15:49, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist We should delist one of them. Might as well be this one. Ben Aveling 21:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist per nom. --MichaelMaggs 09:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 Result: 5 delist, 0 keep --> Delisted - Alvesgaspar 10:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Hypselodoris bullocki.JPG, not delisted[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Noisy, blurry image. The only bit in focus is part of the foreground. Obvious error of judgement. (Original nomination)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist --Lycaon 23:37, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist Agree --Richard Bartz 11:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment opposers should try to take this kind of photo. The glass at public aquariums has the material with the worst optics you will ever encounter. Glass isn't that smooth and cover with slimy thing inside, auto-focus would be off, severe chromatic aberration from glass and salt water. --Lerdsuwa 05:41, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
    • This is a fake argument. It is the result that counts, not the circumstances. If I take a picture of the moon with my 4 Mpx first generation digital camera, then I can't claim FP quality neither. Please be serious. Lycaon 20:14, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg KeepIt is a good underwater (not an aquarium) image of a small and very difficult subject, which IMO is in a perfect focus. It could be the only nudibranch image photographed in their natural habitat, which FP has.--Mbz1 15:51, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
    • It is not a good picture, it is not in focus and it is not a difficult object to take a picture of (it virtually doesn't move). Lycaon 20:14, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
      • Hi, Lycaon. May I please respond your remarks? IMO any subject, which was photographed under water is a difficult subject by the definition. An underwater subject does not have to be moving to make it difficult simply because the photographer and the water around him moves. Most of the time it is really hard to stay in one place wile under water and taking a picture. Nudibranchs are not so easy to find. Most of the time they are very, very small, which makes photography of them underwater macro. I've taken pictures of dozens of different nudibranchs myself and they never were an easy subject for me. Thank you.--Mbz1 21:03, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep per Mbz1 --Lerdsuwa 18:50, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep As the original nominator, I'm not even sure if my vote counts, but for what it's worth I'd vote to keep it. Mbz1 has already described the difficulty of shooting under water, so I won't repeat what Mbz1 says. As for underwater photos in general, I can add that for every decent photo, I would throw out ten. Of those decent photos, you get an occasional great photo. This is one of them. I agree that there are some minor flaws, but the composition in this case is what makes this a good picture, although nudibranches are not fast moving, they are small macro subjects as mentioned by Mbz1 and they are not often found in such a fantastic pose. What it comes down to is the wow factor, and for me it's an image that peaks interest in the subject. I know for a fact that this image has prompted at least one kid to find out more about these mysterious creatures, and that is what makes it special. As it says in the Featured Picture guidelines; "A bad picture of a very difficult subject is a better picture than a good picture of an ordinary subject. A good picture of a difficult subject is an extraordinary photograph." Despite some minor flaws, this is a good picture of a difficult subject. On a separate matter, I am curious as to what the rules are on delist nomination. This image was featured in January. It hasn't even been a year yet and it's already up for delisting. Technical advancement has hardly improved that much, so the nomination isn't based on the image being outdated, but an opinion that it was promoted in error. I don't think nominating a delist based on "error of judgement" is a good basis to delist. Cheers! --Jnpet 15:22, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I often took razorsharp pictures in a public aquarium, where sometimes the light situation was good enough. It's not possible to make pictures at any cost, so i agree with Lycaon on the circumstances. The result is what counts and here it's really not the best --Richard Bartz 16:56, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
    • There seems to be a perception that this image was taken at an aquarium. Allow me to correct this perception, this is taken under water at 25 meters depth wearing scuba gear and fighting water currents. At the same time, you need to be aware of the environment so you don't damage corals or accidentally put your knee on the spines of a scorpion fish. Keeping the camera still is not easy and then you have to consider that water filters out red and you frequently get images saturated blue. On top of this, noise from floating particles reflected by the flash ruins a number of shots. I think you need only look at all the featured pictures. I count only a total of six images that are under water pictures. Six out of hundreds of FP images in the animal category. I think that says it all. Cheers! --Jnpet 17:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
      • That doesn't say anything. We had a similar argument on South American noms not too long ago. It doesn't cut wood. Lycaon 02:54, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep; Commons:Image_guidelines allow us to make allowances for the importance of the subject and the difficulty of the shot. I echo the comment of two of the initial reviewers, "keep because it is so weird" (Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Hypselodoris bullocki.JPG). Note that the white band is intrinsically fuzzy; see Image:Hypselodoris bullocki 3.jpg for an image with sand grains and the white band. The former are much sharper than the latter. That said, I agree with those that argue that the image has technical flaws (subject motion and depth of field, I think); those do not outweigh its value, in my judgement. Walter Siegmund

(talk) 16:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Those are very poor arguments for quite a common nudibranch. And intrinsically fuzzy? You are pulling my leg aren't you? (See here and here for what the real fuss is all about). Lycaon 15:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
The color of the tentacles is different, so could be different species/subspecies. Also the sample web photo you gave is small. Try finding one with 2MP or more and see if the pattern is sharp or not. --Lerdsuwa 15:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep Basik07 23:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep, as per Walter's argument. Anrie 09:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist I appreciate the difficulties, but I'm afraid the resulting image is simply not in focus. --MichaelMaggs 09:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
result: 3 Delist, 5 Keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. --Simonizer 15:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC) (Other votes too late)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep The photo is not well focused but for me this is overcompensated by value and wow. -- Slaunger 10:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist quality is just not good enough, I am afraid. --- Anonymous DissidentTalk 12:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist per nom. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 14:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep --Wisnia6522 13:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Judas and money.jpg, not featured[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by --Tomascastelazo 00:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Although I took the photograph, the credit goes to Miguel Antonio Martinez Pocasangre, who spent 30 plus years on his back, on a scaffold in a very dark church in Atotonilco, Guanajuato, Mexico. Before you vote, please visit this site with very brief info so you can get a better picture of what this is about [[1]] --Tomascastelazo 00:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Missing signature, Oppose without a reason: Guess not valid. Acarpentier 13:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Infobox need to be filled (date is missing) --QWerk 16:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
CA problem highlighted
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Quite severe chromatic aberration. Should be easy to remove with a suitable software. --Lerdsuwa 16:45, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting question.svg Question For chromatic aberration I understand a color cast. Unfortunately I did not use a color chart (Macbeth) so it will be very hard to figure out the real color. The church is very dark and to the naked eye, it appears reddish anyway. What do you suggest? In any case, without the color chart reference it will be an interpretation anyway... I shot this in raw, so I can play with the color temperature. I will play with it, upload another version and ask for your opinion --Tomascastelazo 18:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Lerdsuwa, do you really mean chromatic aberration (CA) as a lens defect or colour cast as Tomas asks? If you really mean CA, could you give an example of where you see it? I fail to see noticeable CA in the photo. Tomas: If you click on the very general categories of Mexico and Religion in the image page I think you will find much more specific categories, which better match your photo. I suggest you only select the most specific categories to increase chances that other users can find your nice contributions in a valid context for Wikimedia projects. -- Slaunger 10:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
    I mean chromatic aberration, not color cast/white balance. See the photo on the right for example, from top-left crop. You can see there is a thin red line along the head of those people, quite thick at about 3-4 pixels. The same red lines are actually present in other area as well. It's still evident when view at 50% (about full screen width on my monitor). This can be corrected and I am happy to support the corrected version. --Lerdsuwa 15:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
    Thank you for the enlightening zoom on the upper left corner. Yes, that does appear to be CA, and there is similar traces of fringing in the lower right corner. However, it only seems to be visible in the corners of the photo, and personally, I do not find it distracting.-- Slaunger 19:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I opened the original RAW file and I see the same problem. I guess that lenses ain´t what them used to be! --Tomascastelazo 21:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Is it really chromatic aberrations, not just the drawing lines? --B.navez
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Who should be featured ? The painter or the photographer ? The painting is so so and the color-quality is really bad, forget about CA the color problem is a worse thing. When i visited the church a few years ago i memorized the colors more realistic and not with that unfortune orange look --Richard Bartz 19:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment In this case, the photographer is just a medium who may/may not do justice to the work at hand. As far as the color cast, neither mine nor yours can be said to reflect the correct cast. The only way to do it correctly wold be to use a Macbeth color chart and adjust colors accordingly. What I did was to shoot in RAW format and then I adjusted the white balance according to the type of light, so as to get a what I wished for "correct color rendering". I used a long exposure and small aperture to get a good DOF due to the fact, as you may recall, that the painting is in a dome ceiling, not a flat surface. Also, it is a very, very dark church, so even if the painter mixed his colors outside, their cast would be altered by the low light conditions inside, at least to the human eye. As far as the panting being so-so, well, it is not the vatican, and a comparison would be an unfair comparison considering the Rennaissance techniques, budgets, artists, etc., etc. Its value resides in other variables, such as the rendering of the characters, their clothing, the instruments (of the entire works) that the artist used. Remember that this is a representation of an event 17 centuries later, by a person who may not have travelled more than a 100 miles from his town in his life, etc., etc. What the painting does say to us, from the documentary point of view, is the type of clothing, weapons, instruments used in the 18th century, for the people and artifacts of his time were his models. More than the quality or mastery of technique, this is a document that has many messages. And true, photographically speaking I may have screwed it up, but look beyond the photograph. --Tomascastelazo 18:27, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 09:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Uria lomvia 2.jpg, not featured[edit]

A cliff

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Michael Haferkamp - uploaded by Michael Haferkamp - nominated by Sasumaro Yakanti --Sasumaro yakanti 12:26, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Sasumaro yakanti 12:26, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I'm sorry. The perspective is great but the picture lacks quality. Because there is no sun the picture is a bit to dark and the rocks look flat. It's a bit blurred, noisy and overly sharpened (cheap camera?). --TM 20:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question What country is the cliff in that picture? --I am V for Vendetta! 5:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
The country is Bjørnøya
The country is Norway. ;) --Aqwis 10:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Rabensteiner 02:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It is a nice scenary and a resonable composition, but the technical quality of this 2002 shot is well below current standards (very noisy and blurred). As an aside further value could be added to the image page by adding geodata. -- Slaunger 10:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Jon Harald Søby 00:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose nice picture but the quality is not excellent --Richard Bartz 19:30, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support unless it is easy to improve. -Susanlesch 10:29, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose noise, try fix it --Beyond silence 19:34, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Karelj 00:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Overcast days are more suitable for portraiture than landscape photography. Sometimes this kind of lighting can achieve a sense of mystery - such as when a fog envelops part of the seaside cliffs. Durova 22:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose too low quality --Chrumps 01:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 09:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC) (Last two votes after voting period)

Image:Lange-MigrantMother02.jpg, featured[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Dorothea Lange - uploaded by Dbenbenn - nominated by Durova. One of the iconic photographs of the Great Depression. Clear, high resolution file. --Durova 13:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Durova 13:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support great photo ..it might be a good idea to downscale the pic a bit though --AngMoKio 15:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment License unclear (Dorothea Lange died only in 1965)--B.navez 17:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
    • United States Federal Government commissioned works are public domain by default. Durova 21:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Karelj 17:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --[[Anonymous Dissident]] 21:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Jon Harald Søby 00:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support A great classic. --Tomascastelazo 04:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. Wow. --TM 08:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support...of course...this is a unique and rather famous image.--MONGO 08:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Supportgreat photo --Böhringer 09:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support of course! --Diligent 11:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Simply a classic. Arria Belli | parlami 17:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Simonizer 20:06, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Richard Bartz 20:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Petronas 19:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support One of the most powerful images of the 20th century Booksworm 10:36, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great photo--Lmbuga gl, pt, es: contacta comigo 12:15, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support superb. RlevseTalk 15:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - An excellent version of an iconic and historic image. Kakofonous 20:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --MichaelMaggs 18:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Lycaon 08:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support iconic work. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 14:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 09:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC) (Last two votes after voting period)

Image:Korea-Gyeongbokgung-Guard.ceremony-11.jpg, not featured[edit]

This image holds good features in artistic and informational aspects

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by ddolmang - uploaded by Applebee - nominated by Applebee --Applebee 15:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Applebee 15:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. All the people are looking in the wrong direction. --TM 08:00, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Lerdsuwa 16:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as TM --Karelj 17:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This picture is unbalanced in 2 many aspects --Richard Bartz 19:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support good --Beyond silence 19:36, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 10:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Elephant seal colony.jpg, not featured[edit]

Elephant seals

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Elephant seals (Mirounga angustirostris) on a beach near San Simeon, California, USA. April 21, 2007. Moulting season. Image created, uploaded and nominated by Filtv --Helen Filatova 16:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Helen Filatova 16:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - This would be more accurately described as an elephant seal harem--there's no apparent mating going on, and these seals are all female. (The males have huge noses.) Typically big males have a harem of females they tend to and impregnate, which is what I imagine is going on here. Calliopejen 17:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support they are so cute, but rectify : they are not mating, just moulting, loosing their fur in a collective mud bath. There is no sexual activity : it is not an orgy. These are only young ones. I am not completely sure but they look like being born in the year.--B.navez 17:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC) I just gave a look on the pictures of the same gallery : these are young seals born in the year, both sexes --B.navez 17:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment You are absolutely right. 'Moulting' much better describes the situation. Thank you for your comment! Helen Filatova 21:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Composition. --Karelj 18:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as above. I dislike the composition. Sorry. --[[Anonymous Dissident]] 21:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as above. --Rabensteiner 21:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Love it! --Tomascastelazo 04:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice. Slightly too high JPEG compression setting though (visible at 100%). --Lerdsuwa 15:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Wisnia6522 18:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Composition and colors look flat--Richard Bartz 19:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
    clearly, I prefer colors and crop of the picture above : less light effects but more precise and giving back real natural colors and fair pack feeling--B.navez 05:17, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
    surely a matter of taste ;) --Richard Bartz 11:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose crop feels a bit uneasy Tbc 01:53, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like it much --Simonizer 14:09, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose--Applebee 14:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Composition --Chrumps 01:22, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I can't tell if it's jpeg artefacts or oversharpening, but something's wrong when I look at this full res. BTW, I think the composition and crop are fine. Samsara 10:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
result: 6 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 10:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC) (Last two votes after voting period)

Image:SalersBreed YoungCow.JPG, not featured[edit]

Young cow of Salers breed

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by B.navez --B.navez 18:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --B.navez 18:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good picture but it looks like a milk ad. --Applebee 21:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Jon Harald Søby 00:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great photo. I love the head detail. The color almost reminds me of chromacolor. Nice scale relationship with other subects, interaction with environment. --Tomascastelazo 04:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Aqwis 12:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --QWerk 12:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Lerdsuwa 15:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose ??? Sorry, the quality is sowhat low, we have our cow benchmark by DSCHWEN --Richard Bartz 18:00, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Böhringer 19:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Richard Bartz (who forgot to sign again ;-) ). Poor quality, too tight crop. Lycaon 20:13, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- Quality at 100% is poor. —Pixel8 22:47, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose ack Richard. -- Laitche 11:15, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As above. --Karelj 00:00, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Anrie 09:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Wisnia6522 19:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Poor quality Alvesgaspar 21:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - per Richard Bartz. Cacophony 05:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - per Richard Bartz. --MichaelMaggs 09:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
result: 10 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 10:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC) (Last two votes after voting period)

Image:Ansel Adams - Farm workers and Mt. Williamson.jpg, featured[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Ansel Adams - uploaded by MarkSweep - nominated by Durova. Manzanar internment camp, central California, World War II. An encyclopedic subject recorded by one of the great photographers. Public domain as a federal U.S. Government commissioned work. --Durova 04:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Durova 04:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It is Ansel! For me, he is to photography what Michaelangelo is to sculpture. --Tomascastelazo 04:44, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support...unique image.--MONGO 08:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Lerdsuwa 15:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Karelj 17:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment see English wikipedia peer picture review. Muhammad Mahdi Karim 18:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Strange, isn't it? The rumor I'd heard was that Commons FPC is much harsher than English Wikipedia. The reverse appears to be true. Durova 19:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This is one of the more boring but famous pictures by mister Adams. Freeway Interchange is my fav. I downloaded the 20mb tiff scan and come to the conclusion that the restaurated edit presented here is not excellent in my eyes because of way 2 much contrast (the orig is grayscale not b/w) where the picture looses any gradients in the darker zones. So now it looks like a strange hybrid of a B/W and grayscale picture --Richard Bartz 20:20, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose May be valuable for its historical interest, but I'm no fan of mediocre quality BW pictures. Lycaon 08:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great DOF, historical value, aesthetically interesting -- Ianare 09:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose ack Richard. Dori - Talk 14:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
result: 5 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 10:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC) (Last three votes after voting period)

Image:Jewel House guard.JPG, not featured[edit]

Coldstream Guards sentry outside the Jewel House in the Tower of London

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by RedCoat - uploaded by RedCoat - nominated by RedCoat --RedCoat 11:09, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --RedCoat 11:09, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Neat image. Rocket000 14:09, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Composition doesnt cut it - it is 2 tight for me, but i know that the rails on the left side would disturb if you give more space ... hard descission for me --Richard Bartz 19:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I like the general composition, the verticals, but the crop is a little too tight. Moving the camera a little to the right so as to shorten the gap between guard and cannon would give the cannon a little room to the left. --Tomascastelazo 18:04, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Pudelek 19:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Composition and crop. Sorry. --MichaelMaggs 09:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral There's a featured picture in here (and perhaps two), but this shot doesn't nail either. Vintage cannons, painted bright green with the paint peeling - that could be good for a close-up. Likewise with the guard standing watch. Try returning and shooting earlier in the morning when the face won't be completely shadowed and the textures will be more visible on the cannons. Durova 22:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Composition --Chrumps 01:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as per Durova. There is great potential here, but it didn't quite get captured. Sorry, Ben Aveling 06:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 10:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC) (Last four votes after voting period)

Image:Kingfisher.jpg, not featured[edit]

white throated Kingfisher

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Possibly the best picture of a white throated/breasted Kingfisher (Halcyon smyrnensis)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Challiyan 16:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Possibly - if it would be more sharp and not so grainy/noisy and a nicer background would be great --Richard Bartz 19:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, unsharp, annoying background. --Aqwis 20:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support if this is a real animal. -Susanlesch 10:31, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose don't like background --B.navez 17:33, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose the cable, background, etc. --Tomascastelazo 18:00, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 14:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:San Francisco in ruin edit2.jpg, featured[edit]

Short description

This is Commons, not Wikipedia. --Aqwis 17:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes it is, «Thus it provides a central repository for freely licensed photographs, diagrams, animations, music, spoken text, video clips, and media of all sorts that are useful for any Wikimedia project.» (from «What is the Wikimedia Commons?» on Commons:Welcome)--B.navez 17:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose May be valuable for its historical interest, but I'm no fan of tilted BW pictures. Lycaon 08:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
result: 9 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Simonizer 15:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC) (other votes too late)


  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Illustrative of its subject definitely... it has a good historical value, too... - Noumenon talk 04:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Frosted rose 01.jpg, not featured[edit]

A frosted rose

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Kuebi - uploaded by Kuebi - nominated by Freestyle nl --Freestyle  nl (talk) 19:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Freestyle  nl (talk) 19:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice subject but dof is way to shallow for my taste .. not astonishing at f4,5 :) --Richard Bartz 18:16, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good picture, and I like the differences between the blurred background and the frosted flower. Nice job.--Alipho 18:39, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Noisy

Sorry, you should try Commons:Quality images candidates first! --Beyond silence 19:32, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

    • It's not my own work by the way. I just saw this picture and thought it'd be a nice candidate. I'm curious: there's no rule that candidates must pass the Commons:Quality images candidates before being nominated here is there? Freestyle  nl (talk) 20:21, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
      You are right. There is no rule that a photo needs to pass as a QI to be nominated here. However, if a photo cannot make it through QI, there normally has to be pretty strong mitigating reasons for it to be promoted in the end, such as, e.g., a unique historical event, or something very unique, which is hard to reproduce due to the circumstances. -- Slaunger 23:39, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not sharp, noisy. --Karelj 23:54, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Some noise in the BG and could use more DOF. -- Relic38 23:59, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support But it's noisy.--Pianist 05:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Pleasant combination of grey and red. --AKA MBG 18:00, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice picture but what is it for, as an encyclopedic illustration ? It does not look like a frozen rose but like a single flower put outside under the snow. Why is the background grey ? What does it mean ? --B.navez 06:15, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
    • AFAIK, the images in Wikimedia Commons are not solely for the purpose of encyclopedic illustrations. Furthermore you pose some interesting questions, yet I don't think you should try to search for too much deeper meanings in this image. It's just a frosted rose :-) Freestyle  nl (talk) 09:59, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
      • Sorry, I do not consider Commons as an art gallery (there are other websites for that) but as a ressources bank for associated encyclopedic projects. So if a picture is just nice but not usable because making no sense, it can't be featured. --B.navez 10:37, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose /Ö 17:12, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--WarX 07:37, 26 December 2007 (UTC) lookz great
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Good from far, but far from good. Lycaon 10:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Declaration: Quite interesting to find my picture here by chance. The picture wasn't made for any encyclopedic purpose. So far I don't see it. I made it for decoration and art and as a kind of Xmas-Greeting card, as you can see here. Btw. it's a real rose growing in my garden. No cut and freece! The ice is frozen fog. The background was already quite colorless, but I reduced it even more to get a better contrast between the red and the rest. And with ISO 800 I would expect noise — at least with a 20D. And believe me, if I would have the intention to nominate it here, it would be far better than this quick free snapshot. --Kuebi 15:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
result: 5 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 15:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Sa-warthog.jpg, featured[edit]

A warthog (Phacochoerus africanus) taking refuge from the hot sun

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info A warthog (Phacochoerus africanus) taking refuge from the hot sun. created by Sanjay Acharya - uploaded by Sanjay Acharya - nominated by Sanjay Acharya --Sanjay ach 21:20, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Sanjay ach 21:20, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Shame it is obviously in a zoo so no FP. Lycaon 21:38, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question I do not understand this. Why are non-zoo animal pictures a criteria for featured pictures and what does a zoo environment got to do with "not" being in a feature picture? Sanjay Acharya 22:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  • It's not a criteria, certain users feel that pictures of animals outside of their natural habitat have less value. Calibas 04:07, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Zoo pictures can be FP. But they tend to have less wow, so it can be an uphill battle. Regards, Ben Aveling 10:04, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I also never really understood that. If a picture of an animal in a zoo is good then I vote with support. Photos can also illustrate life of animals in a zoo. --AngMoKio 15:17, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I hope people here don't only count votes, but also make sure that irrelevant arguments are discarded. The place a picture is taken has nothing to do whatsoever with its quality. Jon Harald Søby 15:24, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
  • All arguments that concern the intrinsic value of a photograph are relevant. These arguments are amongst others, dependent on the nature of the image (e.g. historical, biological, astronomical, etc.). The place a picture is taken can have lots of relevance. This picture, e.g., is not advertised as an image of a bored, confined animal in a zoo, which as such paints a misleading picture. Lycaon 10:21, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, pin sharp, interesting. --Aqwis 17:04, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support If a animal isn't posing in front of a fence or unnatural objects i have no problem with pictures taken in a zoo or sanctuary. This is a remarkable good picture of a resting warthog, the comp is surely a matter of taste --Richard Bartz 18:10, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question Was this picture nominated @ FPC before ? It looks so familiar ... --Richard Bartz 18:43, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I had posted this picture as a candidate for Quality Images. May be you must have seen it there. Sanjay Acharya 21:18, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
    ...which can also easily be veried with What links here, no link to historic FPC logs. -- Slaunger 23:34, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I saw that .. but often there are many versions --Richard Bartz 11:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nothing in the picture speaks obvious zoo pic to me. Very sharp and captures the moment well. I would not exclude an excellent shot just because it is in a zoo. In can be challenging to get shots without zoo structures in them. -- Relic38 23:46, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Simonizer 13:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Jon Harald Søby 15:24, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral The quality is great. But i am not totally convinced by the compostition. --AngMoKio 17:33, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support showing distinctly details of the head and a natural behaviour of the animal, so zoo location doesn't mind for me --B.navez 06:34, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
    • This is not natural behaviour. This is typical zoo behaviour: being bored, not having to forage as food is given regularly. You won't readily see warthogs lulling in nature (and I have seen many of them all over southern Africa). This (and the pole) is what typifies it as an obvious zoo pic. I do like the details of the picture, so I gave it a QI stamp right away, but for FP it is too unnatural for me. Lycaon 20:30, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
      • Is natural/unnatural a criteria for FP? As i said above, an excellent photo can also illustrate zoo behaviour of animals. ...and as you say, this photo seems to illustrate exactly that behaviour. --AngMoKio 23:48, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
        • That is correct, if it is canvassed as such. Lycaon 10:21, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral quality is good, but for me the animal does not look interesting in this composition. /Ö 17:08, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 2 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 15:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC) (other votes too late)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The composition doesn't do it for me. Dori - Talk 00:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose composition is not that amazing -- Gorgo 18:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Sparrows in crabapple tree.jpg, not featured[edit]

Original nomination

Alternative

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Alternative - unsharpened version -- Carlos Ponte
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Carlos Ponte - uploaded by Carlos Ponte - nominated by Carlos Ponte --Calyponte 01:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Calyponte 01:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Can't see excellence on this although composition and colors are nice ... marry x-mas --Richard Bartz 11:52, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose ack Richard. Poor quality, nice composition. Lycaon 12:50, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice composition, good print of life--B.navez 13:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support alternative, but it appears to be slightly oversharpened - could you upload the unsharpened original, please? --Aqwis 14:06, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very vivid, but I don't think the composition is good. --Applebee 14:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info The one on the right is the unsharpened version -- Carlos Ponte 01:18, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Please open another section for the new version - Alvesgaspar 15:45, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Poor quality - Alvesgaspar 15:45, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Basik07 00:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Bad shot, composition and moving. Sorry --Beyond silence 03:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I see the artistic value of this image but the quality is not so good. -- Laitche 11:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 15:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC) (other vote too late)


  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good motion shot -- Ianare 03:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Misurina Lago .JPG, not featured[edit]

Misurina Lago.JPG

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Laziale93 - uploaded by Laziale93 - nominated by Laziale93 --Laziale93 09:58, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Laziale93 09:58, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Composition. Quality at 100% is poor --Lmbuga gl, pt, es: contacta comigo 12:40, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose composition. /Ö 16:57, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose La mitad izquierda de la foto es demasiado oscura y en la mitad derecha no hay nada lo suficientemente atractivo. Jorgebarrios 02:14, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose No outstanding composition / image quality. --Gepardenforellenfischer 10:56, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The composition is not to my taste apart from low image quality --Richard Bartz 16:43, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose agree with Richard. --AngMoKio 20:39, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Rabensteiner 13:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 15:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Bald Eagle, not featured[edit]

Bald Eagle.

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded, and nominated by V.J.Tornet Escudo de Carmona.png ¿Es conmigo? 20:21, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --V.J.Tornet Escudo de Carmona.png ¿Es conmigo? 20:21, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Trabajonacho 18:30, 26 December 2007 (UTC) Very good
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I dont know if the heavy ammount of grain/artefacts in 100% is to be due to the camera. The distorted background and the missing fine details on the animal doesnt look very nice, on the other hand a nice composition ... hard decission --Richard Bartz 16:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I could support this with a bit of noise reduction on the background, with maybe a tiny bit of sharpening first. -- Relic38 00:36, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose photo needs noise reduction, the very distracting background with artifacts should be blurred. Fabelfroh 09:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Agree with Fabelfroh. Lycaon 09:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as User:Fabelfroh, unfortunately. — Manecke 20:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I can see that we will eventually need to embargo noms of photos of certain subjects. Maybe this will encourage people to take pictures of subjects other than bald eagles when visiting the zoo. Samsara 10:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 15:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Juncus compressus, not featured[edit]

Juncus compressus

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info technically maybe one of the sharpest and best plant photos I did this (last) year. also a very good composition, still has a "wow"-effect on me. created, uploaded, and nominated by Fabelfroh 14:01, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Fabelfroh 14:01, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
  • For now, a bit more Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose then support. I like it but it's not excellent in my eyes. There could be more DOF on the buds on the back + the truncated stem is disturbing. Otherwise if taken with a smaller aperture the background wouldn't be that smooth. I have to let it sink 4 a while ;), position could be change --Richard Bartz 16:35, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - I don't like the framing (should be a portrait framing imo) and the cropped stem. Also, for a simple subject like this one the sharpness and detail should be better - Alvesgaspar 09:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I could say the same of your picture as above with the white flower: very interesting botanically (and so are many of your contributions), but insufficient quality for FP. Apart from being quite small, the framing doesn't work and as such the effective use of space for this rush is less than 1 Mpx. As a biologist I very much appreciate your contributions though. Lycaon 08:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Good subject, but framing and sharpness could be improved, as pointed out by previous commenters. Samsara 10:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 15:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC) (Rule of the 5th day)

Image:Dombeya pilosa flowers.JPG, not featured[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded & nominated by B.navez --B.navez 18:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --B.navez 18:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Botanically very interesting (so are a lot of your pictures, BTW), but insufficient quality for FP. Lighting is not good and contrast is lacking. Also you should always try to snap the best specimen, because here with the withered flowers, it reduces the value of the picture. Lycaon 08:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting question.svg Question Given that some flowers are not withered, does it reduce the botanical value of the shot that some flowers are? Regards, Ben Aveling 10:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
      • Lighting may be discussed. I admit it. But for withering, as you can see on this picture, petals usually remain attached to the fruit. The flowers of an inflorescence do not open exactly at the same time : when the last ones open, the first ones have already turned brown. So, I also defend this picture particularly for its "botanical honesty".--B.navez 14:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Too dark and not interesting --Applebee 14:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Optik --Richard Bartz 15:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - the first opposition said it well. --- Anonymous DissidentTalk 12:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too dark. Mønobi 23:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 15:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC) (Rule of the 5th day)

Image:Moka2.jpg, not featured[edit]

used italian moka express

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Used italian moka express. Created, uploaded and nominated by Imm808 17:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Imm808 17:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - The image is very noisy, and the chosen depth of field is so small that much of the subject is out of focus. Sorry. --MichaelMaggs 17:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - quality just not there. --- Anonymous DissidentTalk 19:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral the idea is excellent and we need more quality pictures of everyday life objects but this one is not faultless (Depth of Focus in particular). --Diligent 08:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I like the picture, and the idea, but it isn't quite featured quality (unfocused on the lower part on particular). Majorly (talk) 23:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I don't think the DOF is too bad, but it's just far too noisy. RedCoat 11:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Because this is a studio shot, the quality should be higher. To much parts of the object are out of focus. The lightning is not very good (dark foreground). --TM 12:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 2 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 15:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC) (Rule of the 5th day)

Image:HafenKleinkunst2.JPG, not featured[edit]

Street performers

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created - uploaded - nominated by Username --Böhringer 23:18, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Böhringer 23:18, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Too many disturbing elements (e.g. bicyclewheels and other cut-off objects) in the background / surroundings of the subject. Freestyle  nl (talk) 12:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Rabensteiner 13:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose annoying background --Lerdsuwa 14:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose too busy and is of low quality.}} --- Anonymous DissidentTalk 09:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I disagree with low quality --Richard Bartz 18:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like busy background and cut-off wheels or legs, making contrast with the human statue. Could you just remove details in the left down corner--B.navez 19:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Poorly framed and distracting background. RedCoat 11:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Bad light (wrong direction). Ugly background (cropped feet and bicycles). What are the children doing there? --TM 12:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 10:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Cicadalilies.JPG, not featured[edit]

Two periodical cicadas on daylily leaves, from the United States.

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Pessimist - uploaded by Pessimist - nominated by Pessimist --Pessimist 02:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Pessimist 02:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry. To much green stuff. Blurry beetle in the back. Bad focal point (the bright leaf on the bottom). --TM 11:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Bad composition, common image. --Karelj 19:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Nuvola apps important yellow.svg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because of bad composition; everyday image. Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

--- Anonymous DissidentTalk 13:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Strawberry Farms logo.JPG, not featured[edit]

Example of a neighborhood complex, showing the "Strawberry Farms" logo.

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by ReadTycoon - uploaded by ReadTycoon - nominated by ReadTycoon --ReadTycoon 14:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I'm the creator of this work. --ReadTycoon 14:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not featured picture quality. I don't like the composition or the way the subject is positioned. --Oldak Quill 17:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Composition, poor graphic elements, little value, ... not FP-material. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 14:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Nuvola apps important yellow.svg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because too busy, noisy, and low-quality. Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

--- Anonymous DissidentTalk 09:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Why??? --Karelj 19:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Locomotives-Roundhouse2.jpg, featured[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Jack Delano - uploaded by Davepape - artifact cleanup and nomination by Durova. Steam locomotives of the Chicago & Northwestern Railway in the roundhouse at the Chicago, Illinois rail yards, 1942. U.S. Government public domain. --Durova 06:19, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Durova 06:19, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The Picture. --AKA MBG 07:58, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Alvesgaspar 09:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --AngMoKio 11:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I can smell it --Richard Bartz 12:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Wow, 1942 picture! The quality of the picture is not outdated and is really incredible. --Applebee 12:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Rabensteiner 13:07, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great! -- MJJR 16:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Simonizer 18:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Böhringer 19:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --LucaG 22:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Brilliant. --- Anonymous DissidentTalk 09:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support superb RlevseTalk 15:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support very good --Karelj 18:28, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment to fit better with the collection of FP images, I suggest running this script on it. Consider how wrong it would be for one to stand out from among all of those others. -- carol 10:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support adding an author category for the picture, i noticed one of his got already featured Image:Chicago Union Station 1943.jpg - apparently the wikicommons community likes his mastery of light. --Diligent 12:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --MichaelMaggs 17:43, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Its a shame. After that this went into the other one the 'message' at the top of my web browser said that the fund raising donations were going to san francisco. What would be nice to see here is evidence that the people who are actually working on things and capable continue and the software or people who emulate software cease for a while just to see if there is anyone with actual flawed, easily hurt, and perhaps too put down emotions and intelligence who is still able to contribute here. In 1982, I was enrolled in a community college where there was a teacher who had this beautiful vision of what the connected computers could do in the future. The vision was about sharing, not about forcing either lifestyle choices or turning everyone into the same psychological profiler and keeping people from owning their own computer. Dislocating them without reason. Is there any real person who can demonstrate an understanding of that as well as the difference between grain and noise? -- carol 20:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 10:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Well-clothed baby.jpg, not featured[edit]

Happy baby

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Andrew Vargas - uploaded by Sandstein - nominated by Malene --Malene Thyssen 07:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Malene Thyssen 07:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - I can't resist babies - Alvesgaspar 09:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Jon Harald Søby 10:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral a very well composed and funny photo....unfortunately it got destroyed a bit by photoshop. Most of the face got softened by far too much...maybe to kill noise which is also visible on some parts. --AngMoKio 11:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - The picture holds too many things. --Applebee 12:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Ack AngMoKio .. focus --Richard Bartz 13:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Rabensteiner 13:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Lerdsuwa 14:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Cute! --LucaG 22:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - cute, maybe, not FP quality, certainly. --- Anonymous DissidentTalk 09:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Cute. But insufficient DOF for both baby and clothes. Sorry, Ben Aveling 13:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Common picture of nice looking child, nothing special. --Karelj 18:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Ack AngMoKio. --MichaelMaggs 17:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support well photod babe. --Beyond silence 03:20, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It's cute, but it's too busy and too zoomed in. It doesn't capture anything interesting. Mønobi 04:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
result: 6 support, 8 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 10:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Sfearthquake3b.jpg, featured[edit]

Sfearthquake3b.jpg

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info San Francisco Earthquake of 1906: Burning of San Francisco's Mission District. Photographer: Chadwick, H. D. (US Gov War Department. Office of the Chief Signal Officer.) Original upload Madmax32. Artefacts, scratches removed and cleanup by Durova. Joint nominated by Ben Aveling and Durova.
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Ben Aveling 09:48, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Co-nominating Symbol support vote.svg Support. Durova 09:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Horror and fascination ! --B.navez 13:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose May be valuable for its historical interest, but I'm no fan of mediocre quality BW pictures. Lycaon 14:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Very dramatic and great contrast in b/w tone. --Applebee 14:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tomascastelazo 22:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Dtarazona 03:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment needs flames. -- carol 10:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Incredible piece of history. Hustvedt 06:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment not used in WM projects Przykuta 12:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support image changed in article en:1906 San Francisco earthquake :) Przykuta 13:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Karelj 20:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Simonizer 10:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Flamingo at the Columbus Zoo.JPG, not featured[edit]

Image of a flamingo at the Columbus Zoo.

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by ReadTycoon - uploaded by ReadTycoon - nominated by ReadTycoon --ReadTycoon 23:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral as I am the author --ReadTycoon 23:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Feet cut off, background distracting/ugly. Have seen better, sorry -- Ianare 09:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Probably should have been portrait orientation because a view of the bird's feet is more informative than the concrete-bordered pool behind it. When I look at this I want to take three steps to the left and bend down on one knee to shoot from the bird's eye level. The next trip to the zoo may nail it. Try less depth of field. Durova 19:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose background not optimal (concrete) Tbc 19:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Durova. Mønobi 23:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose ...and more feet. Samsara 10:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
result: 0 support, 4 oppose, 2 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 10:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC) (Rule of the 5th day)

Image:Soldado Wikipedico.svg, not featured[edit]

Solado de Errores de Wikipedia

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Soldado que señala errores cometidos en Wikipedia created by The Photographer - uploaded by The Photographer - nominated by The Photographer --libertad0 ॐ 13:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --libertad0 ॐ 13:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Very nice. Freestyle  nl (talk) 14:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Not interesting enough or special enough to be featured. By the way, where are the legs and feet of the soldier? - Alvesgaspar 15:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - I like this Goofy very much but it's not excellent in my eyes --Richard Bartz 18:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Simpático, pero no tan bueno como para ser una imagen destacada. --Javier ME 22:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not featured quality. Majorly (talk) 23:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - like the concept though. ;) --- Anonymous DissidentTalk 12:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice drawing, but not that exceptional (and I don't like the concept of 'Wiki-soldiers' or of a militarized Wikipedia) --Tsui 22:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry but would oppose Wikipe-tan too. These type of illustrations aren't really FA material, but I do enjoy seeing them. Rocket000 06:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 21:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Hoverfly December 2007-8.jpg, featured[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info A small hoverfly (Episyrphus balteatus) seems to be lost in a violet sea of a Hebe x franciscana flower. In this picure the aesthetical aspects probably prevail over the encyclopaedic interest given by the fine detail of the fly. Created and nominated by Alvesgaspar --Alvesgaspar 23:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Alvesgaspar 23:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Purdy. Symbol support vote.svg Support Ben Aveling 09:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--B.navez 11:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support WOW, amazing colors! --LucaG 15:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - very nice. --- Anonymous DissidentTalk 19:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- MJJR 22:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Great work! Chmehl 09:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Böhringer 09:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Calibas 23:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Beautiful colours. -- Laitche 18:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Took my time about this one because the bee's wings seem to disappear into the bright background. But I suppose that's natural camouflage. Durova 22:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, it's lovely. Majorly (talk) 23:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice colours --Thermos 00:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Chrumps 01:13, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Due to DOF. Dori - Talk 00:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Jon Harald Søby 12:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Piling on. Samsara 10:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Not used in WM projects. I think about cropped version - to much background Przykuta 14:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Simonizer 16:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --MichaelMaggs 22:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
result: 18 support, 1 oppose, x neutral => featured. Simonizer 21:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Argynnis adippe 2 Richard Bartz.jpg[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created & nominated by --Richard Bartz 00:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Richard Bartz 00:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good work. Hint: Separate the antennae from the background a little more (brighten the background). At the moment the antennae looks a bit confusing when displaying in thumbnail size. --TM 11:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very beautiful, nice composition. Chmehl 16:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I dont like the background. Its distracting in my opinion --Simonizer 16:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--B.navez 19:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose No wow factor, e.g. nothing special. --Karelj 19:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Böhringer 20:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry but artificial background. -- Laitche 20:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I also dislike the background. /Daniel78 00:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice. Pengo 10:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, nice composition, colours. --Aqwis 12:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Richard - you are to blame for raising the bar this high with your previous images. --MichaelMaggs 22:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question Would you like to be judged the background as a painting? I mean that you intentionally made the background like as a painting. -- Laitche 07:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • This is a lens effect displaying a play of light on leaves in a forrest glade which you can see here, too. Through color/contrast tweaking you can strengthen this effect which causes interesting and sometimes abstract results. Shurely a matter of taste because its experimental--Richard Bartz 09:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I see. Thanks. I like the background's lens effect which looks like impressionist painting like this one :) -- Laitche 10:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • It's fun to play with this :) --Richard Bartz 11:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination I will nominate a upright format (taxo picture) which should be more capable --Richard Bartz 09:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Small White November 2007.jpg[edit]

Pieris rapae

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by Laitche -- Laitche 11:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Laitche 11:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Excellent detail on the insect but background is too noisy and overexposed flower spoils the composition - Alvesgaspar 12:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination Thanks -- Laitche 05:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Pale Grass Blue October 2007.jpg[edit]

Pseudozizeeria maha

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by Laitche -- Laitche 11:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Laitche 11:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination Thanks -- Laitche 05:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:MC Timberwolf.jpg, featured[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Portrait of a Timberwolf; created, uploaded, and nominated by Chmehl --Chmehl 09:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Chmehl 09:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Bit outta focus.. but only a tiny bit.. but it has a huuuge wow factor. Yzmo 12:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral - nice, but seems slightly crooked in the shot... --- Anonymous DissidentTalk 15:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting info.svg Info The wolf was standing on a slope. Chmehl 15:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Jon Harald Søby 18:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment This is a clear example of an animal, although confined in a zoo, depicted in a simulated natural environment and without disturbing unnatural behaviour nor unnatural elements. Lycaon 18:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per Lycaon's. Informative picture. --Javier ME 22:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per myself ;-). Lycaon 22:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice! Calibas 23:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per Lycaon. --MichaelMaggs 09:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per Lycaon. -- Laitche 18:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Orientation is not a problem. The wolf's posture demonstrates that this is sloping ground. Durova 21:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral per Anonymous Dissident. I like it, but I don't think it's featured quality. Majorly (talk) 23:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Definitely has a "wow factor"... lovely composition, too. - Noumenon talk 04:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Wow, how did the photographer capture this nice creature in the frame? --Applebee 17:16, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Really nice. --LucaG 20:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Aaaaaaaaaaaauaoooow --Richard Bartz 21:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Just piling on. Samsara 10:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support RedCoat 11:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support very good illustration of Eastern Timber Wolf's head, but we need the rest of wolf body to use in infobox :) Przykuta 13:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Simonizer 16:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Maire 21:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 2 neutral => featured. Simonizer 20:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:U20-WorldCup2007-Okotie-Onka.JPG, featured[edit]

Goalkeeper makes a save

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created and uploaded by Nick Wiebe - nominated by Foxhill --Foxhill 17:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Image is now featured on the English Wikipedia. Foxhill 19:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Foxhill 17:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Recognisable faces in a good action shoot. --Javier ME 21:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great action shot. Cacophony 22:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support One of, if not the best, sports shot I've seen here. Calibas 23:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Convincing --norro 00:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --startaq 09:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Maybe someone could remove the obvious white marks, centre right. --MichaelMaggs 09:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
This is grass and not white marks --startaq 10:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Doesn't look like grass to me. It isn't on the ground, but it can easily be removed. Majorly (talk) 23:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
It's grass that's been kicked up from his studs as he dived, have a look around his feet at hi-res. Foxhill 00:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
OK, grass it is. Then I'll Symbol support vote.svg Support. --MichaelMaggs 07:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • BTW, did he make the goal? I'll Symbol support vote.svg Support after the confirmation ;-) -- Alvesgaspar 22:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Nope, it wasn't a goal - The keeper got a hold of it in the end. If I remember rightly, it was in the dying minutes of a 1-1 game, so it would have been a key goal, had it actually been a goal. Nwiebe 20:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Pretty good shot... nice capture of the "feeling". - Noumenon talk 04:18, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Richard Bartz 21:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like it, and I do not care for football at all. It captures a moment of action very well. --Tsui 22:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, for I don't like the tight composition. Thierry Caro 15:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose too tight crop. Lycaon 15:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
result: 11 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 21:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:St Jude Medical pacemaker in hand.jpg, not featured[edit]

An artificial pacemaker with electrode shown in my hand to get an idea of size.

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by Steven Fruitsmaak 14:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info during the COM:QIC process there was a remark about the top of the middle finger that's missing, but I intended it in that way, although I can see why some people oppose to it. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 14:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 14:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I don't see any reason to cut off piece of the middle finger. --che 18:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose quite ordinary -- Gorgo 19:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Hopefully this pacemaker is not yours ;-) --Richard Bartz 00:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
No, it wasn't. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 13:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - nothing. It's just not eye-catching. --- Anonymous DissidentTalk 09:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Why is it placed on a hand and not on a chest where it belongs to? Why is there gras in the background? --TM 11:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
That's a good suggestion actually, I'll consider creating one where I put it on my chest.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 13:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
A neutral background would be even better. --AM 15:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
See Image:St Jude Medical pacemaker with ruler.jpg. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 22:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, harsh shadows, not excellent. Maybe try a dark background? --TM 18:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I thought that a sleeve is the traditional background for this sort of mechanical device. -- carol 11:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 21:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC) (Rule of the 5th day)

Image:Pseudorasbora parva(edited version).jpg[edit]

Laitche's edit, featured[edit]

Pseudorasbora parva

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Seotaro, nominated by -- Laitche 17:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Laitche 17:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I love it. Not often are there good images of fish, and this is a particularly nice one. Majorly (talk) 23:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Dtarazona 23:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I don't like the blotchy background (which makes it look painted), and there is apparently a whole editing story preceding this nom, possibly including an almost 200% upscaling. Lycaon 00:12, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  • The author insists that the resolution of this image is not expanded. I want to believe him. -- Laitche 05:52, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I'd want to believe that too, but the upload history and quality stages of that image, IMO tell a different story... And yet I can be mistaken... But for sure you could've done a better job on the background ;-). Lycaon 06:18, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks Lycaon :) -- Laitche 07:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Looks as if the resolution was genuine, but the editing was a bit, let's call it unfortunate. I did a new edit from the original. It can be found after this nomination. The potential was there. Lycaon 19:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Thermos 00:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I would be disappointed to see this as a POTD. -- carol 01:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info I fixed a few unnatural background parts and uploaded new version. -- Laitche 07:05, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Lerdsuwa 10:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- sorry, I don't see any special feature in the picture. --Applebee 17:18, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Aqwis 17:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Exceptional quality for being taken in an aquarium - Ianare 09:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Jon Harald Søby 12:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support maybe a bit oversharpened Tbc 19:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Slaunger 21:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - After much hesitation. But the gorgeous silvery tones make it - Alvesgaspar 21:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice but not excellent --Richard Bartz 22:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Perfect--B.navez 02:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support More power to plain-looking fish. No systemic bias please! Samsara 10:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good enough. It looks better at full size. RedCoat 11:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support good and very good as illustration in WM projetcs -> fr:Pseudorasbora parva, background could be better, but this picture is F to me. Przykuta 13:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose distracting blotches at close-up. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 14:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Do you mean close-up about background? -- Laitche 17:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great sharpness, no cause for oppose. --Beyond silence 23:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Please upload/reveal EXIF data to rule out upscaling suspicions. Lycaon 13:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Good image, but nothing special. --Karelj 19:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
result: 16 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 21:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Lycaon's edit[edit]

Pseudorasbora parva

  • Pictogram voting info.svg InfoNon-blotchy edit, created by Seotaro, edited and nominated by -- Lycaon 13:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Lycaon 13:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nominationLycaon 21:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:First United Methodist Church in Huntington WV.jpg[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created and uploaded by JaGa - nominated by Lycaon 22:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Hoe een dubbeltje rollen kan ;-) Lycaon 22:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Impressive picture, looks like a render. --LucaG 23:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Quite far from reality. Can't bring myself to oppose because of obvious effort involved and technical quality. --che 02:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Urban 06:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very nice. --Thermos 09:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Looks like a render because it is oversharpend --Simonizer 10:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question Is this an HDR image? It is lacking contrast and the leaves look very strange. Chmehl 11:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, very nice HDR effect. --Aqwis 12:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The building is glowing, way oversharpened, HDR effect detracts from image. Dori - Talk 17:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Oversharpened and unnatural-looking. Sorry. --MichaelMaggs 22:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Böhringer 22:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Oonagh 08:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Karelj 12:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support RedCoat 14:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Top quality. -- MJJR 20:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support @ 100% it looks very nice, enjoying every single detail --Richard Bartz 21:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Beyond silence 21:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Simonizer. Cacophony 04:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Despite the unnatural look. Photography can also be an interpretation of reality rather than only a faithful representation of it -- Alvesgaspar 09:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral somehow those exagerated hdr images don't give me anything...although they are a big hype these days. I also think that the building is partly glowing. Still very high quality. --AngMoKio 21:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Wisnia6522 12:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination Lycaon 21:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Meatmarket.jpg, not featured[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by --Tomascastelazo 22:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportMeatmarket at Tenancingo, Estado de Mexico, Mexico. --Tomascastelazo 22:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Pictogram voting question.svg Question I see sausages, pig heads and ribs; is the stuff on the table intended for pozole, menudo or other? -- carol 07:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Carol, most likely pozole. Menudo uses pork parts, but mainly cow insides. Pozole uses pork meat cuts and pork heads... either way, it is all good! --Tomascastelazo 01:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Poor composition and crop, awkward lighting and no "wow" factor. RedCoat 14:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 21:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC) (Rule of the 5th day)

Image:Twenty pounds sterling banknote holograms.jpg[edit]

300px|he latest UK 20 pound note includes some fun holograms. 20 GBP is the equivalent of about 2 million dollars

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info uploaded by Arria Belli - nominated by Vini175 --Vini175 20:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Vini175 20:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Thanks, Vini175! Did you read my mind? ^^ I had thought of proposing this photo for FP, but decided against it because I wasn't sure it would pass (I thought too many people would not like the depth of field). Happy editing, Arria Belli | parlami 21:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg InfoI'm sorry because this is such a nice picture, but I have to delete it as it's a criminal offence under s18(1) of the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981 "to reproduce on any substance whatsoever, and whether or not on the correct scale, any British currency note or any part of a British currency note." --MichaelMaggs 21:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Ahhh, I didn't know! I will write to the Flickr uploader, then. Do you have any links I can use to send to him? Arria Belli | parlami 21:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
[[2]]. --MichaelMaggs 21:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
The Flickr user has since been notified of the criminal offence. Arria Belli | parlami 21:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I didn't know all! But the image is good. Vini175 22:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting info.svg InfoHang on. Why are you quoting a UK law, when the Wikimedia Foundation operates under the laws of Florida? The only people who could be affected by the 1981 act are uploaders located in the UK, but even so it is arguable whether or not reproducing images in light on a screen is a "substance" within the meaning of the Act anyway, as that implies a tangible form. -- Arwel 22:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Interesting point. "Choose your weapon?" -- carol 12:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
It was also a copyright infringement. --MichaelMaggs 23:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I had uploaded two Flickr images of British banknotes. Since I notified both Flickr users of the criminal offence I think one of them has deleted their £ image from their photostream (I cannot see my comment anymore in my comment log, so I assume that's what happened). Arria Belli | parlami 13:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Antidorcas marsupialis 1.jpg[edit]

Sprinkbok

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Springbok (Antidorcas marsupialis) in Etosha, Namibia, created, uploaded and nominated by Lycaon 17:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Lycaon 17:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Reasons: 1. Body position: the animal seems to be walking away. 2. Camera angle: shooting from an up to down position makes the contour of the body (top) blend in with background. A larger aperture would have separated the body from the background. 3. Light direction: it feels as if the light is pushing the animal away and it creates disturbing shadows. 4. As in people, vision is drawn to the face, and in this case, it is difficult to see the face. 5. My memory reference for this type of animal is that they are agile and alert and dynamic, a sensation that I do not get here. --Tomascastelazo 20:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nominationLycaon 21:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Fenton13ltdragoons.jpg, not featured[edit]

Light Dragoons Crimea

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info uploaded by Old Moonraker - nominated by Old Moonraker --Old Moonraker 16:10, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This early example of the war photograph is frequently reproduced, but at a resolution which does not permit the faces of the subjects to be seen clearly. In this high-resolution version the facial expressions can be seen and they offer a valuable new insight into the photographer's work and the characters of the soldiers, veterans of the Charge of the Light Brigade and a winter of service in a punishing climate. --Old Moonraker 16:10, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment bad source given. Lycaon 17:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Please explain "bad source" and I will try to correct it. --Old Moonraker 17:12, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done External link now fixed—thanks for pointing this out. --Old Moonraker 17:22, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
    • still not working ;-( Lycaon 23:27, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Must be a session time-out or something. Now linked through the {{LOC-image}} tag.--Old Moonraker 06:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question Would you like me to try some cropping and cleanup? Durova 00:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
    • No, thanks. This is an historic photograph, like a "Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima" of its day, and IMO deserves to be seen in its original state. I submitted it in response to a comment here that specifically discussed the unimproved version.--Old Moonraker 06:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --MichaelMaggs 07:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Jon Harald Søby 12:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I don't see why this picture should be featured, quality and compisition are really bad and I don't see that much historical value (some random officiers of the Crimean War). While the age might be a mitigating reason for the bad quality that's not an excuse for the bad composition and the lack of "wow". -- Gorgo 18:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not only the quality of the photograph is bad, even the scan was not properly done: it's tilted. Lycaon 00:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
    • This is one aspect of the "historic" quality that could be repaired, although the original print itself is far from square. it's a rostrum photograph, rather than a scan, BTW. --Old Moonraker 06:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support As for the quality, yes it is abysmal. However, considering that the image illustrates veterans of the en: Charge of the Light Brigade and it is a photograph, I think it merits support due to historical value. --Thermos 05:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Here we go again... To keep on judging photographs based solely on the "wow" factor, which is totally subjective and to expect photographs to conform to the quality of the latest technology does a disservice to the discipline of photography itself and to the larger scope of Wikipedia. The technology of photography has evolved and while we may get better rendition of subjects, color, resolution, etc., etc., it does not necessarily mean that we end up with "better" photography. On the contrary, I think that we get more "bad" photography as a result of technology, judging from a wide perpective on photography appreciation. In this particular case, yes, compared to today´s standards the image, as a rendition of subjects and technical quality, is lacking if we compare to what is obtainable with today´s photography. But that is not the case. The point is that the Crimean War was probably the first war covered photographically, and there were political considerations while doing so (read about it). Technically speaking, it is almost a miracle to even have these images, as the photographic process was extremely difficult. Therefore, the value of this photograph, and the reason it should be featured, is because of its inmense historical value. This photograph (and the series of the Crimean war) should be looked upon as a window into the past. This is the only visual record that we have of that conflict. It is an honest record, not an idealized rendition given by paintings of previous wars. Please visit this site so you get an idea of what Roger fenton and the Crimean War was all about #REDIRECT[[3]]The fact that one ignores the historical value of a photograph is no reason to deprive the larger scope of Wikipedia of building a knowledge base, and featuring images is a vehicle consisntent with the encyclopedic effort. We must learn to look beyond the paper (or screen) where the image appears, the paper is nothing but a window. So the glass is dirty, so what? It is the landscape that lies beyond that matters. I can imagine knocking down the Mona Lisa beacuse the paint is cracking! --Tomascastelazo 23:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Mortar batteries in front of Picquet house Light Division, Crimean War.
After 20 minutes of retouching the sky only. At 300x magnification the streak in the center appears to be genuine artillery fire.
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Tough choice. With due respect for Tomascastelazo's eloquent opinion, the Library of Congress website hosts 264 Roger Fenton photographs of the Crimean War. I've uploaded one of them for comparison. Compositionally it's superior, and the team in the foreground is actively loading a cannon. At 300x magnification a particular streak in the sky appears to be genuine artillery fire. This is genuine battle photography, perhaps the earliest ever done. Whether you prefer the edited version or the original, this appears to be a superior shot. It isn't necessarily the best of Fenton's work; so far I've viewed 20% of that archive. Yet if we want to feature a Roger Fenton photo from this war I think it's important to select the best available. Durova 05:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
    • As the nominator I appreciate that you have provided reasoned comment to explain your "oppose" vote. May I just draw to your attention my first point about the facial expressions of the people portrayed? This is where I believe the image excels, and this is absent from the admittedly better-composed artillery picture. --Old Moonraker 13:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
      • I agree that's a good element. Fenton also shot a lot of portraits and small groups where the faces are easier to see and quite a few of those were of members of the divisions that took part in the charge of the light brigade. This nomination is part landscape, part people. I'd love to see some Fenton work get featured; we can do better than this particular example. Durova 20:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
        • This is only picture of Fenton's that I have seen at high resolution and I was so impressed by the faces that I made the nomination. All his pictures in Library of Congress are available at this resolution so if there's a better one that similarly shows faces in detail that should certainly be a featured image candidate if this one fails. --Old Moonraker 21:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Old Moonraker 07:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Firecracker exploding.jpg, not featured[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by ABF 16:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral as I am the author --__ ABF __ ϑ 16:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support bright and spectacular. - Anonymous DissidentTalk 16:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support 25% of the picture is burnt out - just kidding. I like it. Ben Aveling 06:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - A nice catch but that is not enough for FP - Alvesgaspar 10:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Ben Aveling (no kidding) and Alvesgaspar. Lycaon 00:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The center is all white. Try to combine this with a shot before the explosion (HDRI). --TM 12:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose In my opinion, this is just how this looks. An HDR of this might simply look unnatural. However, the image is also very grainy, the depth-of-field is too low, and the composition is off. It was a well-timed shot though. --IG-64 08:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 20:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Anolis sagrei climb.jpg, not featured[edit]

Macro shot of a brown anole (Anolis sagrei)

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Macro shot of a brown anole (Anolis sagrei). Created, uploaded, and nominated by Ianaré Sévi
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Ianare 09:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice use of depth of field. Durova 19:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Nice nature shot but not good enough to reach FP status. There is considerable noise in the background, the whole animal is not shown and the image could be crisper - Alvesgaspar 20:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support At full resolution it's not really crisp indeed, but in general - subject, light, colors... - it's FP worthy IMHO. -- MJJR 21:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Composition and lighting --Richard Bartz 22:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Never mind cowbells - what we need is more tail. Samsara 10:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as per above. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 14:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose dof-

Sorry, you should try Commons:Quality images candidates first! --Beyond silence 23:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral DOF is fine for a macro shot in my opinion. Lighting is a bit unfavorabel. Chmehl 16:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 20:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Latin cross22.JPG, not featured[edit]

Latin cross

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded, and nominated by HonzaXJ --HonzaXJ 15:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --HonzaXJ 15:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Nice foto in Gothic style. --Umnik 19:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Poor quality: noise and blotches in the sky. I don't like the angle either. - Alvesgaspar 20:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question I think it is a good and interesting photo, but I do not understand at first sight what makes the photo exceptionally valuable. Could you perhaps enlighten me concerning this issue, HonzaXJ? -- Slaunger 21:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Composition - it is only a part of latin cross Przykuta 13:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose No exceptional composition and subject. --Tsui 22:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Might be more suitable for QI? Durova 03:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The stuff in the foreground is strange. What are the shadows on the right and bottom of the cross? What's the meaning of the gulls sitting there? --TM 11:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Strong. --Karelj 19:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very good. Impression of Apocalypse. What impress me: the black cross and the figure (head and shoulders) with cowl, stripe of black smoke and a thin white line (inversion trace of plane) as a hope. --AKA MBG 16:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 20:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:MC Rotfeuerfisch.jpg, featured[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Chmehl - uploaded by Chmehl - nominated by --Richard Bartz 22:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Super --Richard Bartz 22:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Ianare 23:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, although the background is slightly distracting. Mønobi 23:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Agree with Monobi. Durova 23:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose overexposed white parts, chromatic aberrations, lack of focus, don't let abuse by the beauty of the species--B.navez 02:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • sorry, can't find significant OE and CA --Richard Bartz 04:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I have found some of them here MC Rotfeuerfisch flaws.jpg--B.navez 18:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Very nice illustration and thank you for taking the time. --Richard Bartz 19:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Thermos 05:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Nice but not excellent. The root of the pectoral fin and the point of the fat fin and the anal fin and the caudal fin are out of focus but I Symbol support vote.svg Support this image :) -- Laitche 06:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support More interesting than previous FPs of same subject. Samsara 10:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great use of colour, contrast, composition etc. RedCoat 11:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support very good illustration -> it:Pterois antennata Przykuta 13:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support good capture, nice photo. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 14:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support top --Böhringer 15:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Beautiful! --LucaG 21:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Muy bonito, con todo el fondo en negro sería una joya --Dtarazona 02:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Lerdsuwa 07:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, the issues B.navez found are extremely minor. --Aqwis 17:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --MichaelMaggs 20:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Great work -- Alvesgaspar 20:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Really nice, fishes are so hard to get good images of. /Daniel78 00:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Lycaon 08:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Basik07 19:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Uwe Gille 13:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Jon Harald Søby 14:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
result: 21 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 20:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Narva jõgi 1999.jpg, not featured[edit]

Border river

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by LHOON - uploaded by Raul6 - nominated by Raul6 --Raul6 08:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Raul6 08:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Fine composition but poor photographic quality: lack of detail, artifacts - Alvesgaspar 07:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose idem Florent Pécassou 21:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As above. --Karelj 14:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 20:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC) (Rule of the 5th day)

Image:Hieracium 2008-1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Two wild Hawkweed flowers (Hieracium muororum). This is an improved version of a picture already nominated for FPC (here), which failed for lack of interest. I like the composition very much and believe it deserves a new oportunity. Created and nominated by Alvesgaspar --Alvesgaspar 12:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Alvesgaspar 12:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--B.navez 19:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Two flowers and...? --Karelj 20:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
    • ... beauty ! -- Alvesgaspar 20:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice composition, contrast and colours IMO. RedCoat 14:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- MJJR 20:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very beautiful, I like it a lot --Dtarazona 14:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This picture express nothing. --Daniel Baránek 19:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose sharpness low. --Beyond silence 21:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose cute composition but colours and light look dreary --Simonizer 22:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Basik07 19:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose On many leaves there is no fine structure (washed out) + sharpness is so so, background/temper is a bit 2 sober for my taste --Richard Bartz 12:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
result: 6 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 14:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC) (Last vote doesnt count anymore)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose unsharpness. -- Ram-Man 02:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:POL COA Trzaska.svg, featured[edit]

Coat of Arms Trzaska of Polish noble families

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Coat of Arms Trzaska of Polish noble families. Created by Bastianow and WarX - uploaded by WarX - nominated by Przykuta 12:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Przykuta 12:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Dobrze wykonany herb. Skąd była ta rodzina (z jakiego rejonu)? Freedom to share 18:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
    • English Well-done coat of arms. Which region was the family from?
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Simonizer 19:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good graphic design, both in the original and the reproduction. A fuller description would be helpful. Durova 19:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment on en.wiki there is different blasoning of this coat then on pl.wiki. This one is based on pl.wiki version. Difference is that in English both swords should point blades downwards. --WarX 21:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Szczepan talk 11:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support A whole lot of details, this one seems to have taken a fair bit of effort to make. Wpedzich 11:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Ala z talk 11:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol strong support vote.svg Strong support odder 12:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very well done. RedCoat 14:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nothing special, classical mismatch of 2D and 3D elements. Typical Polish sponsored support. Lycaon 18:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Agree with Lycaon - Alvesgaspar 09:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support albeit I'm not Polish ;-D Ayack 16:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Maire 21:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC) Well drawn.
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose no "vow"-factor for me. --Raul6 22:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Basik07 19:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Inconsistent styling. "Wow" factor has almost reduced to zero for CoA illustrations since many can be created largely by piecing together parts from all the other heraldry SVGs. Rocket000 17:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
result: 12 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 14:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC) (Last vote doesnt count anymore)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as per opposers. -- Ram-Man 02:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Beheadingchina1.jpg[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Japanese executioner prepares to behead a condemned Chinese man kneeling before his own grave, Tientsin China. (probably during the Boxer Rebellion). A dramatic moment even after 107 years. What really makes this work for me is the fellow at right leaning to get a better view. Good historic photographs on non-Western subjects are rare at Commons. I hope those factors outweigh the soft focus. Created by Underwood & Underwood, 1901 - original Image:Beheadingchina.jpg uploaded by Madmax32 - cropped, cleaned up artifacts, adjusted histogram, sharpened, and nominated by Username --Durova 20:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Durova 20:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Nuvola apps important yellow.svg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because too small Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

Lycaon 22:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


Withdrawn: [4]. ZooFari 02:41, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Image:Shrub Branch-Ice Storm-Dec 2007-St Jo MO.jpg, not featured[edit]

Ice formation on Shrub

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Dajohnson6000 - uploaded by Dajohnson6000 - nominated by Dajohnson6000 --Dajohnson6000 05:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Dajohnson6000 05:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Aqwis 12:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Good job. Durova 20:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Wisnia6522 21:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Low quality. --Karelj 12:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I wish the dof was wider, but excellent photo. I love the way the details are captured. This photo truly shows the fierce nature of such ice storms. I wish that I could see one of those in Poland or Britain. Freedom to share 14:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Quite a dramatic shot. RedCoat 14:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Low quality (light, DOF). -- Lycaon 08:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Subject not clear - Alvesgaspar 09:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Low quality --Böhringer 19:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Interesting but too little DOF. --MichaelMaggs 22:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Ack Opposers --Richard Bartz 12:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Unsharpness and I don't care for the (lack of) contrast. -- Ram-Man 02:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
result: 6 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 20:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Douglas MacArthur lands Leyte1.jpg, featured[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Gen. Douglas MacArthur wades ashore during initial landings at Leyte, Philippine Islands, October 1944. Historic fulfillment of the "I shall return" pledge. Created by U.S. Army Signal Corps (U.S. gov't public domain). Original Image:Douglas MacArthur lands Leyte.jpg uploaded by Madmax32. Artifacts and scratches removed; nominated by Durova. --Durova 21:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Durova 21:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great historic shot. RedCoat 14:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Dtarazona 14:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great historical value. Freedom to share 19:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Raul6 19:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Danilo P 22:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose old, bad quality image. Lycaon 23:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support For its inmense historical value. --Tomascastelazo 01:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Except its histroical value, the picture itself is in bad quality. --Applebee 08:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not very quality, and very valueable. Sorry --Beyond silence 03:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Low resolution and quality. Either a photo or a scan of a historical object like this should be much higher resolution. this edit was made by Ram-Man
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Aqwis 17:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
result: 8 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 20:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Texas panorama.jpg[edit]

Texas Panorama

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by IG-64 - uploaded by IG-64 - nominated by IG-64 --IG-64 17:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --IG-64 17:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Lacking in wow, lighting conditions and sharpness. Lycaon 06:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Good stitching, but the focus is off in some parts of the picture and the lighting is harsh (especially on the right). The industrial building take away from the landscape. Try retaking it a little later in the afternoon. --Digon3 talk 15:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting delete.svg IG-64 17:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:E MERCK PAINT LON.png, not featured[edit]

Heinrich Emanuel Merck

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Heinrich Emanuel Merck (around 1820); created by unknown, uploaded and nominated by LSDSL -- LSDSL 21:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Why the huge file format (png) for a simple BW drawing? Lycaon 00:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Pencils Need Graphite? -- carol 12:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
result: 0 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 20:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC) (Rule of the 5th day)

Image:Werner-von-Siemens.png, not featured[edit]

Werner von Siemens

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Werner von Siemens; created by Giacomo Brogi (1822-1881), uploaded and nominated by LSDSL -- LSDSL 21:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Old, bad quality image. Lycaon 00:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The composition is not good. -Applebee 08:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Isn't some of the quality excused due to the age of the photo? --IG-64 08:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Some, but not all. The depth of field here is inadequate and the image has a lot of dust particles. Technically I've seen better portraits from this era and there's nothing spectacular about the setting to demand an exception. Durova 21:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
result: 0 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 20:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC) (Rule of the 5th day)

Image:Bald Eagle, Kodiak, Alaska.jpg[edit]

Bald Eagle on post in Kodiak, Alaska, USA

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Mary Lynn Stephenson - uploaded by Rlevse - nominated by Rlevse -- RlevseTalk 03:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- RlevseTalk 03:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose composition --che 04:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Even though this is not an animal especially easy to photograph, I still feel that the composition is substandard. It would have been much better if the eagle could fill more of the frame. How far away were you from the bird? Freedom to share 07:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
No idea, I just nom'd it, I was not the photographer and she doesn't have an account. RlevseTalk 10:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting delete.svg the nom of this initial image, but keep the retouched one nom'd. User:Rlevse 00:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Bald Eagle, Kodiak, Alaska.jpg[edit]

Bald Eagle on post in Kodiak, Alaska, USA

  • Perhaps you like this retouched version more? --Plenz 22:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I like it slightly more, but it doesn't fulfil size requirements (2 MPix minimum) 1200px*1600px = 1920000px, 80000 pixels short. Sorry, Freedom to share 22:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC) Size corrected --Freedom to share 15:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Can you include more of the background and get the size requirement up? RlevseTalk 02:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I hope I don't have to understand how a picture gets "better" by adding some "rubbish" :) but here it is. --Plenz 08:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like the way it stands out from the misty background. --MichaelMaggs 13:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This is even better and naturally I support it too. RlevseTalk 18:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, meets the general standards expected of featured media, is a great improvement on the original version, and overall does the project justice. I'm proud to slap my support on it, with the hope others will too. Anthøny 02:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I see a lot of noise in the background and on the dark parts of he bird. Estrilda 11:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose sharpness

Sorry, you should try Commons:Quality images candidates first! --Beyond silence 21:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, meets the general standards expected of featured media and is a great improvement on the original version. Evrik 22:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Basik07 11:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support — the cropped version is much improved; I like the DOF in this. ERcheck 15:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Composition is nice. Unfortune lacking of lighting and details. Heavy ammount of noise --Richard Bartz 12:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The photo is better than before. miranda 00:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Ranunculus acris niittyleinikki.jpg[edit]

Ranunculus acris

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Alinja - uploaded by Alinja - nominated by Alinja 12:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral A full plant for identification of species - showing different leaf types, flowers and buds in natural environment and light. Not many good pictures for identification are available, but is it otherwise good enough to be featured? --Alinja 12:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The depth of field is way to narrow, it would be much better if both flowers were in focus. Freedom to share 18:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sharpness... -- MJJR 20:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I agree that not many good pictures of full plants for species identification are currently available. Most pictures concentrate on the flowers. Therefore I really appreciate your work. However, there are a few things that can be improved in this picture. Besides from the sharpness issues mentioned above, I find the lighting unfavorable. The plant is in the shadow, but in the background bright light spots are distracting the attention from the flower. Chmehl 07:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Nuvola apps important yellow.svg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because low quality, bad lighting etc. Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

- Anonymous DissidentTalk 10:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Brandenburg Gate Quadriga at Night.jpg[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by א (Aleph) - uploaded by א (Aleph) - nominated by Daga (from wikipedia spanish) Daga 15:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Daga 15:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • ...Um, this is already a featured picture. Rocket000 02:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Nuvola apps important yellow.svg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because it is allready featured --Simonizer 08:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC) Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

Image:SunriseJanuary8.08.Buffalo.NY.jpg[edit]

Short description

Nuvola apps important yellow.svg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because much 2 small, please read the guidelines first :-) Regards --Richard Bartz 12:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC) Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

Image:Simi_1.jpg[edit]

port Sími on Sími island, Dodekanese, Greece

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Sími port on Sími island, Dodekanese, Greece, Created a nominated by --Karelj 18:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Karelj 18:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This is rather a nice picture, but I'm afraid it is a bit small for FP, sorry. Estrilda 18:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Suggest submitting it for quality picture instead. Durova 20:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Quality Images has size limitations, as well. I suggest submitting it to English Wikipedia. They don't mind small size so much there. -- carol 01:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Nuvola apps important yellow.svg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because too small Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

--MichaelMaggs 21:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I think the size is fine in this case, but I don't like the composition myself, so I can't support. Dori - Talk 00:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Army.mil-2007-02-22-083216.jpg[edit]

An Iraqi and American soldier conducting a raid in Baghdad. The graffiti on the wall reads "God is great" in Arabic.

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Spc. Olanrewaju Akinwunmi, U.S. Army. - uploaded by File Upload Bot (Magnus Manske) - nominated by Steven Fruitsmaak --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 02:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 02:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not fine enough--B.navez 09:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment with 1.3MP this is a little small for FP, eh ? --Richard Bartz 13:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose bad composition and noise --Orlovic (talk) 13:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Nuvola apps important yellow.svg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because too small. Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

--MichaelMaggs 22:46, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Because the radio antenna looks like it's sticking up the guy's nose, and the potentially interesting part of the picture is out of focus. Jackaranga 19:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Image:Argynnis adippe 1 Richard Bartz.jpg, featured[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created & nominated by --Richard Bartz 10:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Richard Bartz 10:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support much better without the bright parts on the right --Simonizer 10:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Aber das Lichtspiel war doch so schön :-) --Richard Bartz 11:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, I must say I liked the original better, but this is good enough too. --Aqwis 11:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Laitche 12:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC) Sorry Richard, but I can't support this one. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- Laitche 05:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
No need to say sorry, just take your time and decide :-) --Richard Bartz 06:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The landscape version was great already. This one is better because it's more suitable for an encyclopaedic article.
    Pictogram voting question.svg Question What flower is that? (Add this to the description.) Where was the photo taken? (Add coordinates.) --TM 13:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support as former version --B.navez 13:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support RedCoat 14:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Wisnia6522 16:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I also like this one, although the landscape version has such a nice bokeh on the right side... Chmehl 17:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Do you mean bokeh as in the Japanese ぼけ(bokeh)? I think the bokeh is just like this one. I have felt the landscape version like as Photoshop's Copy Stamp Tool then I opposed that one. -- Laitche 19:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --MichaelMaggs 19:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- MJJR 20:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Digitaldreamer 21:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I find the DOF to small really (only a few mm?). Lycaon 06:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Böhringer 18:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Wing-Chi 23:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The Fritillary butterflies are some of my favorites, and this is a great picture. -- Ram-Man 02:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
result: 14 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 10:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Dark Small-branded Swift.jpg, featured[edit]

Pelopidas mathias

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by Laitche -- Laitche 12:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Laitche 12:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--B.navez 15:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Wisnia6522 16:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Richard Bartz 19:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Chmehl 20:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- MJJR 20:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support it's good. Lycaon 06:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - lighting is genuinely amazing. --- Anonymous DissidentTalk 12:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Dtarazona 14:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support good colours --Simonizer 16:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Böhringer 18:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Alvesgaspar 23:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --LucaG 23:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Basik07 22:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --MichaelMaggs 22:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Durova 21:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Jon Harald Søby 14:05, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Wing-Chi 23:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Not the prettiest butterfly, but it's technically fine. I'd be proud of this picture if I had taken it. -- Ram-Man 02:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 11:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC) (Last vote does not count anymore)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per Ram-Man (and I thought it was a moth). Durova 03:18, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:2007 see-kuh02 hg.jpg, not featured[edit]

Mirounga leonina (female)

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Hgrobe - uploaded by Hgrobe - nominated by GeorgHH --GeorgHHtalk   17:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --GeorgHHtalk   17:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Bad flash lighting. --IG-64 18:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Without flash this could have been a wonderful snapshot. Chmehl 20:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Nuvola apps important yellow.svg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because Quality stunted by aforementioned lighting problems Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

--- Anonymous DissidentTalk 12:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:2007 see-elefant hg edit.jpg, not featured[edit]

Mirounga leonina (female), slight color tweak by --Richard Bartz 21:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Hgrobe - Edit uploaded & nominated by --Richard Bartz 21:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Cute overload --Richard Bartz 21:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support very funny picture with good quality --Simonizer 16:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support RlevseTalk 19:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Adorable. Durova 20:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Good quality? Not on this side of the world ;-). Lycaon 01:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The edit is much better than the original version, but there are still reflections of the artificial flash light visible on the tongue. Also, the flash creates harsh shadows behind the blades of grass. Not featured picture quality IMHO. Chmehl 07:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Given the difficulties to approach these young seals, we could expect much better pictures. Honestly, I prefer this old one of mines even of low quality because it shows natural behaviour (yes seals fear water the first time !) and not just reaction to the photograph --B.navez 18:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice detail. --Karelj 14:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I agree with B.navez -- Gorgo 18:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I wouldn't do a dogged evaluation onto this :-) Surely its not really enc. but Commons is not only for enc pics. This is a very funny picture and has a big room for associativity e.g. one funny comment on ICQ was that maybe this seal could have a drug problem because of his nosedrills a.s.o. Relax and dont be stiff  :-) --Richard Bartz 20:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not a bad quality as Lycaon, but composition not good.

Sorry, you should try Commons:Quality images candidates first! --Beyond silence 03:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like it --Orlovic (talk) 13:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The foreground lighting is not balanced with the background. Looks like flash was used on this outdoor, daytime shot. -- Ram-Man 02:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, good sharpeness, interesting. --Aqwis 17:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support for composition. Dori - Talk 01:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
result: 8 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 11:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Lichen-covered tree, Tresco.jpg, not featured[edit]

Lichen-covered tree, Tresco.jpg

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by MichaelMaggs. This shows grey, leafy Parmotrema perlatum on upper half of trunk; yellowy-green Flavoparmelia caperata on middle and lower half and running up the extreme right side; and the fruiticose Ramalina farinacea. --MichaelMaggs 17:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info The vast majority of our plant FPs are colourful flowers; there are very few green plants and no lichens at all. Let's strike out in a new direction. --MichaelMaggs 17:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --MichaelMaggs 17:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice subject, very interesting (and pretty). A little dark, but still good. --IG-64 18:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Subject well treated --B.navez 18:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too dark and flat, no WOW factor. --Karelj 14:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Digon3 talk 15:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I have no problem with lichens as FPs, but this is underexposed. -- Ram-Man 02:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Lighting, no wow. Dori - Talk 01:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 11:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Boulogne Basilique 001.jpg, not featured[edit]

Notre-Dame basilica at Boulogne-sur-Mer, France

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by MJJR - uploaded by MJJR - nominated by MJJR -- MJJR 21:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- MJJR 21:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Thermos 05:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice lighting. Freedom to share 19:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Raul6 22:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Lighting is nice but quality is not good enough -- Alvesgaspar 10:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose detail --Beyond silence 23:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As above. --Karelj 14:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment For a small Canon Powershot the quality and colors are good. --Richard Bartz 21:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I agree that the quality is surprisingly good, likely because it was a Canon (which makes better P&S than others, IMO), but the composition is too centered and lacks sufficient wow as a result. -- Ram-Man 02:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 11:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Yeager supersonic flight 1947.ogg[edit]

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Chuck Yeager was the first man to break the sound barrier. A historic 1947 newsreel about his achievement. U.S. Government public domain; National Archives - uploaded by Brian0918 - nominated by Durova --Durova 00:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Durova 00:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Nuvola apps important yellow.svg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because not a still image (this is still FP and not Featured media, we don't have rules/guidelines to assess ogg files yet) Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

Lycaon 06:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Istambul and Bosporus big.jpg, not featured[edit]

Istanbul, Turkey: The Crossroads of Europe and Asia

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by NASA Earth Observatory - uploaded by Dubaduba - nominated by Dsmurat --Dsmurat 01:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Dsmurat 01:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose too small Lycaon 06:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Danilo P 00:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose too small. --MichaelMaggs 23:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The size, unfortunately. RedCoat 18:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Size, of course. -- Ram-Man 02:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 08:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC) (Last vote doesnt count anymore)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Vmenkov 04:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Siluet.jpg, not featured[edit]

Hagia Sophia and Blue Mosque

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Sinoplu diyojen - uploaded by Vikimach - nominated by Dsmurat --Dsmurat 01:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Dsmurat 01:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose too noisy -- Lycaon 06:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Too noisy it may be only if you look at the image at maximum zoom - and who does (except for a critic)? The image shows the skyline of Istanbul's most prominent sights in a very beautiful composition. It is in use in several articles in Turkish Wikipedia. -- wg 22:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment To bad FP is not just thumbnails ;-). Please read the guidelines before voting. Thnx. Lycaon 22:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose far too noisy and looks significantly upscaled - Peripitus 13:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Quality is really bad. -- Ram-Man 02:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 09:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC) (Last vote doesnt count anymore)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Vmenkov 04:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Jet engine numbered.svg, featured[edit]

Jet Engine

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded, and nominated by --Jeff Dahl 07:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Jeff Dahl 07:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Lycaon 08:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --WarX 17:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC) But please remove unnecessary margins, and maybe numbers should form circle (be contrinued, not starting in horizontal lines ;)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment 1 is low-pressure compression and 2 is high-pressure compression, not intake and compression!--WarX 17:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
    • OK, I fixed the margins. I'm basing the drawing of the FAA handbook, so the labels should be correct; I think moving bracket will clarify what was intended. I don't quite understand what you are suggesting with the number labels, though. I'm happy to take suggestions. Jeff Dahl 18:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
      • I meant you start numbers in three lines - something like:
1   2   3    4

 ===IMAGE===

  5   6   7
 8      9
      • And I would like to see
1   2   3    4

 ===IMAGE===

   8     7   5
9          6
      •  ;) --WarX 21:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
      • And now you can add numbers to low/high pressure compressors too! --WarX 21:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, done. Jeff Dahl 04:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice work. Calibas 06:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Excellent. Do you also have a turbofan version? -- Bryan (talk to me) 11:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very good. --Karelj 14:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Sémhur 07:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Chmehl 19:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Merlijn 16:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 09:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Intercession of Charles Borromeo supported by the Virgin Mary - Detail Rottmayr Fresco - Karlskirche - Vienna.JPG, featured[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by Alberto Fernandez Fernandez 09:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC). Close detail of the Baroque dome fresco of the Karlskirche painted by Rottmayr (Vienna, Austria)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Alberto Fernandez Fernandez 09:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very well done, you should try selling your fresco pictures. Calibas 06:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Florent Pécassou 21:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Basik07 22:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Valuable piece of art, excellent technical quality. Freedom to share 17:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support But recommend renaming. RedCoat 18:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support High quality reproduction. -- Ram-Man 02:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 09:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Palestinian women grinding coffee beans.jpg

Image:MaleGouldianFinch.JPG, not featured[edit]

A specimen of Gouldian Finch (Chloebia gouldiae)


  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Leandro Prudencio 23:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Danilo P 23:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support A nice and colourful picture Vini175 00:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice catch! --Applebee 00:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Horrible artificial background. Lycaon 01:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Lycaon Chmehl 07:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Very nice animal, unfortune background & quality --Richard Bartz 14:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose sharpness.

Sorry, you should try Commons:Quality images candidates first! --Beyond silence 16:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose ~idem Florent Pécassou 21:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tomascastelazo 01:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, composition, background. --Aqwis 12:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Karelj 15:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Poor composition and distracting background. RedCoat 18:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As per above. -- Ram-Man 02:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
result: 6 support, 8 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 09:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:National Grand Theatre detail.jpg, featured[edit]

National Grand Theatre, Beijing

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Detail of the National Grand Theatre in Beijing, transition from glass to titanium roof. Created by Aurelio Asiain - uploaded and nominated by AxelBoldt --AxelBoldt 18:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --AxelBoldt 18:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Raul6 19:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Vini175 20:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeNothing special and boring. -Applebee 08:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral - Interesting composition and nice quality, but not special enough for FP. A clear QI though. -- Alvesgaspar 12:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As Applebee. --Karelj 15:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support If my picture can be a featured picture, under those same conditions, this one should as well. -- Ram-Man 02:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Jklamo 03:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Very clear detail. --typhoonchaser 15:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
result: 6 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral => featured.--Mywood 08:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Underwater mcmurdo sound.jpg, featured[edit]

Marine life and ocean floor in front of ice wall in McMurdo Sound

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Steve Clabuesch - uploaded by Fishdecoy on en:wp and by Arria Belli on Commons - nominated by Arria Belli. Arria Belli | parlami 19:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral A bit smaller (1,396 × 1,044 pixels) than the size guideline for FPs (which is, for the record, 1600 x 1200), but I think the rarity of such photos and the quality of the shot may be enough to have it pass. Over to you, Arria Belli | parlami 19:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose idem Florent Pécassou 21:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Wow. Couln't believe this is real on the first sight. --norro 12:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support does it for me Tbc 00:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Lerdsuwa 09:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Karelj 15:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--B.navez 19:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- MJJR 21:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Wow --libertad0 ॐ 13:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Wing-Chi 23:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - original. --- Anonymous DissidentTalk 05:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I've always been very strong on opposing low-resolution pictures and the quality isn't great, but it is one of those magical rare shots. -- Ram-Man 02:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too small (less than 1.5 Mpx) and extremely noisy. Looks like a candidate for VI but of course neither FP nor QI, who are you kidding? Lycaon 07:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I don't understand when you propose an image for FP that you don't do your utmost best to try to feature the best copy available. It shows no respect for the community assesing these pictures here. Lycaon 17:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
      • I had looked for a better resolution before proposing this photograph for FP. I did not find one then (perhaps I did not look hard enough, and for that I apologize if you feel insulted). But I have now, though I'm not sure the highest res image in the Antarctic Photo Library is better: image info page here and 2288x1712 image here. If someone could tinker with the image to make it clearer, that would be quite welcome. Happy editing, Arria Belli | parlami 03:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
result: 9 support, 2 oppose, 2 neutral => featured.--Mywood 08:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Peyto Lake-Banff NP-Canada.jpg, featured[edit]

beautiful Peyto Lake in Banff NP

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded dand nominated by Tobi 87 --Tobi 87 21:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tobi 87 21:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info edited version, this is the first publication of this picture, so it is just similar to these pictures that you have already seen in books and on webpages, thanks for this reward ;)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Basik07 22:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Fantastic image but it would be even better with the EXIF data. Please supply those. Thanks for the geolocation :D Freedom to share 07:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -Applebee 08:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Simonizer 20:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- Sorry but it looks too kitschy for my taste -- Alvesgaspar 12:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Karelj 15:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question Could you please tell me how I add EXIF data to panoramics? -- Tobi 87 16:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Just write it on the image description page Freedom to share 22:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Thermos 06:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, too oversaturated for my taste. --MichaelMaggs 23:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Jon Harald Søby 14:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose colours look fake, agree with MichaelMaggs Tbc 16:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Although you think that the colours of this picture are oversaturated and consequently look fake, I can just answer that my photo reflects reality. I propose you to visit this wonderful place to experience its beauty by sunshine. I understand your scepticism when I compare my photo with the others of this lake which I find in Wiki Commons. All in all, I am lucky to have taken this picture because it is in my opinion brilliant and in no way kitschy, but shows how incredible nature can be! That's why I uploaded it! --Tobi 87 17:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Peyto Lake is a glacial lake and thus its water colour is so extraordinary! --Tobi 87 17:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Aqwis 17:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I haven't been to this particular lake, but I now of glacial lakes that have similar color! Chmehl 19:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I have been there. The color is real. --Wing-Chi 23:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Beyond silence 01:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Color looks fine. The resolution is on the low side for a detailed landscape. -- Ram-Man 02:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Vmenkov 04:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
result: 14 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => featured.--Mywood 08:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Grant Glacier 1902a.jpg[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info A 1902 photograph of the Grant Glacier. Companion piece to Image:Grant Glacier 1998.jpg to illustrate glacial retreat. This is an attractive landscape on its own merits, and fairly good photography for its era. Particularly valuable as a historic/scientific document. Created by Morton Elrod (Glacier National Park Archives), original Image:Grant Glacier 1902.jpg uploaded by MONGO - image cleanup and nomination by Durova --Durova 23:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Durova 23:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Old, bad quality image. No wow, awful vignetting. Lycaon 00:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Lycaon. --Applebee 08:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Lycaon. By this time photography technology rendered better pictures. --Tomascastelazo 21:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Withdrawn: [5]. ZooFari 02:29, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Image:PalmercarpenterA.jpg , featured[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info 1942 photograph of a carpenter at work. Encyclopedic both as a document of carpentry during that era and as a historic example of early color photography. Supersaturation was popular in the United States during that era; a fine example of the esthetics of its place and time. Created by Palmer, Alfred T., photographer. (Farm Security Administration - Office of War Information Collection) - original Image:Palmercarpenter.jpg uploaded by 3am - artifact/scratch removal and nomination by Durova. --Durova 02:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Durova 02:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Wow, before reading the contents, I thought it is a good commercial picture. And 1942 phtographs!, just wow again. --Applebee 08:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Richard Bartz 16:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I've seen worse ;-), but the burnt out patches prevent me to support it. Lycaon 17:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Another version of this picture was nominated in April. --che 03:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Yes. Different projects have different standards, of course, but someone decided to renominate the original upload on en.Wikipedia and this edit received very positive responses. When it looked like this would pass I nominated it here also (and started digging through the Library of Congress files for other work by this photographer and uploading the best files to Commons). Durova 04:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Karelj 15:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support /Daniel78 21:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Urban 17:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --MichaelMaggs 21:12, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 02:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Diligent 08:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Bergwolf 10:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral => featured.--Mywood 15:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Orange single Dahlia.jpg, not featured[edit]

"Single" bloom form of a Dahlia

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info The "Single" bloom form of the Dahlia flower, an highly variable flower with many cultivars. Created, uploaded and nominated by Ragesoss --Ragesoss 04:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ragesoss 04:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, but nothing special. --Applebee 08:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Special enough IMO, but needs some noise reduction first. Lycaon 17:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Agree, should be 1 click --Richard Bartz 17:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose ack Lycaon. I will support a re-uploaded version with noise reduction. It will be especially easy if you have the original RAW (CR2) file as Canon Digital Photo Professional supports noise reduction. Freedom to share 17:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I uploaded a reprocessed version, with noise reduction from the raw file, downsampled slightly, and recropped slightly. Unfortunately, the background is still somewhat noisy, because it was shot at 400 ISO.--Ragesoss 22:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Basik07 23:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As Lycaon. --Karelj 16:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose quality. -- Ram-Man 04:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Noise is not an issue anymore, DOF maybe a bit small. Chmehl 09:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. --Mywood 20:14, 19 January 2008 (UTC) (Last vote doesnt count anymore)

Image:Vose and Sons piano soundboard.jpg, not featured[edit]

Piano soundboard

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info The soundboard and strings of an upright piano. Created, uploaded and nominated by Ragesoss --Ragesoss 04:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ragesoss 04:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice cropped image, but hard to figure out what it is. -Applebee 08:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Lookatthis 16:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Good image, but not enough for FP. --Karelj 16:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose composition sorry

Sorry, you should try Commons:Quality images candidates first! --Beyond silence 21:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. --Mywood 20:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Haytor December 2007 filtered.jpg, not featured[edit]

Haytor, Dartmoor

result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. --Mywood 20:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Image-Heliconius ismenius 2 Richard Bartz.jpg, featured[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created & nominated by --Richard Bartz 17:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Without flashlight .-) --Richard Bartz 17:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Could you add information on where you took those mariposas ;-). Lycaon 17:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Spectacular! --Digitaldreamer 17:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support great --Simonizer 20:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Amazing given that no flash was used. Do you take any macro shots in the winter (as in now)? Freedom to share 20:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support great work. --AngMoKio 21:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tomascastelazo 21:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support No questions --Böhringer 22:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Yes --LucaG 22:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Where do you find butterflies in February? --MichaelMaggs 23:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Basik07 23:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice shot and nice Bokeh -- Laitche 06:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I'm not a big fan of any picture capturing animal or insect but it is exceptional. Super!--Applebee 09:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- MJJR 20:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Wow! Chmehl 07:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support RedCoat 18:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Durova 21:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --MichaelMaggs 23:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great, I take it to wallpaper! :)--Beyond silence 03:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Wing-Chi 23:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support ----Sandahl 02:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Bergwolf 10:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
result: 22 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured.--Mywood 15:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:AlfredPalmerwelder1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Welder making boilers for a ship, Combustion Engineering Co., Chattanooga, Tenn. Another Alfred Palmer color photograph of World War II production (June 1942); muted tones this time. Clear and sharp high resolution file with excellent textures for color photography - look at the wrinkles in that work shirt. Good composition, sparks flying. How much more could you ask of a sixty-six-year-old photograph? A pretty clean print to start with; Image:AlfredPalmerwelder.jpg didn't need extensive retouching. U.S. Government public domain - uploaded by Durova - scratch and dust removal, nomination by Durova. --Durova 21:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Durova 21:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --che 03:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too dark, almoast no details visible. --Karelj 16:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not bad, but also not good enough for a featured picture (the tubes / cables hitting the head spoil the composition). --Gepardenforellenfischer 17:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. --Mywood 20:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:F-15 vertical deploy.jpg, not delisted[edit]

F-15 showing off

Another thing, different uploader. -- carol 10:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Making FP look like idiots (which might not be such a big task):

-- carol 02:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep It met criteria when nominated, still does. A working weblink source is not required, the image has an appropriate source (USAF magazine), caption and author. --Dual Freq 02:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Nice. Perhaps a larger scan then and yet another uploader? -- carol 04:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep per Dual Freq. Cacophony 04:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep Quality is fine. Image source/license issue for the image is also fine. --Lerdsuwa 10:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep--Lookatthis 16:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep per the others. --- Anonymous DissidentTalk 11:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep /Daniel78 21:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep Why would making other FPs look like idiots be a category for deletion? I don't get it. Freedom to share 22:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep Merlijn 16:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist --Mihael Simonic 15:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
result: 1 Delist, 8 Keep, 0 neutral => featured. --Mywood 20:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC) (Last vote doesnt count anymore)

Image:Central African Republic - Boy in Birao.jpg, featured[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by hdptcar - uploaded by Estrilda - nominated by Estrilda -- Estrilda 00:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Estrilda 00:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Impressive portrait --che 03:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support dito --norro 08:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - I don't like it, the expression seems incongruent with the fact that the child is playing, which suggests it is not natural. Furthermore, the face is too dark. - Alvesgaspar 12:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As Alvesgaspar. --Karelj 16:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like it. Concerning that the village was burnt down, his expression is realistic. The petrol lamp as a very creative/demonstrative toy ? or maybe just a hap ? ;-) --Richard Bartz 21:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
"It doesn't matter what you say, they laugh at everything." Huey, at the Garden Party, circa 2005 -- carol 00:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Striking portrait, his confused accusing expression made me shiver. --LucaG 00:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support His expression is striking... - Noumenon talk 06:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Simonizer 12:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Jon Harald Søby 13:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Chmehl 19:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Enough out of the ordinary, and the quality is good. Dori - Talk 01:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support So sharp I can the reflection in his eyes and that inquisitive expression.--Sandahl 02:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Bergwolf 10:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
result: 12 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Mywood 10:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Philaethria hecale 2 Richard Bartz.jpg, featured[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created & nominated by --Richard Bartz 01:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Richard Bartz 01:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I am certain that this should geocoded. -- carol 01:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Excellent in many ways --che 04:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great light and color. If it was just the leaf, it'd probably make it too. --IG-64 08:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Wow --norro 08:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Simonizer 09:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Lerdsuwa 09:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Aqwis 12:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Chmehl 12:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Wisnia6522 12:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Dtarazona 14:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Applebee 14:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Basik07 16:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --AngMoKio 19:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- MJJR 20:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Böhringer 22:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Wow --Digon3 talk 14:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - very good quality and detail - Anonymous DissidentTalk 15:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Digitaldreamer 18:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support RedCoat 18:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Durova 21:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support A few months ago I showed to a friend some of Richard's photos and said 'This can't be beaten'. Well, it just has. I rarely see a photographer whose photos now completely overshadow those he took a few months ago. I can't wait until June or something. :D Freedom to share 22:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --MichaelMaggs 23:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I completely agree with Freedom to share. I can't believe that "my camera" may take a picture like this one. --LucaG 00:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Jon Harald Søby 13:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Wing-Chi 23:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support , breathtaking. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 02:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Lone dissenter, I know you can't get better light in there without flash, but it's just too dark for me. Dori - Talk 01:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Have you checked your monitor calibration ? ;-) --Richard Bartz 13:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Yes, I see three circles, and depending on the angle (LCD) sometimes all 4. Dori - Talk 02:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Sandahl 02:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Nice composition with the lightning but edge artefacts due to sharpness over-processing and lack of contrast. Sting 18:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Très bien --Bergwolf 10:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
result: 28 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Mywood 10:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Dianthus hyssopifolius 1.jpg

Image:MC_GruenerLeguan.jpg, not featured[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Chmehl --Chmehl 06:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Chmehl 06:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Simonizer 18:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Jon Harald Søby 13:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Wing-Chi 23:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose only half of animal visible. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 02:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Beyond silence 21:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not exceptional and overexposed (Compare to this, and this, and this). -- Ram-Man 04:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Aqwis 17:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Gordo 21:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Don't like the lighting. Dori - Talk 01:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Large part of animal missing, composition. --Karelj 22:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question Is it necessary for FP to show the whole animal? I am just asking because this is the second comment in this direction... Chmehl 08:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
No its not --Simonizer 11:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC) See Image:Waterfrog head.jpg, Image:Goana lace monitor.jpg or your own Image:MC Timberwolf.jpg for example. I guess some user think, that if you dont show the whole animal its less useable for wikipedia. But we are here at commons wikimedia, so that doesnt really matter. --Simonizer 11:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
That's what I thought, thanks. Chmehl 11:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Bergwolf 10:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Would have loved to see more of the animal for FP. Lycaon 09:37, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
result: 8 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 08:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Buffalo Implode2.jpg, not featured[edit]

Original[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by DragonFire1024 - uploaded by DragonFire1024 - nominated by DragonFire1024 --DragonFire1024 07:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Was also featured on the front page of Wikinews for the news it made at the time. --DragonFire1024 07:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question Would it be possible to crop the original? The focus of interest really takes up only about 15% of the frame. I like the idea of this shot, but with trees in the foreground concealing the dust cloud and a building in the background it's hard to see what's happening. Still, buildings don't get demolished every day. Maybe a cropped version would get the nod at QI? Durova 20:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support A moment not easy too catch...Vmenkov 04:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose poor quality and light. Lycaon 20:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Cropped[edit]

Short description

Is this better? DragonFire1024 21:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I am supporting the cropped version of this photograph. I like the photo because it captured, basically, the moment of implosion of the building, and you can see what is happening to the building. Nzgabriel 22:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support could do with a bit more cropping left and right. Durova 04:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I thought so too, but to the right is where the fire department is hosing down the debris as it falls. I wanted to try and get as much of that stream in the image as possible without cutting too much off otherwise it would be like 'where/what is that?'. DragonFire1024 06:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, the crop is now much too small. --MichaelMaggs 08:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Well there are two to choose from. And the crop is actually not small. DragonFire1024 09:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Detail? You cannot get anymore detailed than this. This is perfect timing. DragonFire1024 05:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Detail is seeing the light bars in the hospital. Details is seeing the blasting, the debris, the tilting and the timing. DragonFire1024 05:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - Perhaps Beyond silence means that the quality of the detail is not good enough. The photo looks a tad blurred overall, to me. --typhoonchaser 15:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
If it was blurred, IMHO, then why so much detail as I stated above? DragonFire1024 19:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - it is interesting, of good quality and, captures a lot of action. SYmODE09 03:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Though I would prefer something cropped to a size in between the sizes of the two pictures :-) Vmenkov 04:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC) Already voted above. Please vote for one of the two and not both. --typhoonchaser 09:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC) this is a different picture, votes are not added. Lycaon 20:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Insufficient quality, imho. -- Bryan (talk to me) 13:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too small and details swamped by noise. Lycaon 20:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 09:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Helioconius sp Richard Bartz.jpg, featured[edit]

Heliconius comprise a colorful and widespread butterfly genus distributed throughout the tropical and subtropical regions of the New World. As shown Helioconius sp.

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created & nominated by --Richard Bartz 17:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg InfoThis time the focus is more on the body/head, a picture where you can see my improvement since this FP which i done in August. When does we have a chance to have a eye to eye with a butterfly ?  :-)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Interesting close up, nice colors and no use of flashlight which gives a great plasticity--Richard Bartz 17:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support a great series. What kicks me most is the atmosphere of those pics..most likely bcs of the colours. They somehow stand out from the crowd of macro shots. Congrats! --AngMoKio 17:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Now that's a special one! Seems that with every new picture you are getting closer and closer to the animals. :-)) Chmehl 17:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Aaaaahhh, I havn't seen this before. Great! Chmehl 18:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very good. --Karelj 18:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Incredibly nice butterfly pictures. --Digitaldreamer 18:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Wisnia6522 18:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Simonizer 18:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very nice. RedCoat 18:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Laitche 19:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- MJJR 19:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Although beautifully composed, the wings are cut off and the depth of field is a bit too shallow. As photography, wonderful. The encyclopedic value is suboptimal because this image has limited value for identification purposes. Durova 20:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
    Read through the FPC rules, find a reference to encyclopedic quality and maybe I will accept your point. :) This is Commons, not Wikipedia. A different world. Freedom to share 21:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
    Okay, I want the whole bug. No worries; I'm sure it'll pass anyway. ;) Durova 13:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support No question about it, this is of FP quality. By the way, we are not judging images here on encyclopedic value. That's a Wikipedia rules, and does not apply here--MichaelMaggs 21:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support There needs to be no election for POTY '08, for a winner has already been found. Freedom to share 21:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very nice. --Böhringer 22:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great! How much did you spend to have this pin-up posing for you? --LucaG 00:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Just patience and carrots for my eyes ;-)) --Richard Bartz 12:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--B.navez 03:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support although it's a bit of a pity the exact species is not identified Tbc 16:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
    • I wonder if it could be more identified because of the free crossings in such greenhouses. --B.navez 16:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Wing-Chi 23:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral wings cut off. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 02:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - very detailed. --- Anonymous DissidentTalk 05:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Bergwolf 10:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 2 neutral => featured. Mywood 09:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Montagna Cortina d'Ampezzo.JPG, not featured[edit]

Montagna Cortina d'Ampezzo.JPG

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info
    English:
The Dolomites (a section of the Alps) near Cortina d'Ampezzo, a popular winter sport resort in the province of Belluno, Veneto, northern Italy.
Italiano: Una sezione delle Dolomiti a ridosso di Cortina d'Ampezzo

Created & nominated by --Laziale93 21:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Laziale93 21:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It's a mountain... I have established that fact. The problem is that there are huge amounts of mountain pics, right? What about this one makes it stand out to such an extent that it is worthy of an FP? Make the weather look dramatic, wake up early and do a sunrise pic, but in order to make this into an FP you would have to impress me and other reviewers, a task you have failed at. Freedom to share 22:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Please Freedom to share try to be a little more soft when you oppose. He is 14 y.o. and this one is not so bad as a first try. Can we suggest to try Quality Image first?. Here some advice for him:
    Ciao Laziale, non farti scoraggiare da questo tipo di commenti poco gentili e ben poco costruttivi. L'immagine non è affatto male ma devi tenere presente che qui si cerca di "eleggere" le migliori foto in assoluto tra le migliaia che vengono caricate ogni giorno. Prima di provare una candidatura come Feature Picture ti consiglio di provare a candidare le tue immagini come Quality Image dove viene giudicata soprattutto la qualità tecnica. Per le Feature Pictures, oltre alla qualità tecnica deve esistere quello che qui chiamano "WOW factor" che vuol dire che l'immagine deve lasciare a bocca aperta. Per questa tua foto in particolare devo dire che dal punto di vista tecnico è presente molto rumore digitale che la penalizza e manca un po' di contrasto. Ti consiglio anche di aggiungere sempre un commento in inglese alla tue foto per renderle più facilmente utilizzabile dai progetti internazionali. Se hai bisono di aiuto chiedi pure. Ciao LucaG 00:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Ok. grazie mille ;) --Laziale93 12:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
    • You are right. Sorry for shooting down the image so quickly and not making my arguments heard first. Look, Laziale93, I am not disputing that I like this mountain. This could be an excellent photo, but you need something to really make it stand out. Look at this image, for example. [6]. A normal volcano, it seemed, but what made it special was the lighting and the sunset. Without the light: a normal volcano that would probably not make it. This one I especially love. [7]. A normal mountain, like yours? Yes, but it was the fog that helped make the WOW effect and create the picture. What I recommend is: buy yourself a tripod (and get in the habit of using it. It will allow you to expose for longer and help you with composition) if you don't already have one and experiment with many different lighting conditions as well. My first FPC was shot down (lost the nomination) too. But this didn't discourage me and I am still taking photos. So, if this one is not passed, don't worry. Try again, hopefully, if you can, the same mountain, at sunrise, sunset, fog or twilight (period between night and sunrise or sunset) and you will see that your results improve a lot. If you need any more help, ask LucaG, for he is probably the best landscape photographer we have here at the moment. (Luca, would you mind translating this if his English is not that good?) Freedom to share 09:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Hai ragione. Mi spiace di aver scartato la tua foto tanto in fretta senza prima spiegarne le ragioni. Guarda, Laziale93, che non dico che non mi piaccia questa montagna. Questa potrebbe essere un'eccellente fotografia ma ti serve qualcosa che la renda veramente notevole. Guarda questa immagine, per esempio: [8]. Sembrerebbe un normale vulcano ma quello che lo rende speciale è la luce particolare del tramonto. Senza questa luce sarebbe un comune vulcano senza niente di eccezionale. Guarda anche quest'altra fotografia che mi piace in particolar modo: [9]. Una normale montagna come la tua? Certo, ma l'effetto della nebbia la rende eccezionale. Quello che ti consiglio io è: se non lo hai già, comprati un cavalletto (e abituati ad usarlo sempre, ti consentirà tempi di esposizione più lunghi e ti aiuterà nella composizione dell'immagine) e fai esperimenti con diverse esposizioni e con differenti condizioni di luce. Anche la prima foto che ho candidato io non fu accettata ma questo non mi ha scoraggiato e continuo a scattare fotografie. Quindi se questa tua foto non passa, non ti preoccupare, prova ancora, magari con la stessa montagna, all'alba, al tramonto, con la nebbia o al crepuscolo e ti accorgerai di come miglioreranno i tuoi risultati. (Freedom to share comment, transated to IT by LucaG 22:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC))
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--B.navez 04:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Incredible for 14 years old. I like the cloud shadow in the valley. Nice mountain shape. DragonFire1024 07:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Fine composition but poor photographic quality: little detail and artifacts -- Alvesgaspar 11:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose agree with Alvesgaspar Tbc 16:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose sharpness --Beyond silence 21:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 09:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:SanFrancisco1851a.jpg, featured[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info An 1851 daguerrotype of Portsmouth Square, San Francisco. During the daguerrotype era portraiture predominated. Street scenes were unusual and this - from the height of the California gold rush - has particular historical value. Focus is good enough that most of the building signs are legible. I've kept the file on the large side for that reason. Removed the artifacts painstakingly with (I hope) minimal affect to actual data. Adjusted the histogram and denoised the sky. No other changes from Image:SanFrancisco1851.jpg. Created by unknown - uploaded by Durova - nominated by Durova. --Durova 02:12, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Durova 02:12, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Now that is a hell of a picture for 150 years ago. DragonFire1024 07:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support stunning --Jeses 20:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportIt looks like a new ski resort in summer. Seriously fascinating--B.navez 10:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment to me it needs about 1deg tilt clockwise, otherwise consider this a support. Gnangarra 13:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Corrected 1.1deg clockwise. Durova 23:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Symbol support vote.svg Support Gnangarra 05:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great glimpse of Old San Francisco.--Sandahl 02:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. - Anonymous DissidentTalk 11:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Buffalo Sunrise May 24.07-2.jpg, not featured[edit]

Sunrise with a shooting star.

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by DragonFire1024 - uploaded by DragonFire1024 - nominated by DragonFire1024 --DragonFire1024 07:05, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --DragonFire1024 07:05, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The foreground (as in everything other than the sky) is way too dark, a pitfall I too often encountered. The easiest (but not especially cheap) way to solve is to use a graduated ND filter. This is a pitfall I too fell into on multiple occasions and your best chance maybe would be to overexpose the whole scene and try to salvage it in Photoshop. Freedom to share 09:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
The focus is not the foreground/houses. Those are not the primary elements of the picture. To photoshop this would destroy the picture's natural setting. Should it really matter that much if you cannot see the tops of houses? DragonFire1024 23:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not a great picture. For a better similar colored shot, see: this. -- Ram-Man 05:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Sunrise with a shooting star.

I modified the foreground. I admit, it does look better. DragonFire1024 00:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose not very exciting, flawed composition. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 02:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Chimneys lean over--B.navez 10:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Are you kidding? I mean lets be realistic here. I simply cannot take a hammer ans straighten the chimney. DragonFire1024 17:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Just for saying picture is tilted for we can see it from the chimneys. But it wouldn't change anything for me even if they were straight : fine scenery but no enough for FP in my POV. Sorry.--B.navez 18:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not a great picture. For a better similar colored shot, see: this. -- Ram-Man 05:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 22:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC) (Rule of the 5th day)

Image:Tattered Israeli flag in Jerusalem by David Shankbone.jpg[edit]

Short description

I find it disturbing tht you would even criticize the fact that the tip of the pole is missing. Ridiculous. DragonFire1024 17:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I find disturbing your lack of knowledge of the basic guidelines --Orlovic (talk) 14:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Orlovic. --Aqwis 17:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Nuvola apps important yellow.svg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because Quality issues Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

--- Anonymous DissidentTalk 00:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Quadriga by eduardo89.jpg, not featured[edit]

Quadriga above Brandenburger Tor in Berlin, Germany

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Eduardo89 - uploaded by Eduardo89 - nominated by Eduardo89 --Eduardo89 03:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Eduardo89 03:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, compare with Image:Brandenburg Gate Quadriga at Night.jpg. --Aqwis 08:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as above. --TM 15:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose A higher-quality photo of the same subject already exists and is featured, heavily detracting from the value of this image. Freedom to share 16:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per other opposers. Doodle-doo Ħ 22:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Moral support I know how hard it is when a great image turns out to be already featured...and in this instance featured in a superior version. Keep your chin up and keep looking. The hidden gems are out there. I've been collecting some at en:User:Durova/Landmark images. Dive in, restore something, and try again. Best regards, Durova 01:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 22:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC) (Rule of the 5th day)

Image:Sunflower with bee.jpg, not featured[edit]

Bee on sunflower

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Louise Joly - uploaded by Gordon Joly (Gordo) - nominated by Gordon Joly (Gordo 21:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC))
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Gordo 21:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - I'm afraid the insect bar is far too high for this picture. Little detail and much noise. Alvesgaspar 21:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I'm sorry, but I'm with Alves here. It is very noisy and the bee is a little out of focus. Doodle-doo Ħ 22:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose There are 2 much London smog particles which causes a lot of noise ;-) --Richard Bartz 22:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 22:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC) (Rule of the 5th day)

Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:The Soviet Union 1958 CPA 2116 stamp (Qi Baishi) cancelled.jpg

Image:Peacock 00788-b.jpg, not featured[edit]

White peacock

  • Pictogram voting info.svg InfoWhite peacock, Pavo cristatus albus created by Nevit - uploaded by Nevit - nominated by Nevit --Nevit 20:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Very low digital quality and a lot of coloured digital noise. It's a pity. Sting 01:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
result: 0 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 22:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC) (Rule of the 5th day)

Image:Milky Way galaxy.jpg, not featured[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Uploaded by Duffman,nominated by --Mywood 20:43, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Milky Way.
result: 0 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 22:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC) (Rule of the 5th day)

Image:MacBook Air 1.jpg[edit]

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Tim Malabuyo - uploaded by Edward - nominated by Edward --edward 23:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --edward 23:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Atamari 23:59, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too small. Does not fit the 2 Mpix limit and does not have mitigating enough reasons to be smaller than this. Freedom to share 07:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Nuvola apps important yellow.svg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because having copyrighted images and has already been requested for deletion for that. Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

--MichaelMaggs 07:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Victoriabeckhamlv.jpg[edit]

Short description

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- miranda 00:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Nuvola apps important yellow.svg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because too small following the guidelines, has a lot of digital noise and is unsharp - Sting 01:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC) Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
Can someone reduce the noise with Photoshop? I don't have photoshop. Also, I don't think this picture is too small. We are voting for the first photo only. miranda 01:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  • The picture size is only 1.65Mpx large which is insufficient for this kind of photo depicting a non-exceptional subject. Photoshop allows to make many things, still not miracles : this picture is unrecoverable. Sting 14:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose What's so special about the picture or the lady pictured? Vmenkov 04:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I'll just Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination miranda 06:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
No need to oppose if it's been withdrawn. And who says Victoria Beckham is non-exceptional? The photo's just low-quality and not very flattering. Rocket000 12:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Aedes albopictus on human skin.jpg[edit]

Mosquito on skin

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by James Gathany - uploaded by Rasbak - conominated by Giggy Giggy 05:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC) and Durova 05:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Giggy 05:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Durova 05:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Speagles 05:37, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Wow, that's a lot of noise, DOF too shallow as well. Dori - Talk 05:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Valuable illustration but technically Dori is right--B.navez 07:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Ouch!! What a poor quality. You can't even properly see what's going on!. Lycaon 15:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Lycaon Muhammad Mahdi Karim 18:28, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Pictogram voting delete.svg Durova 19:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Osmanli-devleti-nisani-yeni.png[edit]

Coat of arms of Ottoman Empire

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Juristiltins - uploaded by Juristiltins - nominated by Papuass --Papuass 10:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Papuass 10:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It is a redrawn version of this Coat Of Arms which is a widely used image in Ottoman Empire articles. --Papuass 11:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Well done. Colors are incorrect, it should be SVG.--Mihael Simonic 15:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Nuvola apps important yellow.svg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because too small, wrongly coloured an not in SVG format Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

Lycaon 15:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question I have contacted the creator of this image and he has created SVG version of this image with correct size and fixed colours. Should I create new nomination as file name and extension has changed? --Papuass 22:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure. I say just make a new nomination to get more time. I support the SVG (I don't know if the colors are right or not, but there's some good vector work there.) Rocket000 10:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  • OK, then I withdraw the nomination to let creator iron out problems mentioned. Pictogram voting delete.svg Papuass 16:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Cheval jade Inde Musée Guimet 2497B.jpg, not featured[edit]

Jade Knife Handle

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Vassil - uploaded by Vassil - nominated by Noumenon --Noumenon talk 03:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Noumenon talk 03:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral It's a nice picture that is very crisp, but I don't see the excitement, or the oohs and the ahhs. DragonFire1024 07:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Ooh ! not only a jewel, I feel the horse alive.--B.navez 08:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Quality doesn't convince me. Dori - Talk 00:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice photo. --Karelj 23:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Several edge artefacts at high contrast transition areas (sorry for your camera) which should be corrected first. Sting 15:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Bergwolf 10:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Good topic, but insufficient quality (artefacts). Lycaon 20:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Mywood 08:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Siegelfurnace1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Hanna furnaces of the Great Lakes Steel Corporation, Detroit, Mich. Coal tower atop coke ovens. November, 1942. Original Image:Siegelfurnace.jpg needed minimal restoration: small amounts of dust and fiber removed. No other alteration. Created by Arthur Siegel (U.S. Gov't public domain) - uploaded by Durova - nominated by Durova --Durova 12:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Durova 12:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great image of the inner core. DragonFire1024 01:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Allmost an abstraction--B.navez 10:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose detail --Beyond silence 21:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 08:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Leopard Lacewing Cethosia cyane 2 Richard Bartz .jpg, featured[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created & nominated by --Richard Bartz 12:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)