Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/January 2008
From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
This is an archive for Commons:Featured picture candidates page debates and voting.
The debates are closed and should not be edited.
[edit] Image:Hiroshige - Evening Shower at Atake and the Great Bridge.jpg, not featured
Info: Uploaded by Kuxu76 - nominated by Kuxu76 --Kuxu76 02:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
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.
Support --Kuxu76 02:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Oppose I like the image, but resolution and sharpness are not good enough for me. --startaq 08:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 |
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 no contrary views are expressed within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed. |
--MichaelMaggs 09:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
[edit] Image:Diagrama bicicleta.svg, delisted
- 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
- Delist -- Lycaon 23:04, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delist --Simonizer 13:19, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delist --Richard Bartz 11:49, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delist -- Alvesgaspar 15:49, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delist We should delist one of them. Might as well be this one. Ben Aveling 21:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delist per nom. --MichaelMaggs 09:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Result: 5 delist, 0 keep --> Delisted - Alvesgaspar 10:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - Voting period is over -Alvesgaspar 10:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep and delist the green uglier one. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 14:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)- Delist --- Anonymous DissidentTalk 03:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Hypselodoris bullocki.JPG, not delisted
- Info: Noisy, blurry image. The only bit in focus is part of the foreground. Obvious error of judgement. (Original nomination)
- Delist --Lycaon 23:37, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delist Agree --Richard Bartz 11:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Keep per Mbz1 --Lerdsuwa 18:50, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
-
- 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)
- Keep Basik07 23:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, as per Walter's argument. Anrie 09:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- 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)
- Keep The photo is not well focused but for me this is overcompensated by value and wow. -- Slaunger 10:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delist quality is just not good enough, I am afraid. --- Anonymous DissidentTalk 12:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delist per nom. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 14:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep --Wisnia6522 13:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Judas and money.jpg, not featured
- Info: created, uploaded and nominated by --Tomascastelazo 00:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- 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)
- Comment Infobox need to be filled (date is missing) --QWerk 16:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Quite severe chromatic aberration. Should be easy to remove with a suitable software. --Lerdsuwa 16:45, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
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)- 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)
- 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)
-
- 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)
- Support Is it really chromatic aberrations, not just the drawing lines? --B.navez
- 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)
-
-
- 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)
-
- Support Great shot --Beyond silence
19:37, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 09:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Uria lomvia 2.jpg, not featured
- Info: created by Michael Haferkamp - uploaded by Michael Haferkamp - nominated by Sasumaro Yakanti --Sasumaro yakanti 12:26, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Sasumaro yakanti 12:26, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- 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)
- Question: What country is the cliff in that picture? --I am V for Vendetta! 5:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose --Rabensteiner 02:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- 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)
- Support Jon Harald Søby 00:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose nice picture but the quality is not excellent --Richard Bartz 19:30, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support unless it is easy to improve. -Susanlesch 10:29, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose noise, try fix it --Beyond silence 19:34, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Karelj 00:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
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)- 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)
[edit] Image:Lange-MigrantMother02.jpg, featured
- 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)
- Support --Durova 13:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support great photo ..it might be a good idea to downscale the pic a bit though --AngMoKio 15:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- 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)
- Support --Karelj 17:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support --[[Anonymous Dissident]] 21:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support Jon Harald Søby 00:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support A great classic. --Tomascastelazo 04:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support. Wow. --TM 08:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support...of course...this is a unique and rather famous image.--MONGO 08:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- Supportgreat photo --Böhringer 09:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support of course! --Diligent 11:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support Simply a classic. Arria Belli | parlami 17:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Simonizer 20:06, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Richard Bartz 20:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Petronas 19:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support One of the most powerful images of the 20th century Booksworm 10:36, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support Great photo--Lmbuga gl, pt, es: contacta comigo 12:15, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support superb. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support - An excellent version of an iconic and historic image. Kakofonous 20:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support --MichaelMaggs 18:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support Lycaon 08:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- 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)
[edit] Image:Korea-Gyeongbokgung-Guard.ceremony-11.jpg, not featured
- Info: created by ddolmang - uploaded by Applebee - nominated by Applebee --Applebee 15:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Applebee 15:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose. All the people are looking in the wrong direction. --TM 08:00, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Lerdsuwa 16:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose as TM --Karelj 17:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose This picture is unbalanced in 2 many aspects --Richard Bartz 19:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- 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)
[edit] Image:Elephant seal colony.jpg, not featured
- 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)
- Support --Helen Filatova 16:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- Comment You are absolutely right. 'Moulting' much better describes the situation. Thank you for your comment! Helen Filatova 21:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Composition. --Karelj 18:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose as above. I dislike the composition. Sorry. --[[Anonymous Dissident]] 21:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose as above. --Rabensteiner 21:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support Love it! --Tomascastelazo 04:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support Nice. Slightly too high JPEG compression setting though (visible at 100%). --Lerdsuwa 15:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support--Wisnia6522 18:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- Oppose crop feels a bit uneasy Tbc 01:53, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support I like it much --Simonizer 14:09, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose--Applebee 14:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Composition --Chrumps 01:22, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- 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)
[edit] Image:SalersBreed YoungCow.JPG, not featured
- Info: created, uploaded and nominated by B.navez --B.navez 18:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support --B.navez 18:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support Good picture but it looks like a milk ad. --Applebee 21:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support Jon Harald Søby 00:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- 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)
- Support --Aqwis 12:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support --QWerk 12:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Lerdsuwa 15:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose ??? Sorry, the quality is sowhat low, we have our cow benchmark by DSCHWEN --Richard Bartz 18:00, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Böhringer 19:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose per Richard Bartz (who forgot to sign again ;-) ). Poor quality, too tight crop. Lycaon 20:13, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Quality at 100% is poor. —Pixel8 22:47, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose ack Richard. -- Laitche 11:15, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose As above. --Karelj 00:00, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support - Anrie 09:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Wisnia6522 19:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - Poor quality Alvesgaspar 21:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - per Richard Bartz. Cacophony 05:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- 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)
[edit] Image:Ansel Adams - Farm workers and Mt. Williamson.jpg, featured
- 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)
- Support --Durova 04:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support It is Ansel! For me, he is to photography what Michaelangelo is to sculpture. --Tomascastelazo 04:44, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support...unique image.--MONGO 08:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Lerdsuwa 15:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Karelj 17:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Support Great DOF, historical value, aesthetically interesting -- Ianare 09:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- 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)