Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/July 2007
From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
This is an archive for Commons:Featured picture candidates page debates and voting.
The debates are closed and should not be edited.
[edit] Image:Drohnenpuppen 79b.jpg
 |
 |
| Drohnenpuppen 79b.jpg | Edit: Drohnenpuppen 79d.jpg -- wau |
[edit] Version 79b, not featured
Support --wau 23:07, 16 June 2007 (UTC)- Support --Digon3 talk 16:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
- Strongly
Oppose Maybe encyclopedic, maybe nice and sharp, but making a dissection to show some drone-larvaes is absolutely not wow! and not FP for me. Iam shure there is a much better or more creative way to show this. Maybe a drawing works better. DONT KILL ANIMALS! --Makro Freak talk 17:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
- Obviously you know more about bold type than about beekeeping. The live of every colony of honeybees is threatened by varroa mites. If there are too many, the colony breaks down. Cutting off drone cells is a method many beekeepers use to reduce the number of varroa mites. As drones need 3 more days to develop in their cells than worker bees, the varroa mites prefer to lay their eggs in the drone cells where the number of varroa is 8 times as high as in worker cells. Therefore beekeepers make the queen lay much more drone eggs than needed using combs with drone cells. Once the cells are capped, they cut off the drone brood, thus removing a big part of the mites (see en:Varroa destructor#Behavioral methods). We do this to help the colony survive. As the drones had to be cut off for this reason, I think it to be acceptable to take pictures of them to show in a encyclopedia how the larvae and pupae develop. --wau 22:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
- Even if you overflood me with your expert informations and beeing bold to me (reason?), i dont like this picture because of the brutality. And as i said a drawing would work better in my eyes --Makro Freak talk 06:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- Anmerkung: bold type = Fettdruck --wau 11:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- Schon verstanden :) Hab dir das Wortspiel nur zurückgehaucht bold = frech --Makro Freak 12:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- Anmerkung: bold type = Fettdruck --wau 11:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- Even if you overflood me with your expert informations and beeing bold to me (reason?), i dont like this picture because of the brutality. And as i said a drawing would work better in my eyes --Makro Freak talk 06:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
-
Question: Could a drawing be made without making a dissection? Ben Aveling 21:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
- Surely not, but there are some nice drawings out there like this --> [1] where the informations could be taken without a dissection --Makro Freak talk 07:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- Question: Why a different background on each side? And could the image be rotated a little? Ben Aveling 21:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Maybe something more like this? (OK, this is too small, and cropped too closely, but I just want to show that it looks better rotated, and without that blue on the right.)
- Support I don't see why a bee keeper can't make up his own mind on this issue. If a beekeeper was going to euthenise the bees anyway, you might as well take the picture. I also wouldn't have a problem if this was done for the sole purpose of education, provided that the bees were not in a wild hive and that the owner of the bees consented. -- Ram-Man 12:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- Question: What would be the difference if a veterinary opens a living dogs torso and show you some fetus, when its up his mind? --Makro Freak 12:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- Bees are lower order animals. Dogs are higher order animals. I think that makes a difference. While we shouldn't be indifferent to cruelty, there are too many problems in this world to attack them all with this level of emotional intensity. Regards, Ben Aveling 13:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with Ben here: I swat the common housefly and don't feel guilty, I run over snails and worms with my car during rain storms and I'm not arrested. Destroying a native environment has certain moral issues, but if the bees are domestic there is no problem, even without the explanation above. If the example dog was "under the knife", proper anesthesia should be used of course. I'm certainly not advocating cruelty. Opening up a dog in a controlled, educational environment, such as a veterinarian school, is not going to be an issue, and when done properly it will not affect the dog's health. In your example, is it not the right of the owner to abort a dog's fetus if the owner wants to, just as neutering a pet would also be acceptable? (Also, I certainly do not imply that these rules apply to humans). -- Ram-Man 14:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- Maybe you are the ethic-specialists ... for those its a thing, for me not, thats all. --Makro Freak 15:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- @ Makro Freak: My English is not perfect, but speaking of dissection I think of cutting off the heads and legs of the drones or cutting them in 2 parts to show what they are looking inside. What I did was opening the cells of wax where the drones are lying in without injuring them in any way. Sure, if I had asked them if they agree to do this, they might have answered the opposite way than Diogenes of Sinope: Please, don’t let the sunlight shine on us. If I had closed the cells again, they could have developed normally. To compare this with opening the body of a dog to show the young dogs inside is not a very fair argument I believe.
@ Ben Aveling: Of course the newspaper background at the right edge is not very nice, I was not sure if it is allowed to change this. Unfortunately I have no program to edit the picture at the moment. I'll see what I can do. By the way there is another version Image:Drohnenpuppen_79a.JPG that is less cropped. --wau 15:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)-
- Small edits such as rotating and cropping are OK. Larger edits are OK if you are honest about them in the description of the image. But in this case, I don't think an edit will help. If you rotate the picture until it is straight, you lose the bottom left hand corner. (As you can see in my thumbnail) If you have another version that is less cropped at the bottom, I can rotate that for you. (I use GIMP. It took a while to work out where the rotate function is, but it's there and it works and you can't complain about the price.) Regards, Ben Aveling 12:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- The term dissection is right. I dont said that you are dissected the drones, i meant the comb. But dissecting the comb means disturbing the development of the drones, ergo they have to die. --Makro Freak 16:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
-
- @ Makro Freak: My English is not perfect, but speaking of dissection I think of cutting off the heads and legs of the drones or cutting them in 2 parts to show what they are looking inside. What I did was opening the cells of wax where the drones are lying in without injuring them in any way. Sure, if I had asked them if they agree to do this, they might have answered the opposite way than Diogenes of Sinope: Please, don’t let the sunlight shine on us. If I had closed the cells again, they could have developed normally. To compare this with opening the body of a dog to show the young dogs inside is not a very fair argument I believe.
- I don't want to support this picture, for the same reasons as Makro Freak.Anyhow, I think that the real owners of their lives are the bees themselves...Vassil 18 June 2007
- Maybe you are the ethic-specialists ... for those its a thing, for me not, thats all. --Makro Freak 15:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support First time I see that --Orlovic (talk) 16:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support I am a strict vegetarian for more than half of my life and I have no ethical problems with this picture whatsoever. What would indeed be wrong is a contest of who can make the best photography of honeybee drone pupae - but that's not what we are seing here. What we are looking at here is the result of a beekeeper documenting his routine work. That kind of work does not need to be carried out often, but from time to time it is necessary. Just like a forester does not kill deer for fun, they sometimes have to in order to help the wood keep in balance. We humans have intervened with nature in ways so massively that we have basically forced ourselves to invervene again in order not keep our planet in shape. If this is reason for someone to stop eating honey or change their religion it is their decision, but please lets try to be objective and realistic when voting on pictures, and let's not forget the goal of the Wikipedia. I am supporting this picture for it's great detail and enourmous educational value. However, I, too, would like to see the picture rotated a bit and the blue border on the right removed. ---volty 19:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- Why you want to decide the issue? (your misinterpretated one) Its not a discussion about the usability or the enormous value nor anybody wants to delete this picture. Here is the poll for FP and the goal is to decide who is hot or not ;) and i dont like this picture because of its brutality, so what is unrealistic onto this opinion? Makro Freak
- Oppose --Wiki mouse 19:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose reflections of flash, tilt, composition --Simonizer 06:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Disgusting --Bergwolf 09:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support. A better picture could be taken, but at the moment, I believe this is the best picture we have on this important subject. Regards, Ben Aveling 12:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support Very relevant. Never seen before. Though the crop ccould be disussed. A "musthave" for wikipedia. --AM 21:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Question: I think, it is better not to crop too much the right side. I prefer that the edges of the comb be visible. Would an edit like "Drohnenpuppen 79d" be acceptable? --wau 23:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
-
- Looks good to me. Ben Aveling 08:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- I think so, too. Right border doesn't attract so much attention now. --AM 16:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Looks good to me. Ben Aveling 08:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support Lovely, informative picture. Very essence of encyclopedic. I don't mind which version. Adam Cuerden 07:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support Ss181292 19:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry, have to agree with Makro Freak. --Digitaldreamer 19:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
result: 9 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Version 79d, featured
- Support Lovely, informative picture. Very essence of encyclopedic. I don't mind which version. Adam Cuerden 07:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC) copied here from above as the vote is for both versions --wau 17:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support both. Prefer this version. Ben Aveling 08:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Orlovic (talk) 16:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support I was waiting until the blue background was fixed. Really good picture. - Keta 16:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose You should apply the retouched picture template onto this version --Makro Freak talk 16:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- done. Ben Aveling 21:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support both. Prefer this version. --AM 16:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose
as above --Simonizer 17:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)reflections of flash, harsh light --Simonizer 09:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)- Question: Above you wrote "reflections of flash, tilt, composition". I think this edit fixes two of those? Is the flash such a problem? The highlights seem minor to me, and they do show a lot about the texture of the creatures and their cells. Ben Aveling 21:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Yes it does in my opinion. Dont get me wrong, the picture has great detail and surely has value. But there is something special missing that this picture needs to get a FP support from me. The picture dont cope with the fragile and delicate character of this creatures--Simonizer 09:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support both versions. Extra high value. Vary good quality. Ss181292 19:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose as above --Bergwolf 19:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support - Alvesgaspar 09:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support Detailed and highly educational. As this was taken during normal beekeeper activities I have no moral issues with it -MichaD | Michael Apel 11:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Digon3 talk 15:47, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support both versions, prefer this one --wau 17:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support. Anrie 08:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose --Wiki mouse 21:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Comment ;) Ich gönne es dir trotzdem, Brutalinski! :) :) :) --Makro Freak talk 16:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)- Support -- Ram-Man 17:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
result: 12 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 20:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Play fight IMG 3018.JPG, featured
Info: Grizzly Bears (Ursus arctos horribilis) are engaged in a play fight.- Info: created, uploaded and nominated by Mbz1 --Mbz1 01:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Mbz1 01:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support - Lovely image, and we're probably not going to get anything else like it that's not copyrighted. Though be careful, lad: Don't want you getting mauled for Wikipedia. Adam Cuerden 06:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support - Keta 13:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support - Very real and powerfull, Milla --Makro Freak 16:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Simonizer 07:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Digitaldreamer 19:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support --LucaG 21:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support Basik07 08:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support just change the file name Alessio Damato 18:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 20:42, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Piazza san marco.jpg, not featured
- Info: Piazza san Marco in Venice, Italy. The place is famous for its high number of pigeons. created, uploaded and nominated by Nattfodd --Nattfodd 17:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Nattfodd 17:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support - Nice picture of that well-known place. AndI have to admit, I love black&white pictures. :) DainDwarf 17:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Pour I also love B&W pictures and this one is good. Romary 07:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support Vassil 13:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Tilted, quite hefty barrel distortion and I'm not sure if that's the best B/W conversion. All of which are correctable --MichaD | Michael Apel 14:52, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- Info: I also had the impression of a tilted horizon but photoshop ruler doesn't seem to agree. Which specific criticism do you have about B/W? The conversion was made with an aesthetic point of view, hence the high contrast. Nattfodd 17:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment First let me say that I can't really put hard facts down for the B&W conversion and I'm also not really an expert at this. That's why I say I've got the impression it could be better. What I like about good B&W photos is a fine tone graduation. This can even be the case while being very contrasty. I think this conversion certainly lacks that, especially on the facade. The impression of the tilt is probably a combination from the off-center composition and the barrel distortion. Again I like the photo, that freeze frame look, and I would support it with the barrel distortion corrected and maybe a different B&W conversion --MichaD | Michael Apel 20:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Neutral as per MichaD --Digitaldreamer 19:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)- Support Beautiful Sosomk 20:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Agree with MichaD and additional it looks slightly overexposed --Simonizer 12:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support Jina Lee 00:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose see: MichaD. No reason for B/W. --Jeses 19:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- Info: I don't quite see what would be a "reason" for B/W. I think it makes it look better and goes much better with the pigeons flock. Nattfodd 17:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose ack MichaD. --Digon3 talk 16:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support Dynamic! Jón 18:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose --Bergwolf 20:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
-
- Please say why. --MichaelMaggs 13:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose due to correctable tilt and some relatively minor distortion. The writing on one of the banners looks aliased or oversharpened to me. The black and white is fine here. -- Ram-Man 17:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
result: 7 support, 6 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 20:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Hyles euphorbiae004.jpg, featured
- Info: created by & uploaded by Lilly M - nominated by --Makro Freak talk 20:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Makro Freak talk 20:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support - Beautiful colours and detail(finally an insect!). What is the tree, a spruce? - Alvesgaspar 20:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support--Mbz1 21:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- Support-- LadyofHats 11:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Digitaldreamer 19:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support Well done:)--Glory 04:28, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support Basik07 08:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support Very nice, get a picture of the Imago as well if you get the chance :) --MichaD | Michael Apel 15:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support--Böhringer 21:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose --Bergwolf 20:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
-
- Please say why. --MichaelMaggs 13:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support --MichaelMaggs 06:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
result: 10 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 20:45, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Calopteryx virgo male.jpg, featured
- Info: created by MichaD | Michael Apel - uploaded by MichaD | Michael Apel - nominated by MichaD | Michael Apel --MichaD | Michael Apel 09:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support DOF, sharpness and smooth lighting. Plus it shows a juvenile imago which is not seen in most of the other shots --MichaD | Michael Apel 09:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support good shot. Which camera and lens did you use? --AngMoKio 10:19, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- Info: Canon 20D, Sigma 105/2.8 Macro @ f/11 and 2 second exposure with MLU.
- Support - The subject is so sharp and detailed that we can forget the background (2 seconds exposure? Did you sedate the animal first?...) - Alvesgaspar 11:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- Info: Simple, the movements of insects is highly dependent on temperature. That's why I like to go out on overcast days or after rain showers. No animals were harmed in the making of this photograph. Although it averted an attack by an ichneumon wasp shortly after this picture was taken, sadly I didn't get a clear shot of it. MichaD | Michael Apel 11:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support - could you add where the photo was taken? I suspect somewhere in Germany, but I think it might be interesting to be a bit more precise (for example to see regional differences) Tbc 12:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- Question: What's the preferred way of geocoding? --MichaD | Michael Apel 13:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- I was thinking of a description, something like Leopoldpark, near statue of Albert II, Brussels, Belgium or something. If you want geocoding, just decimal lat-long I guess. Tbc 15:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support Vassil 12:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- Neutral The feet is cropped, should be fixed for FP --Makro Freak talk 13:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Then you have to oppose, no cropping other than in-camera. I blame it on the 96% frame coverage of the 20D, who would blame himself? :). I don't like cropping afterwards, don't ask me why. Thus I tend to frame really tight and sometimes too tight in-camera. --MichaD | Michael Apel 14:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Digon3 talk 15:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support --LucaG 21:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support This picture is a high quality picture. Good work.--Glory 04:27, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support A fantastic picture, good job! Majorly (talk) 22:46, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support Superb shot, highly informative. riana_dzasta 20:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support Basik07 08:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support - Wow, amazing colours... --typhoonchaser 14:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Karelj 19:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support--Böhringer 21:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support--Saturno07 13:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Framing --Bergwolf 20:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support --MichaelMaggs 06:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Digitaldreamer 17:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support--João Carvalho 14:32, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
result: 18 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Simonizer 08:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Mature flower diagram.svg, featured
- Info: created, uploaded and nominated by LadyofHats --LadyofHats 10:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- Neutral --LadyofHats 10:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support - Excellent - Alvesgaspar 11:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support --MichaD | Michael Apel 12:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- Question: -- How about the image resolution on drawings and diagrams? It seems the size is very low as seen in pixel-mode. --Makro Freak talk 16:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- it is an svg (vector graphic), there is no one single pixel inside that file, you can make it as big as you want and will show exactly as it is-LadyofHats 17:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- Maybe not in the file, but when rendered the browser displays pixels i guess, but anyway. How does that work? When i click on it, i can only watch the base size which is 423 × 217 pixels. Does i need a plugin? --Makro Freak talk 17:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- you can go to my user page and see a much bigger thumb. here i could try uploading a bigger version of the basic file. but actually to see it bigger you need to create an image thumb with a higer size.-LadyofHats 17:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Digon3 talk 15:41, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support -- Lerdsuwa 08:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support, but I would like to see numbers instead of english words in the picture for nonenglish users (with separated legend) -- Pinky sl 06:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- in "other versions" on the image description there is anumbered version. for numbered diagrams fans.-LadyofHats 09:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support. --MichaelMaggs 06:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Simonizer 08:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support Note that to make the image show correctly with Commons thumbnails, I have just edited it to remove the Adobe Illustrator specific extensions (only needed for its internal editing options) and notably the internal DTD definition of XML named entities for the namespaces, and the <switch> that hides the effective SVG graphic to use only these private extensions after it. With this change, we have a standard SVG. Nothing was changed in the image itself (whose source remains in the hstory if one needs to reedit it). This was necessary in order to have the image displayed on the Commons frontpage or in other wiki projects, independantly of its effective display size, by using the thumbnail resizing features of the Commons image server. Note also that the internal radial gradients generated by AI are not supported in thumbnails... Verdy p 15:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Styracosaurus dinosaur.png, not featured
- Info: created, uploaded and nominated by LadyofHats --LadyofHats 10:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support --LadyofHats 10:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support Vassil 13:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- Question: What is special on this drawing? --Makro Freak talk 23:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Wiki mouse 21:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose --Bergwolf 20:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support--Benjamint 09:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support --MichaelMaggs 06:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose no featured picture material, cartoonish Tbc 20:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - Agree, not the best of this author. - Alvesgaspar 21:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose He Who Laughs Last 02:47, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose--João Carvalho 14:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
result: 5 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 08:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:ZedazeniMonastery.jpg, not featured
[edit] 1#, not featured
- Info: Zedazeni Monastery, originally built in the 6th century, is a good example of early Christian architecture of Georgia. The picture has a good composition and focus on the two-story basilica style of architecture. Created by Sosomk - uploaded by Sosomk - nominated by Sosomk --Sosomk 11:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support Pictures like this make my day. Also I looked at it carefully and I am pretty sure it is original :):) -- Sosomk 11:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose overexposed and there is a stain near the aircraft contrail --Simonizer 11:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose tilted image -- Lerdsuwa 08:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose--João Carvalho 14:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 08:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] 2#, not featured
Info:I propose an edit; it was very easy to remove the stain and the aircraft contrail.Vassil 14:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support Vassil 14:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - I'm sorry, but I don't like the composition which seems too symmetrical and a little boring. Also, there is a slight (and disturbing) ccw tilt, which has nothing to do with the slope of the terrain. Finally, I agree with Simonizer on the overexposure. Alvesgaspar 22:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support Dear Vassil, thanks a lot, I was not sure if we could use photoshop. As for the exposure, I think it is more of a difference in taste of art rather than anything else. I think it is good and so does User:Vassil, who I think has a good taste of art judging from the pictures he uploaded on Commons (Louvre, Cathédrale Notre Dame de Reims, Medieval festival, etc.) Sosomk 06:42, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Thank you very much, Sosomk.I agree that this picture isn't spectacular at first sight, but I like it because it's sharp and representative, and the lamb fits in well with this rustic architecture.About the exposure, I've tried "automatic contrast" and "automatic levels" in Photoshop and nothing moved, so I've let the original exposure.(I know that "automatic levels" isn't unfailing, but it's an indication in normal light conditions.) I don't know about the tilt; the building and especially the roof are asymmetrical. Vassil 08:27, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
-
- The architecture is called Basilica style, which is ancient and early medieval church architecture of Georgia. Also, the monastery is surrounded with the gate. Sosomk 19:55, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose still overexposed and that has nothing to do with art, because i can see no intention that the author wanted to make some kind of High Key picture --Simonizer 08:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
-
- Well, I find the picture great because of the contrast of the lamb (the symbol of Christianity) and the Church, and that's what the author has done to make it professional. Sosomk 19:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
- I agree, thats a good idea, but a good idea is often not enough --Simonizer 07:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I find the picture great because of the contrast of the lamb (the symbol of Christianity) and the Church, and that's what the author has done to make it professional. Sosomk 19:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Overexposed. --Digon3 talk 15:39, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Tilted image -- Lerdsuwa 08:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support. --Kober 20:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose--João Carvalho 14:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 08:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Stadtkirche Oberer See Böblingen.jpg, not featured
- Info: created by MichaD | Michael Apel - uploaded by MichaD | Michael Apel - nominated by MichaD | Michael Apel --MichaD | Michael Apel 21:32, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support Lets try a non-macro --MichaD | Michael Apel 21:32, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Sky looks overexposed to me --Bergwolf 22:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Quality of picture --Karelj 22:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose I dont like the quadratic format --Simonizer 07:56, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose The sky is not nice. I like the colorful rental boats. --Makro Freak 08:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination MichaD | Michael Apel 12:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
.
result: Nomination withdrawn => not featured. Simonizer 14:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Bellis perennis white (aka).jpg, not featured
.jpg)
- Info: This Image is one of the most beautiful Images I have ever seen. It was taken and uploaded by Aka. It was nominated by __ ABF __ _
_ 08:53, 23 June 2007 (UTC) - Support wounderful. __ ABF __ __ 08:53, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support ----Digon3 talk 15:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support -- Lerdsuwa 08:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support Jina Lee 00:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Wiki mouse 21:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support--Böhringer 21:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry, but given how strict the standards are for flower pictures, this is not technically perfect. Some of the flower petals are overexposed. The bottom flowers are all out of focus, and there is no reason the camera could not have been oriented better to put the whole flower in the focal plane. See my example image or this alternate image. I also find this composition of the same species of flower to be much more appealing than the top, centered view. -- Ram-Man 20:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - Agree with Ram-Man plus the tight crop. - Alvesgaspar 21:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - Agree with Ram-Man; sorry. --MichaelMaggs 06:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - bottom flowers are out of focus --Simonizer 12:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
result: 6 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Trebinje River.jpg, featured
- Support --Hrast 17:10, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support Majorly (talk) 17:46, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support Sosomk 20:06, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support -- Lerdsuwa 08:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support - What else has to be said? Booksworm 17:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support Less than 2MB, but excellent quality -- MJJR 20:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support Basik07 08:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Simonizer 10:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support --LucaG 17:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support -- Pinky sl 06:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support--Böhringer 15:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support--Mbz1 16:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- Support --Merikapteeni 17:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Bergwolf 20:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support Vassil 20:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support Amazing -- He Who Laughs Last 00:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- Question: am i the only one that notices the image is overexposed?-LadyofHats 11:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry, but I can see no 'strong mitigating reasons' why this image should be smaller than 2Mpx. --MichaelMaggs 13:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support Wow Moravice 21:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
result: 17 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 07:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Pyrenees topographic map-fr.svg, featured
- Info: created by Sting - uploaded by Sting --Ayack 17:50, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Ayack 17:50, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support - I like maps and I like SVG. And I like especially good-looking informative maps ;-) --Manuel (Diskussion) 18:58, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support - amazing work. Yug (talk) 22:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - Because there is no scale in the map. Svg is not the best format for a map because it gives the wrong impression that it can be used in any scale or size, which is not true. Also, the legend is not complete and there is no indication of the map projection. - Alvesgaspar 23:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
-
- « no scale in the map » : well, looking at your nice work, I imagine that you know that a scale on a digital map doesn't represent lot of things : I may write that it is a 1:500.000 scale (for example), but in this "1 unit" (cm, inches, etc.), will you have a strait line or curves ? Two maps of the same size may give the same scale, but not with the same accuracy. Secondarily, do you know many paper maps giving the scale under the 1:xxx.xxx form plus the distance scale ?
- « no indication of the map projection » : for sure, you didn't read the complete summary, where it is written : « UTM projection ; WGS84 geoid ». I do not know until now in Wikipedia (but of course, I don't know them all) a topographic map giving both the information of projection and the geoid used.
- Please explain for the incomplete legend. Sting 04:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
- Info: - I would call this a “general reference map” (like those on the atlases), rather than a “topographic map”, due to the relatively small detail and high level of cartographic generalization. I have enlarged it to a scale of about 1: 1 million, which appears to be a more than reasonable upper limit of use. Even at this scale the information density is quite small when compared to a common atlas’ map (for example, the cities shouldn’t be represented with dot symbols at this scale). Also, this is not a true digital map, comparable with Google Maps, since the level of generalization doesn’t change with scale. This might indeed be useful as a printed map. But for that purpose, a numerical scale is needed, besides the graphical one. Please note that a map is not just a beautiful drawing that we can reduce or enlarge at will. All printed maps always have a nominal scale associated with it, which is closely related to the spatial and thematic accuracy of the information depicted, and to its level of cartographic generalization. In paper maps, the length of 0,25mm (which is the typical thickness of a thin line) is normally taken as a reference for planimetric accuracy. In a map with a scale of 1:50 000, this means that the horizontal accuracy of the survey was, at least, 0.25 x 50 000 = 12 500mm = 12.5 m. In other words, it is guaranteed that the error in the position of all objects depicted in the map is less than 12,5m. When we enlarge that map by a factor of 10, keeping the line width of 0,25mm, we are implicitly assuming that the horizontal accuracy is 1,25m, which is wrong. And when the nominal scale of the map is not even stated, the map becomes useless for anything other than trivial applications. That is precisely the problem with the svg format.
-
- OK, I understand now what you meant by « scale ». In fact it would be more about the accuracy of the drawing. For further discussion about this point, please refer to the post I leaved in your discussion page.
- I really mean "scale", not accuracy. The map should contain a indication on the the maximum scale to be used in printed versions (together with the corresponding paper dimensions) - Alvesgaspar 11:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- Of course, zooming in the map with a ratio over 1:1 will not give more information, it will just make it more legible, as for a raster image. It's also true that it's not a « pure » topographic map in which everything is in scale. Here, the river lines doesn't represent their true width and, like you wrote, the cities should be represented with their real area, but for all that, the scale should be much bigger and it would be impossible to represent the whole area. Sting 21:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- In a "pure topographic map" exageration is also used in the thickness of lines in order to make certain objects visible or more conspicuous, that is not the point. To be truly "topographic" much more information should be depicted and the "working scale" should be much larger than this map permits. Anyway, even at 1:3,000,000 (which is a reasonable printing scale for this map), area symbols (instead of point symbols) should be used to represent cities (at least, the bigger ones). - Alvesgaspar 11:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- OK, I understand now what you meant by « scale ». In fact it would be more about the accuracy of the drawing. For further discussion about this point, please refer to the post I leaved in your discussion page.
- In your map, the legend is not complete because it does not contain all the types of symbols used in the representation. The indication of the map projection should be present in the map itself, not only in the Commons file. Remember that many pictures are used in non-wiki projects. Finally, the WGS84 is not a “geoid” but a geodetic reference system (containing, in particular, the definition of the “ellipsoid” used ). - Alvesgaspar 10:09, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
-
- For the legend, I thought the signification of the three lines were almost trivial, but all right, I added them. About the projection information directly on the map, I think it's a point of view. I created this map (and the others) first for WP and the complementary information is in the description page. If a third party wants to use it in a correct way, they should take what they need also from the description page and not only the image, as they should with the license and the author name. I think also adding too much information not indispensable for a direct understanding of the map would unnecessarily complicate the key, so I left them in the description page (sometimes, there's not much space left on the map). About « geoid », sorry, my mistake : I made a shortcut between the reference frame and the geoid it tends to represent. Sting 21:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- PS - I almost forgot the most important: your map is beautiful and very nicely done. I might support it if those issues are addressed in some elegant way. Alvesgaspar 10:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
-
- Thanks. Sting 21:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support -- Lerdsuwa 08:07, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support. Awesome work. Since Alvesgaspar is a cartographer, he is certainly right and I wish this image be improved following his indications. Nonetheless, those flaws are seen from a skillful eye and I don't think they are rehibitory. — Xavier, 13:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support -- but I think these maps are too big files (5.88M). STyx 20:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support -- High quality map. Nice job ! Perhaps it could be duplicated in a lighter version (with less details, of course), with a reference to this image. Sémhur 15:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
-
- Info: New version uploaded with the borders and projection info in the key and major cities areas. The description page was completed with indication of the data accuracy. Sting 00:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support This map is really a great job! Guérin nicolas 17:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 07:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Blue-wooden-bench.jpg, not featured
- Info: created by Adamantios - uploaded by Adamantios - nominated by Jeses --Jeses 18:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support Nice still life. Well balanced Colors. --Jeses 18:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose ??--Böhringer 22:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- Neutral It is a nice picture, but...it is a picture of a bench.--Sir James Paul 23:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- Question: It's not "yet another animal pic". Whats the problem with benches??? --Jeses 18:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose --Kolossos 06:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Composition, lighting, and subject not well presented. --Digon3 talk 15:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose --Bergwolf 20:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
-
- Please say why. --MichaelMaggs 13:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose --Makro Freak talk 17:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
-
- Please say why. --MichaelMaggs 13:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry i forgot to say that it is just a bench with a leaf on it and author gives no informations about context. --Makro Freak 20:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- Please say why. --MichaelMaggs 13:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Neutral - I like minimalist photos and this one is almost there. But the composition is just not good enough (I can't say exactly why) and the quality could be better. With some more space around a non-centered bench, who knows? - Alvesgaspar 21:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose--João Carvalho 14:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 6 oppose, 2 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 07:05, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Hummingbird in GGP.jpg, not featured
- Info: A hummingbird shows his plumage.
- Info: created, uploaded and nominated by Mbz1 --Mbz1 16:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Mbz1 16:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Blured, noisy, beak out of focus... --Jeses 17:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose --Bergwolf 20:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
-
- Please say why. --MichaelMaggs 13:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Contra -- out of focus and noisy-LadyofHats 12:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 07:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Phlomis russeliana C.jpg, not featured
- Info: created by Wouter Hagens - uploaded by Wouter Hagens - nominated by Wouter Hagens --Wouter 09:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Wouter 09:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Composition is so so and too much noise --Makro Freak talk 17:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- Contra noisy-LadyofHats 12:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 07:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Photinia fraseri D.jpg, not featured
Left image, not featured:
- Info: created by Wouter Hagens - uploaded by Wouter Hagens - nominated by Wouter Hagens --Wouter 09:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Wouter 09:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Underexposed. --Digon3 talk 13:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Agree twith Digon --Makro Freak talk 17:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose--João Carvalho 14:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 07:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Right image, not featured:
- Comment It may be that my monitor is brighter. I processed a lighter version from the original RAW data. In my opinion is that too light, but others may like it. --Wouter 20:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose There is harsh and uneven lighting, which gives the picture under and overexposed parts. --Digon3 talk 14:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment It seems the 2 leaves describes a treasure from where the buds flying away. Nice but strange lighning. --Makro Freak talk 15:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose--João Carvalho 14:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
result: 0 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 07:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Yamabiko dome.JPG, not featured
- Info: created by Qurren - uploaded by Qurren - nominated by Mitulbabu --Mitulbabu 17:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Mitulbabu 17:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Not really a "wow" factor and a little too dark. --Digon3 talk 19:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Underexposed, classical - boring composition --Makro Freak talk 19:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- Contra- boring-LadyofHats 12:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Contra too dark --Bergwolf 11:44, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose--João Carvalho 14:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 07:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] image:Prosobranchia Trio.jpg, not featured
- Info: created by TopoGigio - uploaded by TopoGigio
- Support --TopoGigio 00:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose There is a lot of noise on the shells. --Digon3 talk 14:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Neutral Great photographs and composition. The picture could have been cropped a little at the top and bottom, but why are the two shells of the right much more noisy than the left one ? Can you fix it ? Sting 20:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 08:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Oblique rays 02 Pengo.svg, not featured
- Info: created by Pengo - uploaded by Pengo - nominated by Cacophony --Cacophony 07:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Second diagram (03) shows Northern Winter tilt, and the last (04) attempts a Spring/Autumn tilt, although it's probably not enough of one.
- Support I think it elegantly illustrates a simple concept that has major effects to the world that we live in. --Cacophony 07:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose. Unfortunately, the concept is not that simple, and this image is in my view very misleading. It doesn't show the earth's angled rotation axis, and seems to imply that the sun's rays are always parallel to the equator, which is not the case due to the oblique angle the axis makes with the plane of the earth's motion around the sun. The text even states that "Solar radiation in tropical areas (i.e. lower latitudes, nearer the equator) has vertical rays", which as a general unqualified statement is simply wrong (it happens at local noon only twice a year). To explain the effect properly you'd need at least to mention if not show both time of day and seasonal effects. Also, the fake landmass worries me; why not a real outline? --MichaelMaggs 08:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the comments. The diagram is to show why the poles are colder than the equator, so I'm not sure how adding axial tilt would do anything but confuse things. I've changed the text to note this simplification, and to say "more vertical" (if that's a term) rather than just "vertical". I didn't use real land mass because it's too hard to find a picture of the Earth with the equator in the middle, let alone in svg or at the right level of detail; and i wanted to the avoid the politics of choosing which side of the Earth was facing the viewer. The time of day being noon is implied by positions of the sun and Earth and the areas of focus. Pengo 10:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Contra i do think you should tilt the equator line, remove the outline of the atmosphere ( wich gives the impresion of being solid) , also remove the yellow scale at the size it gives really no extra information. and the arrow heads in the sollar rays are not really necesary either -LadyofHats 12:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- I've incorporated your suggestions, and attempted a couple of different "tilts". I'm still not sure they help at all other than to confuse matters by introducing seasons.
- Oppose - 1st: This is not the best way to illustrate the concept; 2nd: that is not the only reason why the poles are colder than the equator, and 3rd: the picture is misleading, like MichaelMaggs said. To show that the altitude of the sun above the horizon has a strong influence on the flux of energy at the surface I would prefer to depict a flat ground, with two similiar "cylinders of rays" coming from different angles. - Alvesgaspar 22:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, what other reasons are the poles colder other than axial tilt? The cylinders of rays is a different way (not a "better way"), and would make it difficult to show the rays have to travel further through the atmosphere. Although it doesn't change anything, please note also that this diagram that I seem to be defending now isn't completely my own design, but is based on those found in a couple of textbooks. Pengo 23:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - Here is a picture illustrating what I mean, from the time I was teaching these things (sorry to be in Portuguese). The angle of incidence of the rays, combined with the albedo of the surface has also a strong influence on the amount of energy being absorbed (or reflected) at the surface. In the ice-covered polar zones, almost all direct energy from the sun is reflected because it is white and the angle is small. In short, the angle of incidence affects the heating of the surface in 3 different ways: lenght of atmospheric track, variable flux and variable reflection. - Alvesgaspar 10:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- Cool. Thanks for that. Pengo 16:25, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 08:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Sky.png, not featured
- Info: created by Manuel Strehl - uploaded by Manuel Strehl - nominated by Manuel Strehl --Manuel (Diskussion) 08:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Info: This is a rasterized version of the SVG file Sky.svg. The SVG however relies on CSS to style the stars (much smaller file size!), which is not yet handled properly by the KSVG renderer of the Commons.
- Comment - Impressive and useful work. But the sky map should be explained with a comprehensive legend (colours, sizes/magnitudes, symbols, celestial circles,...) and the constelations also represented. To further simplify the reading, I would also put the names of the larger magnitude stars. The map projection should be identified in the map (I suppose this is an azimuthal equidistant projection). Not being svg doesn't bother me, it is well known that the Commons renderer doesn't work properly. - Alvesgaspar 08:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
result: 0 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 08:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:07Agamemnon.jpg, not featured
- Info: created by fingalo - uploaded by fingalo - nominated by fingalo --Fingalo 11:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Info: The Agamemmnon-mask in the National Archaeological Museum in Athens
- Support --Fingalo 11:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Contra -- overexposed image -LadyofHats 12:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Neutral The reflection of the flashlight is very harsh --Makro Freak talk 14:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Overexposed. --Digon3 talk 14:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose I didn't know the Ancients made a version in copper of that mask… See Category:Agamemnon_Mask. Sting 20:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Question: fake? --Bergwolf 11:36, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 08:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Flying Kookaburra DSC 0711.JPG, not featured
- Info: created, uploaded, nominated by Ben Aveling 12:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose It is too dark and I don't like the composition. --Digon3 talk 14:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment It has a impression like a scissor type silhouette --Makro Freak talk 15:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose nice composition, but colors and focus are bad. --Jeses 13:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination I've uploaded a lightened and cropped version. However it makes some color fringing even more obvious. :-( Regards, Ben Aveling 19:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
.
result: Nomination withdrawn => not featured. Simonizer 08:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Smutugle (Noctua pronuba).jpg, not featured
.jpg)
- Info: created, uploaded and nominated by --Malene Thyssen 18:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Malene Thyssen 18:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- Neutral Very detailed, but the light is a bit too hard for my taste --MichaD | Michael Apel 21:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Let's raise the bar? No wow for me --Bergwolf 22:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose For me, too --Makro Freak 08:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- Do you have any technical critique? Its hard to argue about or inproove in the wow-factor. Its wow to me - hence the nomination :-) --Malene Thyssen 17:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- Uargh .. why I must write an essay. Because as you are: In my imagination I see a dead, bit blurry "Eulenfalter" from behind with a snapped off and a twisted antenna, placed very classical on a bark somewhen at noon. And then i stare at this picture and try to see something which is arcane for my eyes, but I cannot find anything which touches me. The texture of the wings ? The type of the sere moss ? The butterfly itself ? Are iam so fuc-beep-up that i cannot find any ? I think iam, sorry. The technical achievement is ok, like i anticipate when viewing your userpage-gallery, as far my businesslike appraisal. Ok now i try to see it from the more abstract side. Is it a persiflage ? Is it a mirror ? Is it a --Makro Freak talk 18:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)?
- Oh sorry Makro Freak, I didn't mean for you to write an essay and explain why you didn't find the "wow" in the picture. I definitely respect your judgement in that aspect, since thats absolutely individually - and should be. I was just wondering if something technically was wrong since Bergwolf wrote "Let's raise the bar?". Regards --Malene Thyssen 19:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- "Lets raise the bar on Insect pictures" was a quote by Alvesgaspar and Bergwolf must have taken that literally --Makro Freak talk 20:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- Ok - thanks for clearing that up for me. --Malene Thyssen 21:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- "Lets raise the bar on Insect pictures" was a quote by Alvesgaspar and Bergwolf must have taken that literally --Makro Freak talk 20:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination Let's raise the bar...
.
result: Nomination withdrawn => not featured. Simonizer 08:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Argynnis pandora LC0052.jpg, featured
- Info: created, uploaded and nominated by LC-de --LC-de 12:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support --LC-de 12:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support Wonderful image. — Xavier, 13:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support WOW! Very good DOF and beautiful colors --LucaG 17:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support wow! -wau 19:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Digon3 talk 19:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support Oppose Sehr schön, Jörg. I don't watched it at 100% before, so i overlooked that its very blurry ;) But i really like it. --Makro Freak talk 11:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support Jina Lee 00:28, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support Pimke 06:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - I agree that the composition and colours are great. But the image is not sharp enough. Am I the only one to notice that the focus is not on the butterfly? - Alvesgaspar 10:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support--Böhringer 15:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose I agree with Alvesgaspar
and there seems to be some quite strong noise reduction involved--MichaD | Michael Apel 11:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC) - Neutral The coloring in this picture is great, but I do not think I can support this because it is not sharp enough.--Sir James Paul 00:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Neutral agree with Alvesgaspar but composition and colours are nice - so i change to neutral --AngMoKio 11:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose --Bergwolf 20:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
-
- Please say why. --MichaelMaggs 13:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Atoma 09:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support Basik07 16:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support-- i do believe the part that seems not to be sharps comes due the hairy body of the buterfly.-LadyofHats 11:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
** dream on ;) This are smoothing software artefacts --Makro Freak talk 15:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC) This critter is hairy! --Makro Freak 13:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Never used smoothing filters on that picture, but these butterflys are hairy. --LC-de 15:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- I'd say that part is just out of focus. The focus plane seems to span from the far wing, behind the thorax through the head of the thistle --MichaD | Michael Apel 21:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
-
- Support Beautiful colours, good composition. Nice impression of the animal. Sharp enough for me. --AM 17:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
result: 12 support, 4 oppose, 2 neutral => featured. Simonizer 08:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:sa brownpelican.jpg, not featured
- Info: Picture of a brown pelican, taken at Santa Cruz Beach, California. Created by sanjay_ach - uploaded by sanjay_ach - nominated by sanjay_ach --Sanjay ach 05:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Sanjay ach 05:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Pedroserafin 07:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose composition! I dont like that the reflection of the pelican is cropped --Simonizer 08:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Agree with Simonizer. The focus seems to be on the reflection and not the pelican itself as well --MichaD | Michael Apel 09:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Unfortunatly the pelican is out of focus, which is a pity because the tone and "softness" in the sea behind is great (apart from little bubbles at right edge -easily fixable in PS). I think the compositon is fine. --Trounce 14:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose I agree with the others who oppose this being made a featured picture. The pelican it to much out of focus. It still is a nice picture though.--Sir James Paul 00:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose --Bergwolf 20:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
-
- Please say why. --MichaelMaggs 13:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Contra --too much empty space. even when it is a nice image -LadyofHats 12:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose--João Carvalho 14:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 06:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Guepe sur son nid.JPG, not featured
- Info: created and uploaded by J-Luc - nominated by J-Luc -- 13:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- Info: I am sorry about the low DOF, but by closing the diaphragm, I would have a too low speed and a picture not so good (I've tried ! :-)) No tripod used, camera handled. This is the picture out-of-the-camera, perhaps someone will want to process it... --J-Luc 13:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Composition and framing (nest cut off, close crop on the wasp). --Digon3 talk 17:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support--Mbz1 19:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- Support --Wiki mouse 21:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Composition, overexposed, focus off and very noisy --MichaD | Michael Apel 21:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- Info: The focus is on the head of the wasp and about the noise... I would understand where you find that the noise is annoying. I agree about the composition, but the light was changing very quickly and I did not have too much time. J-Luc
-
- The eye is clearly not in-focus --MichaD | Michael Apel 21:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose This is a good picture, but I do not think the quality of this picture is quite feature quality. Sorry.--Sir James Paul 23:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- Neutral--João Carvalho 14:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- Info: Do you prefer this one ? But the "noise" is exactly the same. J-Luc
- Oppose --Bergwolf 20:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
-
- Please say why. --MichaelMaggs 13:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose --Makro Freak talk 17:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
-
- Please say why. --MichaelMaggs 13:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Info: Cool ! :-) J-Luc
- Contra-- both images are overexposed -LadyofHats 12:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
-
- If you want the details in the wasp, including the black "eyes", you over-expose the nest. The subject is lit by the sun in a very dark environment.--J-Luc
- Then you have to shoot it at a different time of day, shade it, use reflectors, flash(es) or whatever...
- Not saying it's a bad picture, but with current common standard for macro pictures I don't think that's a valid excuse --MichaD | Michael Apel 21:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- If you want the details in the wasp, including the black "eyes", you over-expose the nest. The subject is lit by the sun in a very dark environment.--J-Luc
- Oppose--João Carvalho 14:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 7 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image: MosaikJungferExuvie09.JPG, featured
- Info: [2] / [3]|German: Blaugrüne Mosaikjungfer frisch geschlüpft mit Larvenhaut
- en: Female Southern Hawker freshly slipped with larva skin
- Info: created, uploaded and nominated by --Böhringer 10:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support--Böhringer 22:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- Pour Nice photo. --J-Luc 19:42, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support--Mbz1 19:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- Support Quality is a bit on the low side but it's an extremely valuable well executed picture --MichaD | Michael Apel 21:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support In my oppinion, this is a Featured quality picture. Good work Böhringer.--Sir James Paul 00:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Manuel (Diskussion) 07:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - Some additional information on the picture is welcome. Also, only one species is identified. - Alvesgaspar 10:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- Info: It is only one species, the dark one is the exuvia of the larva --MichaD | Michael Apel 11:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose The cropping is disadvantageous. The picture is blurry althought the object is bigger than 100mm. Maybe QI? --Makro Freak talk 12:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
-
- No, not QI. QI is about technical quality. This picture has some wow value, but QI doesn't take that into account, at least, it's much less important. Whereas for an FP, "wow factor" is the most important thing, which is why a small number of pictures pass FP but not QI. Regards, Ben Aveling 22:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
-
- Please say why. --MichaelMaggs 13:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Ack MFreak --Bergwolf 22:26, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- Please say why. --MichaelMaggs 13:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support Vassil 20:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support Basik07 16:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support a interesting pic...though i am not totally satisfied with the technical quality--AngMoKio 18:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support-LadyofHats 12:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support--João Carvalho 14:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- Concordo--Lmbuga gl, pt, es: contacta comigo 18:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
result: 13 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 07:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Freudenberg sg Switzerland.jpg, not delisted
File:Freudenberg sg Switzerland edit1.jpg File:Freudenberg sg Switzerland edit2.jpg
- Info: I think this image which has been featured recently had a better edit which never had enough time to get enough votes. So here i propose replacing the original with this edit. I also made an edit in which the colors are not so warm. (Original nomination)
- Delist Replace one of the two. I go with majority. --Arad 19:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment You postet the edit at the 14th of June, I determined the result at 24th of June. So there has been enough time! --Simonizer 20:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
-
- Well, because it was under all nominations, no one saw it. So It never had enough votes. Whether the reason was time or the position of the nomination on the page. What difference does it make for you anyway? --Arad 02:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Comment I'm tired of this. It's obvious that Edit one is much better than the original. So I'll just upload it on the FP one. --216.221.35.113 02:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 Delist, 0 Keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. Simonizer 12:54, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:The Orange Polo Wedstrijden.jpg, not featured
- Info: created by Trebaxus - uploaded by & nominated by --Trebaxus 02:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- Info: With high velocities the bodies of polo ponies are used to create more space for his rider Trebaxus 02:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose overexposed --Simonizer 07:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Dont understand the crop --Makro Freak 08:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- Info: Crop is because of the use of a telelense and horses riding with 35 miles an hour towards the audience. Zooming out more wasn't possible.
- Oppose Overexpose and bad crop. --Digon3 talk 18:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose overexposed: look at the histogram! Alessio Damato 21:07, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose strange crop --Jeses 12:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose agree with Makro Freak. If the photo would have a wider angle it could be a really interesting photo.--AngMoKio 17:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- Info: Next time I'll try to change my lense a bit faster :p Trebaxus 20:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
result: 0 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 13:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Alouatta caraya amk.jpg, not featured
[edit] Version 1, not featured
- Info: A monkey (Alouatta caraya) relaxing in a secluded place. Created, uploaded, nominated by AngMoKio --AngMoKio 18:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support --AngMoKio 18:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Underexposed. --Digon3 talk 19:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose The monkey is under- and the background partially overexposed. --Makro Freak talk 20:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose --Bergwolf 20:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
-
- Please say why. --MichaelMaggs 13:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose--João Carvalho 14:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 12:55, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Version 2; not featured
- Info: I tried to improve the photo. Is it better?--AngMoKio 18:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support --AngMoKio 18:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- Contra-- it remains overexposed -LadyofHats 12:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- I think overexposure in general doesn't have to be a problem. Some photos are impossible to take without overexposure and I think in this photo it is not really disturbing...well and if it is then I give up :-) --AngMoKio 12:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Do you ever tried to do a exposure-array for a DRI Image? The object seems very static, think that works. --Makro Freak talk 13:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- hm...yeah in this situation it might have been a good idea. Though i have to say I dont have any experience so far in creating HDR images. But I like that photo despite the overexposed areas. --AngMoKio 17:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Do you ever tried to do a exposure-array for a DRI Image? The object seems very static, think that works. --Makro Freak talk 13:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support I disagree that this is overexposed. There may be some dark spots, but its a great image. He Who Laughs Last 17:26, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- Neutral--João Carvalho 14:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- Contra it remains overexposed --Bergwolf 22:24, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 06:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Tavira Igreja Santiago.jpg
[edit] 1#, not featured
- Info: created by MJJR - uploaded by MJJR - nominated by MJJR -- MJJR 20:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support -- MJJR 20:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support Great Picture He Who Laughs Last 00:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry, but I think this is the wrong POV, there are blown whites on the walls, and the guy and the car on the right are disturbing. --Digon3 talk 01:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- Neutral - I like the composition and POV. But the building in construction and the guy on the right are unfortunate. Alvesgaspar 08:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose--Makro Freak talk 17:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- Neutral--João Carvalho 14:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 2 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 13:01, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] 2#, featured
Info: I propose an edit:I've removed the guy, cropped because of the car, I've increased the sky's luminosity, and its saturation to balance the effect, and I've smoothed it. Vassil 14:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support Vassil 14:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support (Thanks, Vassil!) -- MJJR 20:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support - Changed my vote after the smoothing of the sky - Alvesgaspar 12:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support Good enough to me. Paulo Juntas 23:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support As per comments above Booksworm 08:12, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Info: I smoothed the sky again with the gaussian blur. Vassil 14:34, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support--João Carvalho 14:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 06:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Purple Hibiscus.jpg, not featured
- Info: created by He Who Laughs Last - uploaded by He Who Laughs Last - nominated by He Who Laughs Last --He Who Laughs Last 00:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support --He Who Laughs Last 00:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Overexposed in parts. Good DOF and technical quality otherwise. --Digon3 talk 01:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support nice details --Jeses 08:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support Basik07 16:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Partialy overexposed and i dont like the BG --Makro Freak talk 17:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose as above say, oversposed-LadyofHats 12:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 06:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Dovzanova soteska bug.jpg, not featured
- Info: created, uploaded and nominated by Mihael Simonic
- Info: also nominated on sl.wikipedia Mihael Simonic
- Info: it seems that it's en:black vine weevil, from Curculionidae family
- Support --Mihael Simonic 11:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Nice Composition, looks good in thumb, but head is very blurry in 100% --Makro Freak talk 17:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- plus his left middle foot is cropped --Makro Freak 16:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Unfortunately, only the centre back of the beetle is in focus --MichaelMaggs 07:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Info: This was my composition idea, I have another picture, where is back in focus and front is blurry. --Mihael Simonic 09:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Contra-- the composition ( if it is a composition idea) doesnt work-LadyofHats 12:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Contra lacks of wow --Bergwolf 11:45, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Karelj 22:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support // tsca [re] 20:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support Winiar✉ 08:51, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 06:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Wrightflyer.jpg, featured
- Info: created by Para - uploaded by Para - nominated by Mitulbabu --First flight, 120 feet in 12 seconds, 10:35 a.m.; Kitty Hawk, North Carolina Summary: Orville Wright at the controls of the machine, lying prone on the lower wing with hips in the cradle which operated the wing-warping mechanism. Wilbur Wright running alongside to balance the machine, has just released his hold on the forward upright of the right wing. The starting rail, the wing-rest, a coil box, and other items needed for flight preparation are visible behind the machine
- Support --Mitulbabu Great Classic
- Support Very nice --Makro Freak talk 19:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support Shows what quality a glass plate can deliver. --MichaelMaggs 09:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support-LadyofHats 12:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support Great historical B/W-pic. --AM 16:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support Historic moment and large format together makes me happy --MichaD | Michael Apel 21:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support What more has to be said? Booksworm 08:10, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support important moment --Bergwolf 11:43, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support nice -- Gorgo 13:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support--João Carvalho 14:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support MJJR 16:04, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support -- Cacophony 02:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support classic Richardfabi 20:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Pimke 06:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 06:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Lakemerrit02192006.JPG, not featured
- Info: created by Miskatonic - uploaded by Miskatonic - nominated by Mitulbabu --Lake Merrit Oakland California looking west at the Tribune Building
- Support --Mitulbabu 18:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose i am not in general against night shots if they show an impressive skyline and have a good technical quality...this skyline is a bit too common and this photo also leaves technically sth to be desired --AngMoKio 19:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose tilted and it doesn't really stand out from other night picture. --Digon3 talk 19:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Lack of sharpness/detail --Makro Freak talk 19:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Support I love Lake Merrit and this is a good picture, i disagree that this is a too common skyline. Seriously, it's Oakland I rarely see pictures of the Oakland Skyline. Nice Detail too. He Who Laughs Last 01:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose The colors are very monotonous, the framing seem random, the fountain in the foreground is a nice idea but you can barely make it out and even then it's more like a blur blob --MichaD | Michael Apel 21:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 06:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:SalmonellaNIAID.jpg, not featured
- Info: created by NIAID - nominated by Mitulbabu --Color-enhanced scanning electron micrograph showing Salmonella typhimurium (red) invading cultured human cells
- Support --Mitulbabu 18:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Even for a superhightech-megamagnification shot it is essential to avoid noise. Very noisy. --Makro Freak talk 19:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - Quality not good enough - Alvesgaspar 22:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support - Can't you understand that some images cannot be perfect because the system used to have them is not so fine ? In other words, either you get this image as-it-is or you don't have it. I prefer the first solution...--J-Luc 9:00, 2007-06-29
- Support --Atoma 07:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Contra -- i could live with the noise, and since it is not a camera i would say the image has enough quality. yet the coloring was made after the picture. and it is not really well done. color edges overlap and ther are parts who are missing color at all. -LadyofHats 12:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Contra quality --Bergwolf 11:42, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Karelj 22:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Jeses 13:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support Winiar✉ 08:51, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
result: 6 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 06:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Soybeanvarieties.jpg, not featured
- Info: created by Scott Bauer - nominated by Mitulbabu --Varieties of soybeans
Soybeans are practically as much a part of American life as baseball. They're grown today in more than half the United States. Yet, a hundred years ago, they were virtually unheard of-raised only by a handful of innovative farmers. These seeds, from the National Soybean Germplasm Collection housed at Urbana, Illinois, show a wide range of colors, sizes, and shapes.
- Support --Mitulbabu 18:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support Very nice, but blurrry and noisy Oppose There are a huge amount of ugly dust spots everywhere--Makro Freak talk 18:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support agree with MakroFreak - nice composition --AngMoKio 18:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - Blurry and noisy - Alvesgaspar 22:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose A nice image, but it is indeed very noisy. --MichaelMaggs 07:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose- light burns all other colors-LadyofHats 12:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose as above. --Digon3 talk 14:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose in some way dingy --Bergwolf 11:42, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Apart from the technical flaws like noise and dust I don't think the lighting works really well. I wouldn't mind the overexposed bag that much but the beans in the front are defenetely in need for some light --MichaD | Michael Apel 21:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 06:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Zwiebelrostbraten.jpg, not featured
- Info: created by Kobako - uploaded by Kobako - nominated by Mitulbabu --Zwiebelrostbraten
- Support --Mitulbabu 18:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Ground, left of the plate is overexposed, the roast looks delicious to me --Makro Freak talk 18:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- Contra-- overexposed-LadyofHats 12:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Contra overexposed --Bergwolf 11:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support ---donald- 15:35, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose--João Carvalho 14:09, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Why? --Karelj 22:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support Why? Why not?! It is already in use in Zwiebelrostbraten. I cannot see any overexposition, especially not on the left side of the plate. Just looking at it makes one hungry! --wg 21:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 06:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Wawadit'la(Mungo Martin House) a Kwakwaka'wakw big house.jpg, featured
_a_Kwakwaka%27wakw_big_house.jpg)
- Info: created by HighInBC - uploaded by HighInBC - nominated by HighInBC --HighInBC 20:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support --HighInBC 20:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- Question: is there a reason to stitch this pic together by 33 pics? Isn't a normal wide-angle pic sufficient? You should write a warning...not every pc and browser handles such a big pic...--AngMoKio 20:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
-
- The reason is so that you can see the tool marks and fine details in this hand made building face and totem poles. My camera also cannot do a wide enough angle, and I cannot stand in a busy street to take this. You are welcome to add any relevant warning. HighInBC 14:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I would suggest heavily downsampling it to a usable size (like 5000 x 3500). --Digon3 talk 14:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
-
- A secondary version could be available, but the original should remain full size. HighInBC 14:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Go for it. HighInBC 16:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support What's the problem? --Bergwolf 11:39, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- Neutral--João Carvalho 14:09, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
-
- Do you perhaps have any information about your opinion that I could use to improve future works? HighInBC 16:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support I think... --MichaD | Michael Apel 21:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support - Nice, intricate detail --typhoonchaser 11:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support --MichaelMaggs 22:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
result: 5 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Simonizer 06:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Hydrangea macrophylla 02.jpg, not featured
- Info: created by MJJR - uploaded by MJJR - nominated by MJJR -- MJJR 20:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support -- MJJR 20:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Jeses 20:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support Beautiful and good technical quality. The only problem with this image is that a few of the flowers are cropped. --Digon3 talk 13:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry, a QI maybe, but the composition hasn't in my view been considered nearly carefully enough to be acceptable as a FP. --MichaelMaggs 07:29, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose cropping --Bergwolf 11:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose--João Carvalho 14:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose The cropping is not nice --Makro Freak 13:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 06:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Hydrangea macrophylla 01.jpg, not featured
#1
#2
- #1, not featured
- Info: created by MJJR - uploaded by MJJR - nominated by MJJR -- MJJR 20:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support -- MJJR 20:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)+
result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 06:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- #2, not featured
- Info: I cropped it to get rid of the grey metal thing in the upper right corner and increased saturation by 1. --Digon 14:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Info: Actually, the 'grey metal thing' in the upper right corner is simply a Hosta leaf damaged by snails... -- MJJR 09:01, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Digon 14:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry, a QI maybe, but the composition hasn't in my view been considered nearly carefully enough to be acceptable as a FP. --MichaelMaggs 07:28, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose cropping --Bergwolf 11:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose--João Carvalho 14:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose The cropping is strange. --Makro Freak 13:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 06:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] image:Inscriptions on torii, Fushimi Inari shrine, Kyoto.jpg, featured
- Info: created by MichaelMaggs - uploaded by MichaelMaggs - nominated by MichaelMaggs. This image shows the inscriptions on the famous torii gates, not visible in the existing FP of this shrine: see here (the colour in that picture is too deeply red - the torii are actually much more orange than is shown there). --MichaelMaggs 20:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support --MichaelMaggs 20:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- Neutral Support hey a nice composition - i really like it. Really too bad that this lower character is cut.
Have to think aboutt it?Btw what lense did you use? --AngMoKio 20:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
-
- It was a Canon EFS 17-55mm. --MichaelMaggs 07:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support - Good composition and quality. Any Japanese speaking guy around? - Alvesgaspar 20:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, the inscriptions list the donors. The prominent one in the foreground was contributed by a construction company; its name is most prominent and its representative director is in smaller letters. The neighboring column lists people only; perhaps a company name is out of sight to the right. The third one shows the company and so forth. The fourth one has the company's telephone number on it. Not very romantic, I'm afraid. But the photo is nice! Fg2 21:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC) + 02:25, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support Very nice photo Raphael17 19:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support Vassil 22:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Neutral--João Carvalho 14:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support Romary 08:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Simonizer 06:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:"La Boqueria" Market (Barcelona, Spain).JPG, not featured
.JPG)
- Info: created, uploaded and nominated by [[User:--C·A·S·K 12:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)|casuarez85]]
- Support --C·A·S·K 12:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose I don't like the lighting in this. --Digon3 talk 14:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Skewed, composition --Digitaldreamer 17:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose lighting. -- Ram-Man 02:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose lighting. --Bergwolf 11:37, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Jeses 13:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support The lighting is probably due to a blind or umbrella overhead, isn't it? Anyway, it adds a warm hue to the image. Beautiful illustration of a plentiful mediterranean market. --wg 21:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support Pretty! Dachi 16:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support I just like it Mike-tango 13:14, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support So colorful, and it's true the light adds a warm hue, anyway I like it. --AdrF 22:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
result: 6 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 06:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Euchroea-auripimenta-on-passiflora.jpg, featured
- Info: created b & uploaded & nominated by --Makro Freak talk 14:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Info: A nice Rose chafer on a Passionflower.
- Support --Makro Freak talk 14:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment What is wrong with the head, it looks oversharpened. --Digon3 talk 14:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- No clue, looks fine 2 me. --Makro Freak talk 14:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Looks like a bit of motion blur to me --MichaD | Michael Apel 21:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- He turned his head towards me and said "Hey Richard, what a lovely day!" and i answered with a friendly "click" --Makro Freak talk 14:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support Yeah, looks fine in source, too. --Digitaldreamer 17:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Karelj 19:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support Tbc 21:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support Beautiful colors and composition. Vassil 22:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support Very pretty. -- Ram-Man 02:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support --MichaelMaggs 07:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Bergwolf 11:35, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Wiki mouse 18:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- Pour --J-Luc
- Support--Mbz1 05:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- Support--João Carvalho 14:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Simonizer 07:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Hrast 22:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support // tsca [re] 20:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Pimke 06:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Winiar✉ 08:51, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment would appreciate some more info (where was it taken, e.g. - in the wild? in a terrarium? in a zoo?) Lycaon 15:38, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose lack of information , and DOF (minor). Lycaon 12:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
result: 17 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 06:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Oxysternon-conspicillatum male.jpg, featured
- Info: created & nominated by --Makro Freak talk 15:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Makro Freak talk 15:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Digitaldreamer 17:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support --MichaelMaggs 07:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Bergwolf 11:35, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Wiki mouse 18:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support--Mbz1 05:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- Support--João Carvalho 14:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Simonizer 07:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support // tsca [re] 20:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support Pimke 06:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Winiar✉ 08:52, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose weird illumination and not perfectly sharp for such a picture of an animal you can 'put' anywhere. Lycaon 15:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
-
- If you say so --Makro Freak 17:31, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
result: 11 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 06:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Lactoria cornuta.0 - Aquarium Finisterrae.JPG, not featured
- Info: Lactoria cornuta in Aquarium Finisterrae (Corunna, Galicia, Spain) - uploaded and nominated by --Drow male 16:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Drow male 16:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support Raphael17 19:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Very nice shot, but the tail is cropped (not a big issue), the picture is very noisy and there are two ghost spots of light on the front of the fish (overexposition ?). Sting 20:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Very noisy and not sharp. --Digon3 talk 20:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Noisy. -- Ram-Man 02:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Quality --Bergwolf 11:35, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- Stödjer ej - As opposers. (I have a feeling that this image has been nominated before?) /Daniel78 22:27, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 06:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Ferrofluid in magnetic field.jpg, not delisted
- Info: When I first nominated the image, it was the only qualifying example of a ferrofluid on the Commons. I'm sure it was mostly its "coolness" factor that pushed it through despite numerous technical problems (blown highlights, fuzziness at the back, messy background.) Happily, the nomination seemed to push User:Gmaxwell into uploading high-res versions of his ferrofluid photographs, one of which is now also featured. With so many high-quality, high-res alternatives now available, and with recent upscaling of FPC requirements, I feel the version I uploaded really shouldn't keep its tag. (Original nomination)
- Delist -- At least I can say I had one of my uploads featured for a whole year :) GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 04:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Delist only because of low resolution. Except for resolution, I like this one better than the other FP. I almost voted "keep", as this isn't an obvious delisting. -- Ram-Man 12:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Delist --MichaelMaggs 21:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
result: 3 Delist, 0 Keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. Simonizer 07:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:British Antarctic Territory COA.svg, featured
- Info: created by Masur - uploaded by Masur - nominated by Szczepan1990
Very nice, colorful coat of arms, based on [4]. Already featured on polish-wiki and possesed the title of quality image. --Szczepan talk 12:27, 30 June 2007 (UTC) - Support --Szczepan talk 12:27, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support M@rcin Suwalczan [talk] 13:42, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support - good work! Schimmelreiter 08:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Jeses 13:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support // tsca [re] 20:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- Discordo--Lmbuga gl, pt, es: contacta comigo 18:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment May I ask for a reason of your negative vote?Masur 05:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - Not special enough. The kitschy design doesn't help either. - Alvesgaspar 21:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- Info: Sorry, but it wasn't me who design this COA ;). I've just svg'ed it. Masur 05:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- SupportWpedzich 10:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support Ala z 14:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment If you will fix the text (place it on the path or sth), you've got my support vote. It is important in SVG to draw every single detail. Hołek ҉ 14:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose There are better COA's because of their beauty colours, complexity & details, well SVGed... but this... why? There are datails which will look better with gradients (penguin, helmet) and the lion looks bad drawn: Not special enough. --Dachi 15:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- So nominate them too. There are so few featured SVG, that is even hard to find some "quality templates" and help to improve your own work with them. Masur 08:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support --WarX 17:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC) Ugly as original image ;)
- Support --Winiar✉ 08:54, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
result: 10 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 07:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment How could this image become featured without source information? This nomination says that it is based on [5] so this is clearly a derivative work. But the image description does not mention the original image or its copyright status. /90.229.135.239 10:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Cetoniidae Torynorrhina.jpg, featured
- Info: created & nominated by --Makro Freak talk 12:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- Info: This is another nice Rose-chafer. I like the greentones on the bug playing with the browntones in the background. The sharpness is exactly where it should be and the DOF compensates the distractness of the background.
- Support --Makro Freak talk 12:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Support --Wiki mouse 18:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- Pour --J-Luc
- Support--Mbz1 05:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- Support --MichaelMaggs 08:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Bergwolf 09:10, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support--João Carvalho 13:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support // tsca [re] 20:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Prevert(talk) 22:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment would appreciate some more info (where was it taken, e.g. - in the wild? in a terrarium? in a zoo?) Lycaon 06:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 07:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Rom vatikan 1.jpg, not featured
- Info: created by jacoon - uploaded by jacoon - nominated by Lars --84.183.204.13 13:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose too small --Simonizer 13:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Karelj 22:27, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Size --Makro Freak talk 12:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose too small. --MichaelMaggs 20:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose too small and a bit overexposed (even if it was a difficult subject) Alessio Damato 21:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Porsche detail amk.jpg, not featured
- Info: Detail of a Porsche car. Created, uploaded, nominated by AngMoKio --AngMoKio 15:48, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support --AngMoKio 15:48, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- Question: Do you choosed b/w because of the overexposed fender ? --Makro Freak 18:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- actually i chose it bcs i think the photo looks better in b/w --AngMoKio 18:29, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support - MartinD 09:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose overexposed -- Gorgo 12:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose--João Carvalho 14:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose overexposed --Bergwolf 22:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose I do not see any reason for this nomination --Karelj 22:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose I like old Porsche cars. The overexposed fender isnt nice --Makro Freak 08:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- What is your general opinion of the composition. I'd be happy to get a feedback concerning that. Concerning the overexposure I think it is not disturbing here - but I know tastes are different :) --AngMoKio 09:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- You are right, tastes are different. Here it was not my taste to decline this nice picture, it was more a aspect to decline any overexposure for FP. In general the idea is great to make some "retro" ambiente with this car, but what disturbed me a little was the title. You wrote Porsche detail in the header. When i was searching for details i found a blurry Porsche sign where i can not propperly read Stuttgart on it. So the only detail is the chrome frame of the light, surrounded by a overexposured fender. So what would you decide? --Makro Freak talk 11:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for your feedback. In general I agree with you - my photo is not in a high-end quality. I chose detail in the title as it doesn't show the whole car but a detail of it. But I think that we have a severe lack of good compositions in the FPCs...that's why I think photos shouldn't get opposed bcs of some minor technical flaws. For example your really great photo Image:Sicus_ferrugineus_side.jpg has a front focus but it became a FP and I definitely agree with it bcs the photo has simply a great content, then i can ignore some technical flaws. But this should be true for all kind of photos. I don't want to say that my photo has a perfect composition - I only tried my best. It may even be that the technical flaw in my photo is really too big. But to oppose without even a comment about the composition is in my opinion not fair and also not helpful. Ok that was what I wanted to say :) --AngMoKio 14:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- This picture as a example Image:Sicus_ferrugineus_side.jpg had no big support (less than 10) because of that. Can i see your picture in color ? I would see if i was wrong with my opinion --Makro Freak talk 16:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- Anyway your photo became FP - that's what matters and it is ok like that (as it should be with other photos with minor technical flaws too). I can give you the original photo though i don't question your statement about the photo --AngMoKio 16:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- Aber jetzt mal ehrlich ... findest du nicht auch das dieses Bild oder der Affe im Vergleich zu deinen bisherigen, schönen FP Bildern stark abfallen? Für jedes erworbene FP Bild in deiner Gallerie (ein jedes fast perfekt) hätte ich dir einen dicken Support gegeben wenn ich damals schon dabei gewesen wäre. Sicher ist das bitter wenn eine großartige Arbeit den Bach heruntergeht, bin mir aber sicher das du bald mit etwas Großem anrückst! --Makro Freak talk 19:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- Naja...ich sach mal mir gefallen die schon, sonst hätte ich sie nicht hier rein gestellt. Es ging mir aber eigentlich etwas ums Prinzip, da mir eine gute Komposition immer am wichtigsten ist. Ich finde es halt immer etwas schade, wenn man ein oppose-overexposed vorgesetzt bekommt obwohl das Bild ansich vielleicht ganz gut ist. Zumindest ein Kommentar könnte man dazu abgeben. Ich will hier auch nicht meine Bilder durchkämpfen...mit dem was hier entschieden wird kann ich leben und akzeptiere das auch. Grundsätzlich fände ich halt längere Statements zu den Bildern (speziell bei oppose) besser. Aber keine Sorge ich werde hier noch ganz großartige Bilder reinstellen! ;-) --AngMoKio 19:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- Das will ich aber auch hoffen, du! :) :U :)--Makro Freak talk 20:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- Naja...ich sach mal mir gefallen die schon, sonst hätte ich sie nicht hier rein gestellt. Es ging mir aber eigentlich etwas ums Prinzip, da mir eine gute Komposition immer am wichtigsten ist. Ich finde es halt immer etwas schade, wenn man ein oppose-overexposed vorgesetzt bekommt obwohl das Bild ansich vielleicht ganz gut ist. Zumindest ein Kommentar könnte man dazu abgeben. Ich will hier auch nicht meine Bilder durchkämpfen...mit dem was hier entschieden wird kann ich leben und akzeptiere das auch. Grundsätzlich fände ich halt längere Statements zu den Bildern (speziell bei oppose) besser. Aber keine Sorge ich werde hier noch ganz großartige Bilder reinstellen! ;-) --AngMoKio 19:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- Aber jetzt mal ehrlich ... findest du nicht auch das dieses Bild oder der Affe im Vergleich zu deinen bisherigen, schönen FP Bildern stark abfallen? Für jedes erworbene FP Bild in deiner Gallerie (ein jedes fast perfekt) hätte ich dir einen dicken Support gegeben wenn ich damals schon dabei gewesen wäre. Sicher ist das bitter wenn eine großartige Arbeit den Bach heruntergeht, bin mir aber sicher das du bald mit etwas Großem anrückst! --Makro Freak talk 19:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- Anyway your photo became FP - that's what matters and it is ok like that (as it should be with other photos with minor technical flaws too). I can give you the original photo though i don't question your statement about the photo --AngMoKio 16:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- This picture as a example Image:Sicus_ferrugineus_side.jpg had no big support (less than 10) because of that. Can i see your picture in color ? I would see if i was wrong with my opinion --Makro Freak talk 16:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for your feedback. In general I agree with you - my photo is not in a high-end quality. I chose detail in the title as it doesn't show the whole car but a detail of it. But I think that we have a severe lack of good compositions in the FPCs...that's why I think photos shouldn't get opposed bcs of some minor technical flaws. For example your really great photo Image:Sicus_ferrugineus_side.jpg has a front focus but it became a FP and I definitely agree with it bcs the photo has simply a great content, then i can ignore some technical flaws. But this should be true for all kind of photos. I don't want to say that my photo has a perfect composition - I only tried my best. It may even be that the technical flaw in my photo is really too big. But to oppose without even a comment about the composition is in my opinion not fair and also not helpful. Ok that was what I wanted to say :) --AngMoKio 14:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- You are right, tastes are different. Here it was not my taste to decline this nice picture, it was more a aspect to decline any overexposure for FP. In general the idea is great to make some "retro" ambiente with this car, but what disturbed me a little was the title. You wrote Porsche detail in the header. When i was searching for details i found a blurry Porsche sign where i can not propperly read Stuttgart on it. So the only detail is the chrome frame of the light, surrounded by a overexposured fender. So what would you decide? --Makro Freak talk 11:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Along the River 7-119-3.jpg, featured
- Info: created by Zhang Zeduan - uploaded by Trialsanderrors - nominated by Jon Harald Søby Jon Harald Søby 22:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- Info: Featured on the English Wikipedia. Jon Harald Søby 22:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support Jon Harald Søby 22:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support Vassil 23:48, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support --MichaelMaggs 08:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support--João Carvalho 14:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support Amazing. --Malene Thyssen 18:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support --wau > 19:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support Most excellent --MichaD | Michael Apel 21:10, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support Ding dynasty was fine --Bergwolf 22:21, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Karelj 22:24, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support The Andeas Gursky of Ding dynastie :) --Makro Freak talk 10:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Digon3 talk 17:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support Pimke 06:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Prevert(talk) 22:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- Strong support amazing. Majorly (talk) 12:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support great, Ziga 17:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support A-m-a-z-i-n-g, conglatulations, this is excellent. --AdrF 22:48, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 07:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Azulejos Parque Eduardo VII-2.jpg, featured
- Info: Panel of glazed tiles by artist Jorge Colaço (1922) representing an episode of the battle of Aljubarrota (1385) between the Portuguese and Castilian armies. The Ala dos Namorados (Wing of the fiancés) was the left wing of the Portuguese defense formation. Lisboa, Pavilhão Carlos Lopes. Created and nominated by Alvesgaspar --Alvesgaspar 22:37, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Alvesgaspar 22:37, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support Very interesting --MichaelMaggs 08:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support--João Carvalho 13:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support Nice! It reminds me the church of São Lourenço dos Matos at Almansil, near Loulé. -- MJJR 16:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support Perfect colors and definition. Paulo Juntas 20:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support Vassil 21:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Bergwolf 22:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Karelj 22:26, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete Jorge Colaço died in 1942. This Azulejos is not in the public domain. In Portugal it's 70 years after the author's death. Please wait 2012.- Thats irrelevant cause of the freedom of panorama. The mentioned Pavilhão Carlos Lopes is in a puplic park. --Simonizer 08:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- Info: - Simonizer is right. Portuguese law ("Código do direito de autor e dos direitos conexos", 2004. Article 75º,2,g) explicitly considers the right of reprodution of artistisc works when they are exposed in public spaces (right of "panorama"). That is exactly the case of this one, which is in the outside wall of a building, in a public park. - Alvesgaspar 08:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support Ok, if everything is cleared ... --Makro Freak talk 10:56, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- Neutral Dont know exactly how to handle this. Should i judge the photo or the piece of art? --Simonizer 12:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- The photodrapher is secondary, here. --Makro Freak 13:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - My opinion is that reprodutions of works of art should be evaluated here on their illustrative value (in this case as an example of the Portuguese "blue glazed tiles") and photographic quality, with the artistic componenent contributing (or not) to the necessary "wow factor". - Alvesgaspar 13:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- Please Freedom of panorama isn't a freedom of reproduce. Where is the paronama here ? Please consider this picture is ok for speedy delete. Please, we need trust in Commons's medias. I have nice Picasso who can be avalueted here on their illustrative value. If we want some I can upload this. Petrusbarbygere 23:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- Info: - Please check the article on Freedom of panorama more carefully. In the Portuguese law, "freedom of panorama" means exactly freedom to photograph and publish. I don't understand what Picasso works have to do with this issue. Did he make any glazed tiles? - Alvesgaspar 00:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- Ok sorry. I Support it now. Thanks for your explications.05:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support --wau > 22:34, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Simonizer 07:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Hydrangea Macrophylla 03.jpg, not featured
- Info: created by MJJR - uploaded by MJJR - nominated by MJJR -- MJJR 19:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support -- MJJR 19:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
I withdraw my support & * Oppose the background is 2 blurry for me in source --Makro Freak talk 20:52, 7 July 2007 (UTC)- Mot Shot on a cloudy day? Blue tint. Also, why not withdraw your other nomination? --Digitaldreamer 19:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Overexposed, sorry - check the histogram. --MichaelMaggs 20:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose the composition is a bit too straight forward--AngMoKio 21:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- I withdraw my support Having looked at the picture now, I found it is not as good as I thought! (Perhaps it is better to look at the picture before the vote.)--wau > 22:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- When withdrawing support, please strike out the original votes (as I've done above). Otherwise it makes life very difficult for whoever has to close the nomination. --MichaelMaggs 16:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with MichaelMaggs. It would be nice just to strike out the support vote and make a oppose vote instead. Counting the votes is much easier so --Simonizer 08:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 08:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Callistemon Flower Cropped.jpg, not featured
- Info: created, uploaded and nominated by Extranet. --Extranet 00:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Extranet 00:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: If this picture is not promoted, can I please get a summary of the things that have to improve. Thanks! Extranet 00:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose The image lacks sharpness and there seems to be a lot blurring --sanjay_ach 00:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- Karşı Lack of sharpness --Makro Freak 02:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Blurred. --Digon3 talk 17:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 3 oppose, x neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 08:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Amadina erythrocephala.jpg, not featured
- Info: Red-headed Finch (Amadina erythrocephala) in Sossusvlei, Namibia. Created, uploaded and nominated by Lycaon -- Lycaon 16:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support -- Lycaon 16:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Support Ziga 17:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)- Support strange atmosphere... cool! Alessio Damato 17:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Neutro Against the trend ... lovely animal in thumb but very noisy background in source. Regards, --Makro Freak talk 18:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Против Noisy, strange lighning, animal feet stuck in the ground, hard decisssion, sorry. Regards --Makro Freak talk 14:27, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
-
- Do you still satisfied your desire for revenge? I thought you are more firm. When I can see more pictures from Namibia? --Makro Freak talk 20:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support--Mbz1 19:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- Support Winiar✉ 19:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose a nice picture. But DOF is too small and the overall quality (noise, sharpness) is unfortunatelly quite low. I know such a 400mm shot is tough...you needed iso400. --AngMoKio 19:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Noise, sharpness, and the background lighting is distracting. --Digon3 talk 19:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support -- MJJR 20:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support /Daniel78 22:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose The noise is not to my taste. --Bergwolf 20:00, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support Nice, is so difficult to take birds pictures, I like this one :)--AdrF 22:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose I really like the setting, but the noise is very present, unlike the bird's feet. --Digitaldreamer 01:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Nice Subject, but the lighting went down the drain, Ouch! --Wiki mouse 17:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination I agree with the 'noise' factor. I'll try some noise reduction and resubmit later -- Lycaon 06:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
result: Nomination withdrawn => not featured. Simonizer 08:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Elephant Beetle Megasoma elephas Male Side 2699px.jpg, not featured
[edit] Left Version, not featured
- Info: created, uploaded, and nominated by Ram-Man. 02:18, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- Info: An Elephant Beetle (Megasoma elephas) feeding on sugar cane in Costa Rica.
- Support This is a special shot of a beautiful insect. -- Ram-Man 02:18, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support --MichaelMaggs 07:23, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- Neutral 50/50. Nice object, technically good but boring composition --Bergwolf 11:33, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Let's raise the bar. Boring composition --Bergwolf 22:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- What do you mean? -- Ram-Man 11:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- I had that same with Alvesgaspar. Why improving pictures during a nomination? --Makro Freak talk 12:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- I didn't improve the picture during the nomination. Someone else added another version! The rules don't allow me to do anything about other nominations, so please don't hold it against me. I can't believe you'd withdraw your support for my picture just because someone else wants a different version. If you don't want the other versions, oppose them individually. -- Ram-Man 12:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- Suddenly i dont know which version is better. (Now) The moody original or the brighter one with less detail. Untill i found this out my vote remains like it is.--Makro Freak talk 16:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- I didn't improve the picture during the nomination. Someone else added another version! The rules don't allow me to do anything about other nominations, so please don't hold it against me. I can't believe you'd withdraw your support for my picture just because someone else wants a different version. If you don't want the other versions, oppose them individually. -- Ram-Man 12:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- I had that same with Alvesgaspar. Why improving pictures during a nomination? --Makro Freak talk 12:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- What do you mean? -- Ram-Man 11:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Wiki mouse 18:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- Neutral Joli mais terne. --J-Luc
- Oppose Looks like a staged image--Mbz1 05:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- Oppose - Agree with Bergwolf. I think it is the time to raise the "Flower & insect" FP bar a little. - Alvesgaspar 13:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- I thought a simplistic composition was ideal. It's got an ideal non-distracting background. The foreground is great because it shows the insect well and shows a food that they eat. It's not like it's just any old boring stick. We have tons of insects on flowers, but nothing like this. It is not a flower which I suspect is the real reason it is found to be "boring". Not colorful enough. -- Ram-Man 13:25, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support--João Carvalho 14:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support Composition works for me --MichaD | Michael Apel 21:04, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- Question: Is this bug dead? It looks kinda dead. Is it dead? Looks dead. --Digitaldreamer 21:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- Nope. It's feeding slowly on the sugar cane. They're most active after dark, so they'll move much slower in the daytime when this picture was taken. -- Ram-Man 21:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support - very sharp and detailed beetle. --typhoonchaser 03:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry, I just can't get over that initial impression of a dead bug. If it actually is alive, it's a very unfortunate posture. --Digitaldreamer 14:22, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - Might be a shame if neither of these pictures go through to become an FP... --typhoonchaser 13:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- The vote was split by the unfortunate introduction of a second version. Losing two or three support votes may kill its chances. Instead of voting for both pictures and "may the one with the most support votes win", people only vote for one and let the other one die. It's a shame, because those support votes were made under the impression that the picture was good enough for a FP. The picture didn't change just because another version was introduced, but somehow it's no longer good enough. The FP process is getting too wearisome. -- Ram-Man 16:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- Wearisome? Why should every poll be straight for you, everytime. Thats democracy. --Makro Freak talk 21:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- You missed the point. There are 3 versions and people are not willing to support multiple versions and let the one with the most votes win. As a result, none of them are successful. When evaluated on its own merits, it would be successful. The problem isn't that the picture isn't good enough or that we need to raise the bar, the problem is the split vote. There are too many good photos that no one can agree on which one is best, so the result is none will be featured. Some people like this version, some like the one below, and you like the one you linked. This is rediculous. Under this system, I'll have to upload photos one at a time so my own photos don't compete with each other. If I nominate the one you link, chances are that it wouldn't be supported because other versions are preferred. This is wearisome and almost not worth the effort. -- Ram-Man 22:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- Wearisome? Why should every poll be straight for you, everytime. Thats democracy. --Makro Freak talk 21:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- The vote was split by the unfortunate introduction of a second version. Losing two or three support votes may kill its chances. Instead of voting for both pictures and "may the one with the most support votes win", people only vote for one and let the other one die. It's a shame, because those support votes were made under the impression that the picture was good enough for a FP. The picture didn't change just because another version was introduced, but somehow it's no longer good enough. The FP process is getting too wearisome. -- Ram-Man 16:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support Jina Lee 17:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose[|I like this version more] Lets raise the bar! --Makro Freak talk 21:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- I nominated it for a FP, but I doubt it will be successful for the reasons stated above. Either you or I will be right. Time will tell, but of course by then it will be too late for this one that was really the best one of the three. -- Ram-Man 23:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
result: 5 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Right Version, not feartured
- Comment Felt this badly needed a little PS work, so I've uploaded an edit --Fir0002 www 23:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support --MichaelMaggs 06:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support I prefer the original. The sugarcane in this version loses detail, but I suppose this will do. -- Ram-Man 11:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support // tsca [re] 20:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Wiki mouse 17:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Oversaturated --Makro Freak 20:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)- Neutral - the body looks brighter but the sugarcane looks a little too bright. --typhoonchaser 03:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose The sugarcane loses too much detail and it looks a bit oversaturated. --Digon3 talk 15:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oversaturated --Digitaldreamer 14:18, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose It does look dead--Mbz1 00:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- Comment This is not my nomination, so can't technically withdraw, but it is my photograph and it has no chance of success, so I'd prefer it withdrawn. -- Ram-Man 11:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 21:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] image:Une guêpe sur son nid en papier.jpg, not featured
 |
 |
| Original version | Version with noise reduction |
[edit] Original version, not featured
- Info: created and uploaded by J-Luc - nominated by J-Luc 15:52, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support --J-Luc 15:52, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- Info: The same wasp, taken this afternoon. I have tried to take care about the noise (400ASA), the sun (taken in the shadow), the composition. Made 100, kept only 1... :-)
- Support Vassil 23:47, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support--João Carvalho 14:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose I really like this picture, especially the colors. I can not understand why you cutted the wing. In my eyes the cutted wing destroys the whole picture. A hard decission for me. --Makro Freak 08:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- Info: I have used a tripod, it was centered on the wasp "looking" at me. Suddendly, she took this position and I was happy to have it "3/4" but did not have the time to unscrew/reposition the tripod, I "forced" the tripod to change the composition and I took care not to crop the antennas (first plane) but sorry for the wing. Ok for the "noise" but I don't see a lot of noise on the EOS20D at 400ISO...
See reponse below... (J-Luc)
result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Version with noise reduction, not fearured
- Info: The background is so far oof that it's easy to remove the noise from it --MichaD | Michael Apel 21:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support --MichaD | Michael Apel 21:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support Vassil 22:04, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose dont like the crop --Bergwolf 22:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose I really like this picture, especially the colors. I can not understand why you cutted the wing. In my eyes the cutted wing destroys the whole picture. A hard decission for me. --Makro Freak 08:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- Info: - Several "quality images" are croped. A very little part of my wasp wing is missing, but these are example where the crop is sometimes more important. The rules must be the same for everybody.
- Comment None of the example pictures would get support from me. You cannot fit this cropping thing in rules. This is a personal aspect. --Makro Freak talk 11:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- Info: - Ok, I give up. I am afraid that technical aspects are more important that emotional and artistic considerations.
- Comment Spoken for me, it should have both. --Makro Freak talk 15:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- Info: - I agree, but keep in mind that it is amateur work... (J-Luc)
- I allways have this in my mind. If you post this whole FP List onto fotocommunity.de -->[[6]] as a example, you will get not a single response on any picture. The benchmark is very low here onto Commons.--Makro Freak talk 22:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - What I don't like in this picture is the extreme close-up, making only a small part of the wasp focused. But that is also a personnal preference I suppose. - Alvesgaspar 19:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- Info: - I like this "E.T. monster with helmet" effect... (J-Luc) 19:46 (UTC), 2007/07/02
- Support - Beautiful macro shot, great details in the eye zone, shallow depth of field is not really a problem here. Cropped wings are a bit annoying but is far from "killing the image". --Nattfodd 23:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support Winiar✉ 08:48, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - Even most parts of the head are not really sharp. --wau > 22:51, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 21:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Compact disc.svg, not featured
- Info: created by Sakurambo - uploaded by Sakurambo - nominated by Kulshrax --Kulshrax 11:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Kulshrax 11:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose SVG + embedded raster = sth not really useful.Masur 13:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose As above - SVG with raster graphic makes it inscalable. Herr Kriss 13:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment That is not necessarily true. The nature of the embedded bitmap makes it scalable, because even enlarged pixels will hold the same pattern, and blurriness would not be an issue. It have tried scaling it up to large (over 10,000x10,000 pixels) sizes in multiple graphics programs, and have been able to scale it up just fine. The embedded bitmap would only pose a problem if it was depicting something more photographic that needed to remain sharp and undistorted, which, again, doesn't appear to be the case here. Kulshrax 14:45, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Nice pic. But scaled on the overview page it is not visible, only when i click on the image.---donald- 07:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- That's a common problem, I'm afraid. -- Sakurambo 11:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Thanks for the nomination :-) I just wanted to point out that the embedded JPEG bitmap in this image is very blurry, so the pixels will be very hard to pick out no matter how much you scale it. The circular edges are formed using clipping masks, so they will render perfectly at any size. The SVG standard currently doesn't support tangential gradients, so an embedded bitmap is the only practical solution — compare this image (43 KB) with Image:CD-R.svg (5.61 MB) and hopefully you'll see what I mean. -- Sakurambo 11:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- Info: I've just uploaded a slightly revised version with an SVG gaussian blur filter applied to the embedded JPEG. The pixels are now completely invisible at all scales. File size is now just 21 KB. -- Sakurambo 11:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support Good Quality. ---donald- 07:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support --typhoonchaser 03:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Oppose (svg + raster) --Szczepan talk 11:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Stödjer Good quality. I have no problem with raster in a situation where it works. /Daniel78 22:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose SVG + raster Roman 92 talk 09:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 21:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Nodding Pincushion Protea Flower Bud.jpg, not featured
- Info:Nodding Pincushion Protea Flower Bud. The flower is native to South Africa.
- Info: created ,uploaded and nominated by Mbz1 --Mbz1 00:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Mbz1 00:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support --MichaelMaggs 05:22, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support It reminds me on a wig --Makro Freak talk 13:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support - Very good quality and detail. But why a crop so tight? - Alvesgaspar 20:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support Vassil 17:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support Basik07 22:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination The flower is too common--Mbz1 23:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
result: Nomination withdrawn => not featured. Simonizer 21:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Revolução de 1930.jpg, not featured
- Info: created by Claro Jansson (1877-1954) - uploaded and nominated by Dantadd✉ 00:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support Dantadd✉ 00:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Question: Dear Dantadd, why you think this should be a FP ? --Makro Freak 08:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- This should be a FP because is a rare and good quality picture, taken by an important author, picturing a very important moment in Brazilian history (the guy on the center, because of the action captured in the picture, was president (dictator) of Brazil during 15 years!). In a few words: the image captured a defining moment of history. Dantadd✉ 13:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Delist Historical value doesn't compensate the lack of resolution and overall picture quality. Sorry. --Digitaldreamer 04:44, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Resolution. --MichaelMaggs 08:30, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: if it was American or European history I'm sure your judgement will be different. What a pitty, but it doesn't surprise me, it was expected. Dantadd✉ 14:18, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
-
- What makes you think that? --Digitaldreamer 15:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
- It's a pretty good quality picture, with a very good B&W composition, picturing very nitid faces. It has not the resolution I'd wanted, but it's absolutely enough for a picture taken in 1930. But now this election is already over with you "oppose" votes. There's no turning back, it's the bad habit of digital pictures, we get spoiled. Dantadd✉ 15:12, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
-
- It doesn't meet the FP requirements regarding resolution and, in my opinion, focus. I fail to see where this is a matter of nationalities. --Digitaldreamer 15:17, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
- The requirements state clearly that some rules can be broken with good reasons and I already presented them. I didn't expected this kind of biased criticism, you even want to delist the picture, a nasty action in opinion. I resignate myself. Dantadd✉ 15:29, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
-
- I chose to vote delist due to the basic FP requirements not being met. And, after all, I carry only one vote, which I sincerely ask you to accept without the accusation of me victimizing you. Thank you. --Digitaldreamer 15:51, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- En contra Quality and resolucion is on the low side, sorry. Saludos efectuosos, --Makro Freak talk 15:04, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 21:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Arbresfosilise.jpg, not featured
- Info: created by Serge Laviolette - uploaded by Capbat - nominated by Jeses --Jeses 08:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support Simply great --Jeses 08:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Underexposed, and I would like to see a few more pieces of Petrified wood in the picture. --Digon3 talk 14:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Против Too underexposed for my taste, sorry. Regards, --Makro Freak talk 16:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Exposure. Also it neither really shows les Arbres nor the fossils. Sorry. --Digitaldreamer 05:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Presumably those who have opposed for underexposure meant overexposure? Some of the clouds are overexposed, but the rest is OK if a little flat and lacking in contrast. I'm not wild about the composition, though. --MichaelMaggs 21:38, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 21:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Oberlech2.JPG, not featured
[edit] Original version, not featured
- Info: de:Naturschutzgebiet, Gipslöcher Oberlech, (Lech am Arlberg, Austria) eingerichtet 1988, 21 ha / im Hintergrund die (Mohnenfluh 2544m)
- Info: created, uploaded by and nominated by Böhringer 09:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Böhringer 09:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose nice landscape picture, but could be a bit sharper and the sign on the bottom bothers me --Simonizer 10:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Против lacks of sharpness in source, looks good in thumbnail, composition is so so. Regards Makro Freak 11:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Its a good picture, but it is too unsharp. --Digon3 talk 14:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose a nice scene but i miss the special kick abt the photo. I think it is also a bit tilted.--AngMoKio 19:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 21:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Edit, not featured
Info: I've seen the sign, so as Böhringer encouraged my besetting sin, I propose an edit without it and with a slight adjusting. Vassil 14:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Its a good picture, but it is too unsharp. --Digon3 talk 14:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Против lacks of sharpness in source, looks good in thumbnail, composition is so so. Regards, --Makro Freak talk 16:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose a nice scene but i miss the special kick abt the photo. I think it is also a bit tilted.--AngMoKio 19:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Snapshot level. Sorry. --Digitaldreamer 04:58, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose As per statement Digitaldreamer --Bergwolf 20:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Not a hikers best --Wiki mouse 18:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
result: 0 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 21:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:602Rappenloch3.JPG, not featured
- Info:de: Rappenlochschlucht in Dornbirn, im Winter gesperrt
- Info: created by Username - uploaded by Username - nominated by Username --Böhringer 10:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Böhringer 10:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Против ??? --Makro Freak 11:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose It is underexposed with overexposed parts. You don't want to be able to see the sun if you are taking pictures inside a cave. --Digon3 talk 14:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose As per Digon3. Sorry. --Digitaldreamer 04:54, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Much too rigorous lighting --Bergwolf 20:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Odd exposure --Wiki mouse 18:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 21:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Darjeeling Himalayan Railway panorama.jpg, not featured
- Info: created, uploaded and nominated by Planemad --Planemad 14:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Planemad 14:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Overall it is overexposed and has 2 sun streaks. However, there are few stitching errors and no ghosting, good job on that. --Digon3 talk 14:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Против Quality, sorry. Regards, --Makro Freak talk 16:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Can you please elaborate on quality? Noise, blurry, out of focus? Digon, Can you tell me where the sun streaks are? maybe i can fix it--Planemad 16:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Both sun streaks are in the middle of the church-like structure on the hill and is most noticable in the bushes (there is also some missing pixels from stitching on the very top and some by the concrete blocks on the bottom right). --Digon3 talk 19:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- The whole picture seems very harsh 2 me, Regards --Makro Freak talk 18:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose For the most part overexposed. Sorry. --Digitaldreamer 04:54, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Odd exposure --Wiki mouse 18:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 21:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Mosquee-missiri-frejus-3.jpg, not featured
- Info: created by Greudin - uploaded by Greudin - nominated by Greudin --Greudin 15:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Greudin 15:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Lacks contrast, blurry, and artifacts. --Digon3 talk 15:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Против Too many artefacts and unsharp, sorry. Regards, --Makro Freak talk 16:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose ... and composition; sorry. --MichaelMaggs 21:33, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Blurry --Wiki mouse 17:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 21:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:WasenbourgRock.JPG, not featured
- Info: created by Wssw - uploaded by Wssw - nominated by Wssw -- SW by Wssw 16:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support SW by Wssw 16:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose the sky is overexposed Alessio Damato 17:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose The sky may be overexposed, but it is not blown white, so I don't have a problem with that. For me, the picture lacks a wow factor and the composition could be better (e.g. Not centered). --Digon3 talk 16:01, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose composition. --MichaelMaggs 21:32, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Poor buildup --Bergwolf 20:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Too common arrangement --Wiki mouse 17:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 21:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Heron at lake.JPG, not featured
- Info:It was really interesting to watch that heron walking on the floating leafs.
- Info: created ,uploaded and nominated by Mbz1 --Mbz1 19:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Mbz1 19:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Harsh lighting. It is interesting though. --Digon3 talk 19:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- I've missed you opposing my images. I'm glad we're back to normal once again--Mbz1 20:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
-
-
-
- I really ment what I said. I like better, when my images are opposed than, when nobody opposes and/or supports them because then it is getting really boring. So there's nothing to be sorry about.--Mbz1 22:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
-
-
- Support I dont find the lighting overly distracting. Its a beautiful bird and the background is interesting. Wildlife shots are difficult, you can't ask the subject to move into better light. Where was this taken btw? I'm curious what kind of heron it is.... -(psylexic)
- The picture was taken in San Francisco ZOO. The bird was not in a cage and I saw him flying across that wide pond. I believed he was a wild bird. Yet I've never seen such a bird in San Francisco, but I did see something like this in Bali, Indonesia. I went to look for him on the NET and now I believe he is a Pond-Heron and he is not wild because looks like they do not live in SF. I believe his wings were cut just enough to make him able to fly only a short distanse.--Mbz1 18:25, 7 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- thanks, I was wondering about the goldfish - now I understand. -psylexic
- The picture was taken in San Francisco ZOO. The bird was not in a cage and I saw him flying across that wide pond. I believed he was a wild bird. Yet I've never seen such a bird in San Francisco, but I did see something like this in Bali, Indonesia. I went to look for him on the NET and now I believe he is a Pond-Heron and he is not wild because looks like they do not live in SF. I believe his wings were cut just enough to make him able to fly only a short distanse.--Mbz1 18:25, 7 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- Oppose Sorry. The lighting is too harsh, the background distracting, and for FP status the bird needs to be properly identified to the species level. --MichaelMaggs 13:38, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
- Против The lighning is 2 harsh for my taste, partialy overexposed, sorry. Regards --Makro Freak talk 14:37, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Unfavourable lighting --Bergwolf 19:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Boring arrangement --Wiki mouse 17:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Uncomfortable lighting and exposure. Not good enough for a FP, but still a nice picture. -- Ram-Man 11:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination I cannot agree with "Boring arrangement". Usually I do not take boring pictures--Mbz1 23:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
result: Nomination withdrawn => not featured. Simonizer 21:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Green bee in a flower.jpg, not featured
- Info: Green Bee
- Info: created ,uploaded and nominated by Mbz1 --Mbz1 19:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Mbz1 19:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Harsh lighting, the shadow is distracting, the bee is not sharp and there are (artifacts?). --Digon3 talk 19:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Neutral very beautiful picture and beautiful colors, it's really a pity that the bee is not sharp. Vassil 20:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Против The artefacts are not nice and the insect could be sharper, sorry. Regards --Makro Freak talk 14:33, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Unattractive lightning --Bergwolf 19:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
- Neutral I like the picture, but light isn't good Basik07 09:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose quality --Wiki mouse 17:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose quality and no proper (=exact) ID. Lycaon 08:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- It really does not matter, but ID is proper.--Mbz1 14:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- The ID might be correct but it's a bit imprecise. "There are some 45 species in the genus". It's probably not easy to get a full ID with just that pic though. --MichaD | Michael Apel 16:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- That is true Michael, but care should be taken by the author (if he/she wants his/her picture featured) to note such things on the spot and possibly make several other pics, for identification purposes. I personally (but that's me) will never even upload a photo of an unidentified organism. The value of pictures of unidentified plants or animals is not very high. Correct and complete IDs matter very much. Lycaon 17:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- Then we agree. I wasn't opposing your opinion but rather trying to explain your original wording to Mbz :) --MichaD | Michael Apel 21:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- That is true Michael, but care should be taken by the author (if he/she wants his/her picture featured) to note such things on the spot and possibly make several other pics, for identification purposes. I personally (but that's me) will never even upload a photo of an unidentified organism. The value of pictures of unidentified plants or animals is not very high. Correct and complete IDs matter very much. Lycaon 17:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- The ID might be correct but it's a bit imprecise. "There are some 45 species in the genus". It's probably not easy to get a full ID with just that pic though. --MichaD | Michael Apel 16:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- It really does not matter, but ID is proper.--Mbz1 14:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- I withdraw my nomination Who said I wanted the picture featured. I was just making my point--Mbz1 23:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
-
- Which was what? Anrie 07:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
result: Nomination withdrawn => not featured. Simonizer 21:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Western Swallowtail butterfly.jpg, not featured
- Info:Western Swallowtail Butterfly
- Info: created ,uploaded and nominated by Mbz1 --Mbz1 21:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Mbz1 21:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose If we are really going to "Raise the bar" on insect photos, then it has to have absolute technically perfection in addition to a wow factor. An out-of-focus wing is not technical perfection. -- Ram-Man 22:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Thats right --Makro Freak 08:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- What exactly is right? The right wing is out of focus? Or maybe the left wing is out of focus?Then I guess you should have said:"Thats left",or maybe both wings are out of focus? Then should not you have said "Thats both"?--09:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- Sorry for my bad english, i meant that i agree with Ram-Man about the perfection for FP Makro Freak 1007, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- What's a pitty. I really wanted to learn what wing is out of focus(and to learn it from such insects autority as you are), not to repeat the same mistake the next time.--Mbz1 13:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- Sorry, my foul mouth forgets sometimes :). The wings are ok, but the head is really out of focus which is not nice for a top shot, plus the flower is overexposed. I think its nearly impossible to make a really good insect picture without a tripod. --Makro Freak talk 15:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- I wouldn't say that. For insects with large wings it's essential to be parallel to the wings. If your subject isn't holding perfectly still you are far less flexible with a tripod. In this special case the fault was to chose an aperture of f/5.6 at 1/1000s as the wings are not fully expanded (e.g. on a flat plane with the thorax). This could have easily been shot 3 stops down at f/11 and 1/125s which probably would have placed the complete butterfly inside the DOF. The background wouldn't have gotten prettier though --MichaD | Michael Apel 16:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- Theoretically 1/1000s sounds great, and why you was exposing your dragonfly for 2seconds ? Regards --Makro Freak talk 16:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for advices, everybody. I'm afraid it will not help me the next time, because while I would be changing my camera settings fast flying, wild insect would fly away.~~----Mbz1
- I'm not saying you can't get good macro shots with a tripod but rather it isn't always a necessity for getting them. In my opinion macro photography is a constant struggle between getting enough DOF, light and shutter speed. If your subject isn't moving you can use a tripod and slow shutter speeds. In the Calopteryx virgo case it was cold and after a rain shower. If you shoot in the sun you certainly need a faster shutter simply because your subject will most probably move. But 1/1000s is overkill. This isn't sports photography and it's not a picture in-flight. 1/125s is usually enough to stop modest subject movement. Camera shake isn't a problem at this speed and 55mm as well. --MichaD | Michael Apel 21:37, 10 July 2007
- If you say so ;) --Makro Freak talk 21:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- Theoretically 1/1000s sounds great, and why you was exposing your dragonfly for 2seconds ? Regards --Makro Freak talk 16:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- I wouldn't say that. For insects with large wings it's essential to be parallel to the wings. If your subject isn't holding perfectly still you are far less flexible with a tripod. In this special case the fault was to chose an aperture of f/5.6 at 1/1000s as the wings are not fully expanded (e.g. on a flat plane with the thorax). This could have easily been shot 3 stops down at f/11 and 1/125s which probably would have placed the complete butterfly inside the DOF. The background wouldn't have gotten prettier though --MichaD | Michael Apel 16:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, my foul mouth forgets sometimes :). The wings are ok, but the head is really out of focus which is not nice for a top shot, plus the flower is overexposed. I think its nearly impossible to make a really good insect picture without a tripod. --Makro Freak talk 15:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- What's a pitty. I really wanted to learn what wing is out of focus(and to learn it from such insects autority as you are), not to repeat the same mistake the next time.--Mbz1 13:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- Sorry for my bad english, i meant that i agree with Ram-Man about the perfection for FP Makro Freak 1007, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- What exactly is right? The right wing is out of focus? Or maybe the left wing is out of focus?Then I guess you should have said:"Thats left",or maybe both wings are out of focus? Then should not you have said "Thats both"?--09:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
result: Nomination withdrawn => not featured. Simonizer 21:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image on the right, not featured
- Info:Western Swallowtail Butterfly
- Info: created ,uploaded and nominated by Mbz1 --Mbz1
- Support --Mbz1 21:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- Comment It is still the same butterfly, but a different shot. I believe the head is in focus now (of course I believed tha head was in focus at the left image too).--Mbz1 21:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- Oppose While the focus is more consistent in this one it's less sharp overall. It also has some very strange noise in the shadows which I'm quite puzzled why it is there at ISO 100. I also prefer the other composition. Sorry. --MichaD | Michael Apel 21:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination Both the right and the left.I think I made my point. MichaD, there's is nothing to be sorry about. It was fun and I learned something new.-- Mbz1 23:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
result: Nomination withdrawn => not featured. Simonizer 21:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Elephant Beetle Megasoma elephas Male Top 2170px.jpg, not featured
- Info: created, uploaded, and nominated by Ram-Man. 22:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- Info: An Elephant Beetle (Megasoma elephas) feeding on sugar cane in Costa Rica.
- Support "Raise the bar" as per Makro Freak here. -- Ram-Man 22:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Few legs and the horn at the front are out of focus. I do not like framing. Very annoying background. Besides it looks that the picture was staged. I assume somebody was holding a sugar can for the tourists taking pictures.Is it still the same dead beatle from your prior submission?--Mbz1 23:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- Comment That is not a fair comment, Mbz1. I suppose the staging argument is not valid here as it is also true for all the large beetles that passed here the last weeks!. The only thing keeping me from supporting this particular image is a focus issue. -- Lycaon 06:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- I probably know very little about large beatles. I was sure that all last weeks images were real. If I knew they were not I would have never ever supported any one of them. I really do not like staged images.--08:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- Oh they are real, and most probably alive too. But staged can also mean in a zoo or another artificial environment. Like a beetle from Madagascar sitting on a Brazilian flower (as with this Euchroea auripimenta for instance). It does not mean that FP can not be rewarded, but that kind of information should be provided. Lycaon 10:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose unfortunate background --Simonizer 07:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose also focus but I especially think that the composition is not convincing --AngMoKio 07:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination I think I made my point. -- Ram-Man 11:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
result: Nomination withdrawn => not featured. Simonizer 21:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Female Pandion.jpg, not featured
- Info: created by Psylexic - uploaded by Psylexic - nominated by Psylexic --Psylexic 03:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Psylexic 03:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Only 800k pix, not enough light on the fish, very little visible detail. Siebrand 07:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- Info: I have uploaded a higher res version of this file. It should be sharper and large enough now (sorry about that). Also please consider the difficulty involved in approaching a wild raptor. thanks. --psylexic
- Oppose Parts of the feet, head, wing, and even the plastic pile is overexposed. --Makro Freak talk 12:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I agree the leg and the wooden post set up at five finger reef are overexposed. But I felt the light nicely accentuated the bird's face. Just a matter of oppinion I guess. --psylexic
- Support--17:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- Comment Could you please fill out a complete template {{information}} on the image, please? Aside from claiming here that you ar the author, it is formally missing from the image description. Cheers! Siebrand 17:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- No worries, hope there's enough info now -psylexic
- Support --Karelj 20:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose good view... but bad light Alessio Damato 21:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose because of the overexposure Tbc 11:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 06:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:SeattleI5Skyline.jpg, featured
- Info: created, uploaded, and nominated by Cacophony 07:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Cacophony 07:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Great shot. But can it be that the picture is a little bit tilted? --Simonizer 07:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
-
- I just put the full sized version in photoshop again and I can't find anything tilted, even zoomed to 500%. What part dosen't look straight? The building verticals are right on and the waterline at bottom right is also perfectly horizontal. The original file was off, but I uploaded a new one that corrected the problem (I think). Cacophony 08:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support Awesome photo. --Psylexic
- Support Sharp, great exposure and composition, and no noise. --Digon3 talk 17:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support - Alvesgaspar 19:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support // tsca [re] 20:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Karelj 20:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support Sleepless ... --Makro Freak talk 21:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support keine Frage --Böhringer 22:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Simonizer 22:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support Simply great. Er Komandante (messages) 01:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support impressive photo --AngMoKio 06:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Jeses 12:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support astonishing Richardfabi 20:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support -- MJJR 20:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Pimke 06:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support --MichaelMaggs 17:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support for sure --MichaD | Michael Apel 14:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support --LeZibou 06:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support What more has to be said? Booksworm 11:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support Wow ... Great !!! Mike-tango 13:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
- Info: Sorry, I found an error: a white dot upwards the end of the white car-lightning in the middle of the building. Not excellent! Perhaps to repair? --Lantus 11:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
result: 21 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 06:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Bighornbattle1 pl.svg, not featured
- Info: created by Pitert - uploaded by Pitert - nominated by Przykuta 17:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Przykuta 17:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I propose to make it more international: use numbers or just translate to english.Masur 19:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment There's an English version in PNG format already, so translating this shouldn't be difficult. The two differ a little bit in the locations of things. I don't know if this is significant. Pengo 02:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- SupportMasur 19:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose no units in height scale bar (m, feet, other) Tbc 11:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- Info: Ther is m n.p.m. just in the top of that table, which means "meters above the sea level". Masur 19:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - The elevation scale is wrong, this way the terrain is made of leveled steps. The image is somehow cluttered and "tight cropped", with big symbols and not enough empty space around. It would be nice to have an inset to show the location of the battle or, at least, to depict geographic coordinates. Finally, I'm sorry for not being totally able to evaluate something written in Polish. - Alvesgaspar 20:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- I agree that the elevation classes are coarse, but to call them wrong is a step too far. There are always steps in elevation maps (they are never continuous, always discrete, might be interpolated but that's giving a false impression of accuracy). Tbc 10:40, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
- Alvesgaspar is right, this way all places with a given color have the same elevation. For each color there should be an elevation interval, not a single elevation. - 16:12, 8 July 2007 85.3.8.68
- Oppose Nicely done, but I think the topography might be enhanced with the available PD NASA SRTM1 data (31m resolution) (has to be tested), the presentation of the elevation scale is weird, same for the North arrow and I don't like much the flashy colours. In fact, there's no « wow » for me in this map. Sting 23:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 06:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Kamillenfeld mit Mohn vor der Veste Otzberg.JPG
[edit] Original Version, not featured
- Info: created by Reiner Müller - uploaded by Reiner Müller - nominated by Reiner Müller --Reiner Müller 20:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Reiner Müller 20:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Underexposed. --Digon3 talk 20:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Totaly missing composition, very poor photo quality. --Karelj 20:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose DRI would work best here --Makro Freak talk 20:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose I dont agree with Karelj about the missing composition, the diagonal of the red flowers is quite nice. But i agree with Digon3 and Makro Freak --Simonizer 06:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support --J-Luc Dark ambiance, enhanced by the underexposition. But you should remove the CCD dust shadow on the top left (and others). Noon, 2007-07-03
- Neutral lighten the foreground a little, but leave the sky like this... --Jeses 12:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 06:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Edited Version, not featured
- Info: I have uploaded a new edit. --Digon3 15:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- Info: Great work - Thanks a lot. --Reiner Müller 19:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support Way better --Jeses 17:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose the gras is unsharp --Wiki mouse 17:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - Interesting composition but poor quality. The wide angle lens distortion should be corrected. Alvesgaspar 20:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 06:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Edited Version 2, not featured
- Info: Wide angle lens distortion corrected. --Digon3 talk 00:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose composition -- Gorgo 20:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- Neutral I like the composition and the dark ambiance, the edit looks much better, unfortunately the pic isn't sharp enough. Vassil 22:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
result: 0 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 06:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Polyprion americanus.2 - Aquarium Finisterrae.JPG, not featured
- Info: Polyprion americanus in Aquarium Finisterrae (Corunna, Galicia, Spain) - uploaded and nominated by --Drow male 15:00, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Drow male 15:00, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Very noisy and lighting. --Digon3 talk 15:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
- Против I like it because it looks like a drawing but it is very noisy and the lighting is strange, sorry. Regards, --Makro Freak 16:09, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Very noisy --Bergwolf 19:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose low quality --Simonizer 12:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose quality --Wiki mouse 17:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 06:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Bandeiras06052007.jpg - not featured
- Info: created by José Cruz - uploaded by Dantadd - nominated by João Felipe C.S --João Felipe C.S 21:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support Amazing view. João Felipe C.S 21:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose This nomination was declined less than a year ago. Lycaon 21:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- And how long until it can be attempted again? Never? A year? -- Ram-Man 03:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- There is no time limit that I know of, but the image has not improved meanwhile and was not withdrawn at that time... Lycaon 16:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- In the last nomination someone voted against the image because they didn't think national flags should be featured. IMO, that's an invalid way to vote because the rules say nothing about banned classes of images. Remove that vote and it is one vote away from a support. That's close enough to merit a second try. In this case, you are voting simply because it was going to be reattempted? I don't consider that to be much of a reason. You should at least judge a picture on its own merits I think. This will likely fail much more conclusively this time, but at least the reasons for its failure will be stated. It should be given a chance to fail conclusively -- Ram-Man 00:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Fair enough. I still do think national flags should not be featured. Furthermore, the crop is kind of spoiling the image. Lycaon 18:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- In the last nomination someone voted against the image because they didn't think national flags should be featured. IMO, that's an invalid way to vote because the rules say nothing about banned classes of images. Remove that vote and it is one vote away from a support. That's close enough to merit a second try. In this case, you are voting simply because it was going to be reattempted? I don't consider that to be much of a reason. You should at least judge a picture on its own merits I think. This will likely fail much more conclusively this time, but at least the reasons for its failure will be stated. It should be given a chance to fail conclusively -- Ram-Man 00:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- There is no time limit that I know of, but the image has not improved meanwhile and was not withdrawn at that time... Lycaon 16:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- And how long until it can be attempted again? Never? A year? -- Ram-Man 03:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support for now. July of last year is quite a while ago, even if it wasn't a complete year. The original nomination never garnered a large number of votes anyway, so I don't see a problem with trying it again. I specifically disagree with the idea that we can't feature a national flag. If it's a good picture, let's feature it. Even if we had a featured picture for every country's flag (unlikely of course), that still isn't a problem. -- Ram-Man 03:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose While its nicer than "flat" flags, this is a little overkill on the motion --ShakataGaNai Talk 06:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- I like the idea but don't like the cropped flagpole, so Neutral for now. --norro 08:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC) Btw: I don't see any problem with featuring photographs of national flags.
- Oppose I don't like the left part with the flagpole either. It makes the image seem tilted and a bit messy. Also if the image is borderline FP (due to last oppose) I prefer to not have it FP. /Daniel78 09:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support--Laziale93 10:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose for the same reason as last time. The image hasn't changed. --MichaelMaggs 17:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support--Econt 20:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose per Daniel78 -βαςεLXIV™ 12:59, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose overkill in motion... Bthv 09:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
4 support, 5 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 22:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:P. Brueghel II - De kindermoord.JPG, not featured
- Info: Musées royaux des Beaux-Arts de Belgique - created by Szilas - uploaded by Szilas - nominated by Szilas --Szilas 04:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Szilas 04:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Again, focus and lighting. Sorry. --Digitaldreamer 02:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose it seems too dark --Simonizer 12:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose as above. -- Ram-Man 23:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- Contra- bad light, it is too dark-LadyofHats 17:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 09:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Alsloot - Tervuren.JPG, not featured
- Info: Musées royaux des Beaux-Arts de Belgique - created by Szilas - uploaded by Szilas - nominated by Szilas --Szilas 04:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Szilas 04:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Focus, lighting. --Digitaldreamer 02:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose it seems too dark --Simonizer 12:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose as above. -- Ram-Man 23:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- Contra- dark-LadyofHats 17:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 09:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Petanque batignolles.jpg, not featured
- Info: created by KoS - uploaded by KoS - nominated by KoS --KoS 11:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support --KoS 11:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose quality is ok, but composition doesn't do anything for me -- Gorgo 16:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose lack of wow --Simonizer 12:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Too common --Wiki mouse 17:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose No wow factor. -- Ram-Man 23:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose I agree. The wowiness just isn't wow enough to wow me. --Digitaldreamer 11:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- Contra-as said above -LadyofHats 17:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 09:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Landsvale.jpg, not delisted
- Info: Doesn't meet the standards (Original nomination)
- Delist --Malene Thyssen 19:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep - Alvesgaspar 21:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)- Keep ♦ --Makro Freak talk 22:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep --MichaelMaggs 17:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- Neutral Borderline for sure, but this actually has decent resolution and the quality is ok. Is it among "the best we have to offer"? I'm not sure what I think. -- Ram-Man 11:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 Delist, 3 Keep, 1 neutral => not delisted. Simonizer 09:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Bombus Bumblebee (Bestoevning).jpg, delisted
.jpg)
- Info: Doesn't meet the standards (Original nomination)
- Delist --Malene Thyssen 19:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delist It has its charm, but it's not good enough. -- Ram-Man 20:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep --MichaelMaggs 17:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Good and special subject and theme, with good composition and good techinal value. --Beyond silence 03:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
result: 2 Delist, 2 Keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. Simonizer 09:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Re-opening delist nomination:
- Delist Clearly the current image is not the one promoted to featured picture, in fact the original upload is not even available in the image history. At the very least the image should be reverted to the earliest version available, or the actual promoted version undeleted. This version looks terrible, at preview or full size compare to the earlier (smaller) versions. An alternative is to nominate this version for promotion. --Tony Wills 12:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delist per nom (obviously). Lycaon 12:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delist per myself. -- Ram-Man 16:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delist per nom. The deleted image had a border and a watermark. Besides that, it's identical to the other smaller versions. Rocket000 10:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delist Noy 13:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delist given the lack of transparency about what happened to this picture after it was promoted. --MichaelMaggs 16:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
result: 6 Delist, 0 Keep, 0 neutral => delisted. --Mywood 21:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Siberian Tiger by Malene Th.jpg, not delisted
- Info: Doesn't meet the standards (Original nomination)
- Delist --Malene Thyssen 19:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - Nonsense. - Alvesgaspar 21:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep ♦ --Makro Freak talk 22:05, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Still big enough --MichaelMaggs 17:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delist I almost didn't vote to delist. This is a great picture and the subject somewhat compensates for the low resolution. However, for shots in captivity, I'd like to see it without a man made background. The background is the real problem. -- Ram-Man 11:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep --Atoma 08:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
result: 2 Delist, 4 Keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. Simonizer 09:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Kaloe.jpg, delisted
- Info: Doesn't meet the standards (Original nomination)
- Delist --Malene Thyssen 19:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delist Awkward and obvious photoshopping. --Arad 20:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delist Poor photoshopping --Digon3 talk 23:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delist Agreed. --MichaelMaggs 17:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delist Low resolution and what appears to be posterization. -- Ram-Man 11:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
result: 5 Delist, 0 Keep, 0 neutral => delisted. Simonizer 09:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Pongo pygmaeus (orangutang).jpg, not delisted
.jpg)
- Info: Doesn't meet the standards (Original nomination)
- Delist --Malene Thyssen 20:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - Nonsense - Alvesgaspar 21:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep ♦ --Makro Freak talk 22:05, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Still bigger than 800x600 (480k). --MichaelMaggs 17:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delist Yuck, the background. It may be blurry, but the colors are awful. -- Ram-Man 11:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Some
paintings with such awful colours are supposed to be good. --wau > 10:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
- This isn't a painting and this isn't art evaluation. In the FP process we favor backgrounds of the real environments because they have more value. Lots of pictures are rejected because of fake backgrounds. -- Ram-Man 13:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep --Digitaldreamer 14:34, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delist ack Ram-Man. Lycaon 17:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
result: 3 Delist, 4 Keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. Simonizer 09:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Hestemøj.jpg, delisted
- Info: Doesn't meet standards (Original nomination)
- Delist --Malene Thyssen 20:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delist - Obvious error of judgement for me. - Alvesgaspar 21:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delist I agree. --MichaelMaggs 21:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delist As above. --Digon3 talk 23:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delist resolution. -- Ram-Man 11:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
result: 5 Delist, 0 Keep, 0 neutral => delisted. Simonizer 09:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Villingerød kirke.jpg, delisted
- Info: Doesn't meet standards (Original nomination)
- Delist --Malene Thyssen 20:05, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep ♦ --Makro Freak talk 22:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Still bigger than 800x600(480k). --MichaelMaggs 17:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delist Less than 1MP. This resolution is just way too low. The image cannot be evaluated against any other standards because there are not enough pixels. Virtually any pictures appears good at this resolution until you blow it up to, say, 2MP. -- Ram-Man 11:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delist overexposed and low size --Simonizer 08:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delist per nom. Lycaon 17:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delist overexposed. --Digon3 talk 01:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
result: 5 Delist, 2 Keep, 0 neutral => delisted. Simonizer 09:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Mandril.jpg, not delisted
- Info: Doesn't meet standards (Original nomination)
- Delist --Malene Thyssen 20:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - This is a wonderful photo. I don't agree on delisting a FP just because of size. It makes me recall Well's "1984" novel, where History was permanently being revised according to present politics. - Alvesgaspar 21:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment If this was QI where an image can't be demoted, you'd have a point. But this is FP where "the best we have to offer" can and will change. There was a time when low resolution images were the best we had to offer, but that is no longer the case. I'm not saying that we should just remove all FPs less than 2MP without discussion, but they should be judged based on whether they are still the best we have to offer. -- Ram-Man 17:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - Wonderful photo. The "wow" factor is more important than technical details. Fg2 21:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep for the reasons given above. --MichaelMaggs 21:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep ♦ --Makro Freak talk 22:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep --Digon3 talk 23:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delist I don't like the hair. It's looks white from too much sharpening. Thumbnails look ok because downsampling removes the effect. It's basically 1MP, so it's pretty low resolution. -- Ram-Man 11:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delist per Ram-Man. Cacophony 16:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep borderline case Lycaon 17:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep C'est super Badhy 11:47, 14 July 2007 (CEST)
result: 3 Delist, 7 Keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. Simonizer 09:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Rød ræv (Vulpes vulpes).jpg, not delisted
.jpg)
- Info: Doesn't meet standards (Original nomination)
- Delist --Malene Thyssen 20:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - Alvesgaspar 21:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep ♦ --Makro Freak talk 22:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep --Digon3 talk 23:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep The only thing that would fail current standards is size, and the fact that the size rquirements have got tougher shouldn't necessarily mean that all old FP's have to be de-listed. If size is the only problem, I might be inclined personally to delist at below, say, 800x600(480k). --MichaelMaggs 17:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delist Oversharpened. Less than 1MP. -- Ram-Man 11:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep --Atoma 08:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
result: 2 Delist, 5 Keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. Simonizer 09:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Boelge stor.jpg, not delisted
- Info: Doesn't meet standards (Original nomination)
- Delist --Malene Thyssen 20:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - Nonsense - Alvesgaspar 21:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep ♦ --Makro Freak talk 22:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep --Digon3 talk 23:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep The only thing that would fail current standards is size, and the fact that the size rquirements have got tougher shouldn't necessarily mean that all old FP's have to be de-listed. If size is the only problem, I might be inclined personally to delist at below, say, 800x600(480k). --MichaelMaggs 17:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delist Even if I supported grandfathering older FPs, this is below 1MP. -- Ram-Man 11:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Great image, no reason to unlist. --Atoma 08:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
result: 2 Delist, 5 Keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. Simonizer 09:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Solsort.jpg, not delisted
- Info: Doesn't meet the standards (Original nomination)
- Delist --Malene Thyssen 20:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - Alvesgaspar 21:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep ♦ --Makro Freak talk 22:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep The only thing that would fail current standards is size, and the fact that the size rquirements have got tougher shouldn't necessarily mean that all old FP's have to be de-listed. If size is the only problem, I might be inclined personally to delist at below, say, 800x600. --MichaelMaggs 17:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delist Underexposed. Sure the sky isn't washed out, but the shadow detail just isn't visible. Less than 1MP as well, so clearly too low resolution. -- Ram-Man 11:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delist Much part of bird underexposed. --Beyond silence 10:49, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
result: 3 Delist, 3 Keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. Simonizer 09:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:ParavaniLake.jpg, not featured
[edit] Original version, not featured
- Info:Paravani lake in southern Georgia (2,000 meters above the sea level) created by Georgian photographer Paata Vardanashvili - uploaded and nominated by Sosomk --Sosomk 09:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support -- Sosomk 09:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support - Good shot! --Kober 09:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - Seriously tilted. --J-Luc 11:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose agree with J-Luc --Simonizer 11:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose agree with other opposers on the tilt Tbc 11:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Oh, give me a break, what the heck are you talking about? Why is it tilted? Sosomk 15:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose it's tilted because the water level/horizon is not parallel to the image rim. --Jeses 17:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose agree with Jeses --Wiki mouse 17:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment How can the image rim be parallel with the water level? The lake is located in the tallest mountainous range of Europe. Sosomk 19:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Well, Jeses, is not this [7] tilted according to your definition? Why did you vote for that? Sosomk 19:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
-
- No, that one is not tilted. I don't get what the location where the picture was taken has to do with tilting...--Jeses 09:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - Uninteresting centered composition, strongly tilted. Alvesgaspar 20:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose It's tilted indeed... -- MJJR 20:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support Just to be against the trend. Strange day, today! --Makro Freak talk 22:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose agree with Alvesgaspar..centered composition. Use the golden ratio for placing the sun in the photo and you have a much more interesting pic - though it would be still a bit too common for FP ..there should be at least a boat with a kissing couple on the lake ;) --AngMoKio 12:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
result: 3 support, 8 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 09:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Edit, not featured
Info: I removed the tilt. Vassil 23:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support Thanks Vassil Sosomk 09:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support Excellent shot. grendel|khan 20:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support Looks even better.Kober 20:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Uninteresting composition, and IMO it looks like just another sunset (only without the colors). Sorry. --Digon3 talk 23:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- CommentWell, if you think it not interesting, I think it is indeed interesting. If you have any personal problems with it that's your business. Sosomk 07:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose not tilted anymore, ok... but that bush in the lower right corner is totally underexposed, the mountains are too noisy... --Jeses 08:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose nothing particularly special Lycaon 19:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 13:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Marine Fog Pattern 1.jpg, not featured
- Info: created by Jacek Walicki - uploaded by Jacekw - nominated by Przykuta 11:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Przykuta 11:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose It is too compressed, which introduces a lot of of jpeg artifacts. --Digon3 talk 14:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- Katja
Abstain --Makro Freak 19:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC) - Support --Pmgpmg 20:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Dark and blunt, poor presentation. --Beyond silence 11:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 13:18, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Metalmania 2007 - Sepultura - Derrick Green 01.jpg, not featured
- Info: created & uploaded by Lilly M - nominated by --Makro Freak talk 14:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC) Derrick Green (singer) from Sepultura during Metalmania 2007 festival
- Support Sepultura is a very famous Metalband from Brazil. I dont listen to this kind of music, but i like the pic because the singer looks very natural and charismatic. The background is cool but spacey and fits great --Makro Freak talk 14:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support We need more FP of people. Subject is sharp, nice perspective. --Jeses 17:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support Vassil 17:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Poor background. However the subject is very clear; the background could be removed without damage? --Jacopo 18:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment This dark background fits very well for this kind of music ... --Makro Freak talk 18:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support Agree with Jeses. Shadow around the nose, but that's too nitpicky. --Bergwolf 19:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- Neutral hmm....i am not really convinced of the perspective. I'd be happier to see a part of the right eye ....background overexposed ;) (which even causes purple fringe around the nose) --AngMoKio 21:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment Metal musicans need purple fringe around the nose :) And i say you what ... Neonlamps can be a bit overexposed because they are really white --Makro Freak talk 21:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- That's not a purple fringe, that's a wee bit of motion blur. --Digitaldreamer 22:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- I agree on the motionblur --Makro Freak talk 22:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support It's a person in motion, I like the portrait. --Digitaldreamer 22:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose I would like to see him a little more from the frontside. Background is too much disturbing --Simonizer 07:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Poor background. --Digon3 talk 17:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose background Tbc 18:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support, same as Digitaldreamer, Ziga 17:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support --WarX 17:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC) One of best from Metalmania 2007
- Stödjer ej Nice image, but I think nice is not enough for FP. Basically I agree with Simonizer. /Daniel78 22:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose--OsamaK 07:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Karelj 20:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Agree with above opposers. --Atoma 08:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Not enough valuable subject. --Beyond silence 12:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
result: 8 support, 8 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 13:21, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Colour Explosion.jpg, not featured
- Info: Created, uploaded and nominated by Nattfodd --Nattfodd 23:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support While a nice sunset by itself, this is nominated because it gives a good example of a HDR image, where multiple exposures and tone mapping are used to correctly expose every part of the image while retaining good contrast. --Nattfodd 23:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support--Mbz1 23:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- Comment Impressive dynamics, but i have the feeling that this is extreme artificial, over&underexposed, oversaturated, overcontrasted and distorted in some way. This is something from merlins hat. Where is a reference? Plus there is a optical distortion when looking at the architecture on the sides --Makro Freak 02:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- Info: It's "normal" that it looks artificial, HDR images often do. Looking perfectly natural is not the point. Architecture distorsion is simply perspective when shooting at 11mm. I don't get what you want with the "reference".--Nattfodd 09:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- OpposeNoisy, oversharpend, tilt and it looks too unnatural --Simonizer 07:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- Info: Noisy, maybe, though I shot 200 ISO and used a pretty heavy noise reduction filter in photoshop. I don't think it's a problem if you don't zoom to 100%. Oversharpened is impossible: I never sharpened it, and neither did the camera. Tilt is also impossible, I checked with the ruler at 100%, try it for yourself. As for unnatural, cf last comment.--Nattfodd 09:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- First of all. Please sign your comments. Secondly, with tilt i meant the distortion by the wide angle focal length that i dont find necessary for this picture. Maybe the oversharpend effect comes from too much contrast or oversaturation. But i can go on with the flaws of this picture if you like. There is fringing around the windows of the buildings and all the buildings in the middle and on the left side of the picture are overexposed. --Simonizer 09:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Overprocessed --MichaD | Michael Apel 14:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose I have the hobby of HDR as well, but this pic is noisy and overexposed. Look at the histogram: you didn't take enough pictures, so you couldn't compress the dynamic range enough. Moreover, HDR-renderer algorithms are likely to increase noise, so, if you want to use some pics for HDR, you have to take them with the lowest possible ISO. Removing noise is not a solution, because Gaussian noise cannot be removed, unless you accept to loose some data (feature pictures must have no compromise!) Alessio Damato 16:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Noise and distortion. --Digon3 talk 17:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Great sunset, but the picture is noisy and unsharp. --AdrF 22:40, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 13:21, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Spiderwort Blue Flower 2.JPG, not featured
- Info: created, uploaded, and nominated by Digon3 --Digon3 talk 15:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Filament and pollen is nice - remaining picture is middle-rate --Wiki mouse 17:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose As above. Snowwayout 21:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Not high enough quality and wow factor. Technically flawless flowers fail often as FPs and this one has noise and DoF issues. -- Ram-Man 23:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose DoF and quality --Makro Freak 08:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Snapshot level --Bergwolf 18:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
result: 0 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 13:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Golden gate bridge at sunset.JPG, not featured
#1
#2 
- Info:Golden Gate Bridge and San Francisco Bay as seen at sunset from Land's End.
- Info: created ,uploaded and nominated by Mbz1 --Mbz1 04:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Mbz1 04:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I do realize that the fog at the North Tower and the Sun at the South Tower is very destructive (not to say confusing). Also that strange line of the fog could be confused with the bridge(the Bridge is kind of red while the fog is kind of gray).I just ask you to remember - it was not me, who created the effect. It was the Nature. Of course I should have taken a picture from a different place. On the other hand the effect is rather interesting (in my opinion), Isn't this always like that - while somewhere is sunny, somewhere is foggy?--Mbz1 04:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- Neutral I don't have a problem with the sun or the fog but the photo is seriously tilted. --AngMoKio 06:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- It is great you did not have a problem with the fog because I fprgot to explain that the bridge is below the fog while the fog is above the brige. About that tilt, you believe it could be corrected in photo shop?--Mbz1 15:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- Info: I corrected the tilt. --Digon3 talk 16:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you very much, Digon3. It does look much better. Maybe it will even pass.--Mbz1 16:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- Support-i do like it -LadyofHats 17:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry, zu dunkel, zu unscharf. Von dieser Brücke gibt es andere Bilder [8] --Böhringer 19:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- Es, ist OK. Keine Sorgen. Der wichtigste Teil dieser Nominierung war, dass niemand die Brücke mit dem Nebel verwirrte. In der Weise ich German nicht spreche, oder was dafür war.--Mbz1 20:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- Oppose It isn't very clear to me what should this picture show. --che 02:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- Agree, the picture is absolutely impossible to comprehend.--Mbz1 04:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- Oppose The main part of image dark, only a little part of the bridge has good visiblity, much unnecessary foreground. --Beyond silence 10:38, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination Thank you all for your votes. They were pure fun, especially "oppose" ones (most of all the last one)
result: Nomination withdraw => not featured. Simonizer 07:00, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:IMG 5608 monkey.JPG, not featured
- Info:Erythrocebus patas(Patas Monkey). The picture was taken in San Francisco ZOO.
- Info: created, uploaded and nominated by Mbz1 --Mbz1 04:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Mbz1 04:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I know that the framing is not good and the background is horrible. Yet maybe, just maybe, you could try to concentrate at the monkey. Isn't she cute?--Mbz1 04:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- Oppose the crop is too tight...and bcs of the glass the monkey looks bluish and there are visible stains on the glass (those 2 things migh get fixed with software). Sorry. --AngMoKio 06:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oh that poor, cropped monkey behind the stained glass. She is blue from sadness.--Mbz1 15:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- Oppose The framing and background are part and parcel of the fp gig. --Braindrain0000 08:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose As above. By the way, "she" has a moustache :) --Digon3 talk 16:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Crop and colour-cast. Sorry. --MichaelMaggs 17:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- In this particular instance there's nothing to be sorry about, yet I'm glad that at last you are sorry.--Mbz1 17:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- Contra- the whole colors are changed-LadyofHats 17:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination The poor monkey got more than enough of your oppose already. I'm afraid the he/she could become even bluer than he/she already is(like somebody knows what the real color of that monkey was).
result: Nomination withdraw => not featured. Simonizer 06:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Sa old indian purse.jpg
[edit] Original version, not featured
- Info: An antique purse used by Indian women to hold coins, created by sanjay_ach - uploaded by sanjay_ach - nominated by sanjay_ach --Sanjay ach 15:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Sanjay ach 15:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Can you give the reason for not supporting? sanjay_ach 23:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- Concordo--Lmbuga gl, pt, es: contacta comigo 08:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- Падтрымліваю --Makro Freak 19:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- Scherzkeks! ;-) --Simonizer 07:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Dirty surface, very oversharpened. Thegreenj 04:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment This is an antique thing. It's pretty old (about 100 years) and has been used many times. Please do not expect it to be like a clean new item. Though sharpened, I do not think that the quality of the image has suffered and the details are excellent even when its fully zoomed. sanjay_ach 15:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- I was refering to the smudges and speckles on the white surface. The purse itself seems pretty clean. As for sharpening, every edge is followed by a dark or light line, a definite artifact of sharpening. For example, look at the coin. See the black shadow towards the top? On any side it is surrounded by (almost) pure white. Thegreenj 16:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Agree that it's way oversharpened, would support a version with less sharpening --MichaD | Michael Apel 19:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 09:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Edit 1, not featured
Info: Ok. I get it. I have put up a second version. This is the un-sharpened one with the surface cleaned. Do let me know of your opinion sanjay_ach 02:25, 07 July 2007 (UTC)
- 支持 --Makro Freak talk 20:32, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support --MichaD | Michael Apel 21:27, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support Good sharpness and lighing, composition. --Beyond silence 11:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
result: 3 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. --MichaelMaggs 06:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image: Schleienloecher2.JPG
[edit] Original version, not featured
- Info: [9][10]
- de:Hard Schleienlöcher mit Blick zum Pfänder, Gebhardsberg und in den vorderen Bregenzerwald
- en: Schleienlöcher with view to Pfänder, Gebhardsberg and down to the front of the Bregenzerwald in Vorarlberg, Austria.
- Info: created, uploaded and nominated by --Böhringer 19:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment A part of the cloud is overexposed, the reflection on the water surface shows what iam missing.--Makro Freak talk 20:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- Neutral Very good picture. Its a pity that there are some big highlight areas in the clouds --Simonizer 07:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
result: 0 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 09:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Edit 1, not featured
Info: I propose an edit; I cropped the white top of the cloud, I slightly increase the luminosity of the water and I applied a gaussian blur to it to reduce the noise. Vassil 23:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support gaussian blur, hm? --Jeses 07:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support I like the colours of this picture very much. The highlights have been cut away and sadly the symmetry also. But now the horizon is not in the middle of the picture anymore, which makes it a new picture. Different but not worse --Simonizer 07:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- Neutral Very nice colors but I think it would be better to crop on the bottom a bit as well, right below the bright cloud reflection --MichaD | Michael Apel 14:51, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 13:16, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Edit 2, featured
Info: I followed Michael Apel's advice and I think he was right, the picture looks more luminous like this. Vassil 15:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support Vassil 15:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support very nice --Böhringer 19:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC) compliment
- Support Although it's not what I actually meant it's much better :) --MichaD | Michael Apel 20:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support Much better composition. --Digon3 talk 23:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support as above --Simonizer 06:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Jeses 08:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support Much better composition. --MichaelMaggs 20:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support Basik07 17:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 07:03, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Sunset in Shinjuku.jpg, not featured
[edit] Original version, not featured
- Info: created by flickr user wili_hybrid - uploaded by Amagase - nominated by Amagase --Amagase 04:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Amagase 04:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Very noisy, there is distortion and it is getting unsharp to the sides. Overall quality could also be better. --Simonizer 07:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
-
- And iam not a friend of borders here at wikimedia --Simonizer 07:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- Neutral A great photo, but needs to lose the border. -- Sakurambo 08:51, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose I agree with Simonizer. --Jeses 13:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose as Simonizer --MichaD | Michael Apel 14:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose ack Simonizer. --Digon3 talk 17:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support - Beautiful Tukka 11:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Karelj 20:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Edit 1, not featured
- Info: It's a nice picture so I cropped the border, removed the noise and tried to correct the distortion. I couldn't do anything about the reflections though. -- Gorgo 20:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose It is a lot better, but it still has poor technical quality. --Digon3 talk 23:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose very beautiful, but has some serious pincushion distortion. Tbc 10:33, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support Looks good to me :-) -- Sakurambo 11:01, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Karelj 20:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Looks nice, but bad technical quality. Blunt, distrubing sky. --Beyond silence 11:09, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Carterocephalus palaemon grassroots.jpg, featured
- Info: created by MichaD | Michael Apel - uploaded by MichaD | Michael Apel - nominated by MichaD | Michael Apel --MichaD | Michael Apel 14:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support Maybe something other than a straight on macro... --MichaD | Michael Apel 14:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support I like the composition, the focus, and the animal in his habitat. This picture is full of life ! Vassil 16:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support--Mbz1 20:51, 5 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- Support Great composition. A bit too small of a file size though... --Digon3 talk 23:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- За Sehr schön, Grüße --Makro Freak 08:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support Find ich auch. Mal was anderes --Simonizer 08:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support Unusual composition, I like it. --Digitaldreamer 05:05, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support --MichaelMaggs 20:09, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose composition --Karelj 20:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support eben deshalb--Böhringer 22:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 07:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:V-2victimAntwerp1944.jpg, featured
- Info: created by Signal Corps Photographs of American Military Activity - uploaded by Madmax32 - nominated by MichaelMaggs
This is currently a nominee for FP status on the en-W and is doing well so far. --MichaelMaggs 17:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support --MichaelMaggs 17:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support -- MJJR 19:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose ! (have no words - just too much) --Malene Thyssen 20:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support--Mbz1 20:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- Neutral I'm not shure about ethics when showing dead bodys on a picture.. --Jeses 22:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support Dantadd✉ 00:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC) - impressionante...
- Question: Dear Michael, why you think this should be a FP ? I have no clue to handle such pictures, Regards Makro Freak 08:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Because it's of great historical interest - though shocking - and easily meets the main FP criteria in terms of techical and compositional excellence, and wow factor. See Commons:Featured pictures/Historical for more historic images that have been accepted here. --MichaelMaggs 10:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support Fascinating Image Booksworm 11:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support Rama 12:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support Obviously not your average flower, bird or insect image... but I agree it meets the guidelines fine, and is of great quality and historical interest. Majorly (talk) 12:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support Agree with Majorly --Makro Freak 12:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support Impressive --Javier ME 21:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Stödjer Shocking - yes, but that's the world we live in. Very expressive and good quality image. /Daniel78 22:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support Andrevan 04:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support --che 15:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Karelj 20:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- Supporto.W. --Böhringer 22:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Pimke 08:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
result: 15 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Simonizer 07:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Leighton-God Speed!.jpg, not featured
- Info: created by Edmund Blair Leighton - uploaded and nominated by grendel|khan 20:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support --grendel|khan 20:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support For great justice ! Rama 22:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- Question: Very strange effects in the darkness under the arch. Is that loss of varnish on the painting or an imaging problem? --MichaelMaggs 13:45, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
- Info: It doesn't look like JPEG artifacts, but it's entirely possible that the image was scanned/photographed and then levels-adjusted, causing the two-tone dark areas. It's also possible that it's the varnish thing that you mention. As I haven't seen the original painting (just countless reproductions), I can't say for sure. grendel|khan 13:32, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support- -LadyofHats 17:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Lacks sharpness. --Derbeth talk 09:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Lycaon 05:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Sarcophagidae01.JPG, not featured
- Info: created by Username - uploaded by Username - nominated by Username --Böhringer 07:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Böhringer 07:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Против Nice colors and composition but poor focus and harsh lightning, sorry, Regards Makro Freak 08:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Picture looks good with a thumbnail view. On maximizing the view, the lack of sharpness is evident sanjay_ach 15:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Not sharp enough and harsh lighting. --Digon3 talk 15:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- SupportI looked at the image again and again and I really cannot see any problem with the focus and/or with the sharpness--Mbz1 19:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- Neutral i like the composition and the colours...but there is really a problem with the sharpness - and it is also visible that you tried to fix that ;) ...still a great shot!--AngMoKio 19:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Harsh lighning and unsharp --Bergwolf 20:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support When you see the picture at the real size are visible a little focus problem and unsharp, in this kind of pictures the focus must be perfect, but I support it because I like it and the problem is small.--AdrF 22:34, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support Perhaps the quality is not perfect, but it's good enough. Incredible picture. Keta 16:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Out of focus. --Beyond silence 11:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - We shouldn't feature porn on the Main page! --Abu badali 20:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Now, seriously... great image, but the unfortunate sharpness problem is an issue . --Abu badali 20:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
result: 4 support, 6 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Lycaon 05:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Aeshna cyanea female 1.jpg, featured
- Info: Blaugrüne Mosaikjungfer vor blaugrünem Hintergrund - 4 Tage nach dem Schlüpfen. [11]
- Info: created by Böhringer - uploaded by Böhringer - nominated by Böhringer --Böhringer 07:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Böhringer 07:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support nice detail, great background colours --Simonizer 08:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- За Sehr schön, Grüße Makro Freak 08:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Digon3 talk 15:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support Super Hintergrund! --MichaD | Michael Apel 19:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support Winiar✉ 19:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support--AngMoKio 19:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support--Mbz1 19:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- Support --Digitaldreamer 05:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support --MichaelMaggs 20:08, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support--AdrF 22:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support Basik07 09:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support - Cacophony 17:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose This will be a first for me: the crop is too tight, so I have to oppose for that reason only. However, in trying to "raise the bar" for insect photos, this one just looks like the same old type of picture. Simplistic with a single object and a blurred background. There is also at least one other FP of this species and other similar pictures of different species but similar looking insects. I don't see why I should support this one, as it doesn't stand out above the other FPs. -- Ram-Man 11:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Help! Ram-Man on a voting rampage! For me, this one has this raised quality.--Makro Freak talk 12:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- I apologize for the confusion and adjusted my comment for clarity. If this one raises quality then other ones should be delisted. I much prefer the detail on this similar featured picture. Both have tight framing, but the featured picture has more uniform DoF and better sharpness and detail. This image should also replace this one. My vote obviously will not make a difference, so whether support, neutral, or oppose, it won't matter. If the vote was close I would have abstained because you are right: it is better than others even with tight framing. I'm just trying to make a point: we already have a similar photo that has (debateable) better DoF, so how does this one raise the bar? It's not clearly better. -- Ram-Man 15:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- Dont let you traumatize with "raise the bar" ;), ohmygod! This is more a "funny" motivation claim than a measurement parameter . Your given examples are all from different species, but if there are 2 similar pictures of the same species i agree to make a delisting proc.. --Makro Freak talk 17:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- The second example is the same species. I have started a delisting since this will obviously pass. As for raising the bar, it's about insects in general, not about a specific species. This image improves on another FP of the same species, but it does not raise the bar for other insect photos that have recently passed, as in the first example. -- Ram-Man 19:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- Dont let you traumatize with "raise the bar" ;), ohmygod! This is more a "funny" motivation claim than a measurement parameter . Your given examples are all from different species, but if there are 2 similar pictures of the same species i agree to make a delisting proc.. --Makro Freak talk 17:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- I apologize for the confusion and adjusted my comment for clarity. If this one raises quality then other ones should be delisted. I much prefer the detail on this similar featured picture. Both have tight framing, but the featured picture has more uniform DoF and better sharpness and detail. This image should also replace this one. My vote obviously will not make a difference, so whether support, neutral, or oppose, it won't matter. If the vote was close I would have abstained because you are right: it is better than others even with tight framing. I'm just trying to make a point: we already have a similar photo that has (debateable) better DoF, so how does this one raise the bar? It's not clearly better. -- Ram-Man 15:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose on grounds of file name! Full support when file name is (will be) changed. Lycaon 20:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- verstehe Lycaon nicht! Hier wurde kein Dateinamen geändert !!! --Böhringer 10:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- Dateinamen können z.B. geändert werden mit dem {{badname}} Template. You should however do this after nomination has finished and then transfer FP status to the new one (reuploaded with proper name). Also check and correct usage for the file. I have no qualms with the image itself: for me it deserves FP status. Lycaon 11:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- Es geht um den momentanen Dateinamen. Es sollte wohl der korrekte lateinische Namen der Spezies angegeben sein (und möglichst wenige kryptische Zahlen und Buchstaben). --AngMoKio 11:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- verstehe Lycaon nicht! Hier wurde kein Dateinamen geändert !!! --Böhringer 10:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
-
result: 13 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Lycaon 05:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Aeshna cyanea female 1.jpg, featured
- Info: Blaugrüne Mosaikjungfer vor blaugrünem Hintergrund - 4 Tage nach dem Schlüpfen. [12]
- Info: created by Böhringer - uploaded by Böhringer - nominated by Böhringer --Böhringer 07:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Böhringer 07:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support nice detail, great background colours --Simonizer 08:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- За Sehr schön, Grüße Makro Freak 08:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Digon3 talk 15:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support Super Hintergrund! --MichaD | Michael Apel 19:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support Winiar✉ 19:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support--AngMoKio 19:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support--Mbz1 19:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- Support --Digitaldreamer 05:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support --MichaelMaggs 20:08, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support--AdrF 22:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support Basik07 09:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support - Cacophony 17:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose This will be a first for me: the crop is too tight, so I have to oppose for that reason only. However, in trying to "raise the bar" for insect photos, this one just looks like the same old type of picture. Simplistic with a single object and a blurred background. There is also at least one other FP of this species and other similar pictures of different species but similar looking insects. I don't see why I should support this one, as it doesn't stand out above the other FPs. -- Ram-Man 11:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Help! Ram-Man on a voting rampage! For me, this one has this raised quality.--Makro Freak talk 12:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- I apologize for the confusion and adjusted my comment for clarity. If this one raises quality then other ones should be delisted. I much prefer the detail on this similar featured picture. Both have tight framing, but the featured picture has more uniform DoF and better sharpness and detail. This image should also replace this one. My vote obviously will not make a difference, so whether support, neutral, or oppose, it won't matter. If the vote was close I would have abstained because you are right: it is better than others even with tight framing. I'm just trying to make a point: we already have a similar photo that has (debateable) better DoF, so how does this one raise the bar? It's not clearly better. -- Ram-Man 15:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- Dont let you traumatize with "raise the bar" ;), ohmygod! This is more a "funny" motivation claim than a measurement parameter . Your given examples are all from different species, but if there are 2 similar pictures of the same species i agree to make a delisting proc.. --Makro Freak talk 17:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- The second example is the same species. I have started a delisting since this will obviously pass. As for raising the bar, it's about insects in general, not about a specific species. This image improves on another FP of the same species, but it does not raise the bar for other insect photos that have recently passed, as in the first example. -- Ram-Man 19:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- Dont let you traumatize with "raise the bar" ;), ohmygod! This is more a "funny" motivation claim than a measurement parameter . Your given examples are all from different species, but if there are 2 similar pictures of the same species i agree to make a delisting proc.. --Makro Freak talk 17:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- I apologize for the confusion and adjusted my comment for clarity. If this one raises quality then other ones should be delisted. I much prefer the detail on this similar featured picture. Both have tight framing, but the featured picture has more uniform DoF and better sharpness and detail. This image should also replace this one. My vote obviously will not make a difference, so whether support, neutral, or oppose, it won't matter. If the vote was close I would have abstained because you are right: it is better than others even with tight framing. I'm just trying to make a point: we already have a similar photo that has (debateable) better DoF, so how does this one raise the bar? It's not clearly better. -- Ram-Man 15:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose on grounds of file name! Full support when file name is (will be) changed. Lycaon 20:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- verstehe Lycaon nicht! Hier wurde kein Dateinamen geändert !!! --Böhringer 10:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- Dateinamen können z.B. geändert werden mit dem {{badname}} Template. You should however do this after nomination has finished and then transfer FP status to the new one (reuploaded with proper name). Also check and correct usage for the file. I have no qualms with the image itself: for me it deserves FP status. Lycaon 11:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- Es geht um den momentanen Dateinamen. Es sollte wohl der korrekte lateinische Namen der Spezies angegeben sein (und möglichst wenige kryptische Zahlen und Buchstaben). --AngMoKio 11:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- verstehe Lycaon nicht! Hier wurde kein Dateinamen geändert !!! --Böhringer 10:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
-
result: 13 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Lycaon 05:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Sarcophagidae01.JPG, not featured
- Info: created by Username - uploaded by Username - nominated by Username --Böhringer 07:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Böhringer 07:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Против Nice colors and composition but poor focus and harsh lightning, sorry, Regards Makro Freak 08:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Picture looks good with a thumbnail view. On maximizing the view, the lack of sharpness is evident sanjay_ach 15:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Not sharp enough and harsh lighting. --Digon3 talk 15:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- SupportI looked at the image again and again and I really cannot see any problem with the focus and/or with the sharpness--Mbz1 19:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- Neutral i like the composition and the colours...but there is really a problem with the sharpness - and it is also visible that you tried to fix that ;) ...still a great shot!--AngMoKio 19:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Harsh lighning and unsharp --Bergwolf 20:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support When you see the picture at the real size are visible a little focus problem and unsharp, in this kind of pictures the focus must be perfect, but I support it because I like it and the problem is small.--AdrF 22:34, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support Perhaps the quality is not perfect, but it's good enough. Incredible picture. Keta 16:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Out of focus. --Beyond silence 11:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - We shouldn't feature porn on the Main page! --Abu badali 20:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Now, seriously... great image, but the unfortunate sharpness problem is an issue . --Abu badali 20:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
result: 4 support, 6 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Lycaon 05:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Leighton-God Speed!.jpg, not featured
- Info: created by Edmund Blair Leighton - uploaded and nominated by grendel|khan 20:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support --grendel|khan 20:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support For great justice ! Rama 22:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- Question: Very strange effects in the darkness under the arch. Is that loss of varnish on the painting or an imaging problem? --MichaelMaggs 13:45, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
- Info: It doesn't look like JPEG artifacts, but it's entirely possible that the image was scanned/photographed and then levels-adjusted, causing the two-tone dark areas. It's also possible that it's the varnish thing that you mention. As I haven't seen the original painting (just countless reproductions), I can't say for sure. grendel|khan 13:32, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support- -LadyofHats 17:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Lacks sharpness. --Derbeth talk 09:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Lycaon 05:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Icebergs cape york 1.JPG, not featured
[edit] Original nomination, not featured
- Info: created by Mbz1 - uploaded by Mbz1 - nominated by Walter Siegmund --Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
- Info: This is a dramatic image of an interesting and unique subject in a very remote area (the coast of Greenland). It was taken from a helicopter. That may have contributed to what I think are minor technical flaws, e.g., some peripheral blur, but it is the only way this image could have been obtained. Some highlights may be overexposed (or have too much contrast enhancement applied), but detail is visible on the icebergs at the center of the image even on the brightest surfaces.
- Support --Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support as the creator. That picture surely has some technical issues, but a small, shaky helicopter is not exactly the right place to take quality pictures. Still that picture shows not only icebergs, but also glaciers, from which the icebergs were calving, and in my opinion has some encyclopedic value.--Mbz1 18:18, 8 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- SupportI just like it, not so good quality, but it's ok--AdrF 22:35, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
- Neutral I really wanted to support this, despite its technical issues, for the effort that has obviously gone into taking this picture. But on second look, the composition itself (above all: big shadowy rock from the left) finally didn't convince me. Don't want to spoil your voting, tho. Kudos for this picture. --Digitaldreamer 01:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- Ack Digitaldreamer --Makro Freak 01:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support Snowwayout 03:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- Neutral A question: Are we voting about the circumstances or about the picture?--Szilas 14:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- The guidelines include the criteria below. They include criteria for judging the technical quality of the picture as well. Both the difficulty of the subject and technical quality are important and should be considered when evaluating an image. I hope this is helpful. Walter Siegmund (talk) 15:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- "For Featured Pictures, a technically ordinary picture of an extraordinary subject can be perceived as a better picture than a technically excellent picture of an ordinary subject." Commons:Image guidelines
- "Symbolic meaning or relevance…. 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." Commons:Featured picture candidates
- The guidelines include the criteria below. They include criteria for judging the technical quality of the picture as well. Both the difficulty of the subject and technical quality are important and should be considered when evaluating an image. I hope this is helpful. Walter Siegmund (talk) 15:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- Neutral Technical quality and that black rock in the lower right corner. --Digon3 talk 15:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry, the technical quality is too low due to blur and/or shallow DoF. The ISO is too low for this type of shot or a stabilized lens could have been used. I've taken and seen a number of shots from moving objects at this shutter speed and aperture with much better results, even from the air. Icebergs look good like sunsets, so I don't buy the idea that it's extra special. -- Ram-Man 23:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I understood what is common between icebergs and sunsets,but please don't try to explain your very thoughtful conclusion because I'm afraid it will make the things only more confusing.--Mbz1 23:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- As nearly as I can determine, this is the only aerial view of a group of icebergs along with source glaciers on Commons (please see Category:Icebergs and Iceberg). I found very few aerial views of iceberg groups and one of those was contributed by Mbz1. Ship or land-based images generally don't depict iceberg groups well or their relationship to source glaciers. Iceberg spawning from the continental glaciers of Antarctica and Greenland is important since it is a process that could lead to catastrophic sea level rise over the next few centuries. Walter Siegmund (talk) 02:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Not enough mitigation to balance the very poor focus. I've taken many photos that represent the only one of their kind on the Internet (e.g. [13], [14], [15],..., but that doesn't mean they all should be FPs. It doesn't degrade the value of the picture, it just is not good enough for FP. Lycaon 06:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not sure how you possibly could compare my image with your images. (Of course after Ram-Man compared icebergs with sunsets nothing could surprise me any more). Your images are unique and special and I'd say they are so special that only very few people, maybe even very few scientists could be interested in them. On the other hand my image while still unique and special represents much broader interest for general population.--Mbz1 10:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- Oppose As per Lycaon --Makro Freak 08:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- If you like to vote as Lycaon does, I really believe you should oppose the picture on the right too(after all Lycaon did), just to be consistent you know--10:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- To make my voting conscientiously, i need my time. Dont panic :). --Makro Freak talk 12:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- Who says I panic? Haven't you noticed I'm enjoying the vote. It is getting funnier and funnier at the moment. Right now Ram-Man is the absolute winner of the fun. Yet it looks to me that you are the one, who panics. I mean you should have put three semicolons in your reply to start a new paragraph and not just one as you did.--Mbz1 13:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- Thank you for the reminder, i fixed it allready. --Makro Freak talk 15:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- Who says I panic? Haven't you noticed I'm enjoying the vote. It is getting funnier and funnier at the moment. Right now Ram-Man is the absolute winner of the fun. Yet it looks to me that you are the one, who panics. I mean you should have put three semicolons in your reply to start a new paragraph and not just one as you did.--Mbz1 13:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- To make my voting conscientiously, i need my time. Dont panic :). --Makro Freak talk 12:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- If you like to vote as Lycaon does, I really believe you should oppose the picture on the right too(after all Lycaon did), just to be consistent you know--10:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- Oppose I don't think an interesting subject and difficult shooting situation alone are enough to mitigate so-so composition and quality --MichaD | Michael Apel 16:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- How "interesting subject and difficult shooting" could be alone. Aren't there two of them together?;)--Mbz1 23:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- Comment I think the image aberration was introduced by the aircraft window. Notice how the image quality varies over the field of view. A focus error or camera motion would cause more or less uniform degradation of the image quality. Depth of field should not be a factor at 20 mm focal length and f/2.8 for this subject, either. Some of the reviewers may not fully appreciate the challenge of aerial photography in the Arctic. It is probably very difficult to take pictures in that cold environment through an open window or door. Walter Siegmund (talk) 21:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
-
- I guess most (if not all) reviewers appreciate difficult circumstances to take some pictures. But in the end... it is the result that counts... Lycaon 21:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- "But in the end... it is the result that counts..." Could not say any better.--Mbz1 23:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- It's interesting that this is brought up alone with the NASA references below. We've rejected at least one NASA photo that had smudges (presumably) from dirty glass on the spaceship. Space is an even more difficult shooting environment than in the helicopter, but even in that case it still was not mitigating enough. -- Ram-Man 19:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- I guess most (if not all) reviewers appreciate difficult circumstances to take some pictures. But in the end... it is the result that counts... Lycaon 21:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Unclear. --Derbeth talk 09:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- I'm glad it is "unclear" for you.If it was "clear" for you, then it would have been something wrong with the picture--Mbz1 17:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- The only "dramatic" thing in this "image" is ignorance of people who think it would ever be put on the main page of Commons. The photo has so many technical flaws that it's a disrespect for people voting here to present them such work. Being able to fly in a helicopter over icebergs unfortunately does not mean that you are mature enough to discuss civilly and react to criticism like a man not like a crying child. --Derbeth talk 20:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, mine. We all were just having a good time before you came about and spoiled all the fun, Derbeth. If you go down to that very page, you could see that I nominated all 3 of my prior FP to be delisted: 1, 2 and 3which, I hope, would make it clear even for you how much I really care about my pictures to "be put on the main page of Commons" . And now I'm ready to learn your verdict ,if that "defected" picture could stay at Wikipedia at all or, if you believe, it should be deleted all together. I also must admit that one of these "defected" pictures of the same icebergs was published at EPOD image. I strongly believe that you, Derbeth should write to the EPOD editor and request him to remove that "deffected" picture. The EPOD editor works for NASA . His e-mail address is :"jfoster @ glacier . gsfc. nasa. gov." I do hope that his e-mail address makes it clear even for you that he is a specialist in glaciology (Glaciology is the science about glaciers and icebergs). I'm sure he will be very interested to learn your clear opinion about him publishing such an "unclear" picture at NASA site. I do hope it is clear even for you that, if you are to use his e-mail address you should delete the spaces and a period. I'm afraid I would never be able to "react to criticism like a man"(the thing is I am a woman). In a meantime you are doing a great job by the moving "images from other Wikipedias to Commons and categorize images." It will be nice, if you could help me to categorize few of mine "defected" ones too, just before you request them to be deleted. I did visit your gallery,Derbeth. Tell you what I think Wikipedia would have lost a lot without you pictures. I liked them. I'm so glad I lost my time to see them. --Mbz1 21:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- "Mummy, mummy, those evil people don't like my photos. I'm going to another sandbox!" Do you have any personal problems? When I'm talking about images, you are talking about me (in a way which obviously is a personal attack), my photos, NASA and glaciology, which are all things completely irrelevant in judging whether the photos above are worth being shown on the main page of Commons as extraordinary works. Your photos may contain something that is interesting for a scientist (iceberg of unusual shape or something like that), but still be full of technical flaws. Photo no 4 is so much overexposed that it should never ever appear in this vote.
- You have to understand, that noone cares, how have you taken this photo: with a tripod or not, from a helicopter or from a ship, with an assistance of US president or NASA director, in Antarctica, Arctica, other on the Moon. Whether you have broken your leg trying to make it, paid million of dollars to get to this place. The only important thing is whether the photo is high quality or not. Is the photo unsharp because you have taken it from a helicopter? Sorry, we don't care about it - the poto is unsharp, so bye, bye. I have shown you Image:Fryxellsee Opt.jpg as an example of photo depicting ice and snow preserving natural colours, sharpness and all details. Your photo is light years away from this photo in terms of quality. I see you don't understand the simpliest things - there's not sense for me to continue this discussion. If you think that people will admire your photos only because you are perhaps a Ph.D. and have the possibility to visit Arctica - you are wrong. You are not the first person on Wikimedia projects who thinks they are always right only because they work on a university or are older than others. Such pathological cases appear regularly. --Derbeth talk 09:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination at the request (via email) of the creator. I would add that I'm disappointed at the level to which this discourse has dropped. Incivility, ad hominem attacks and insults violate Commons policies and guidelines. Walter Siegmund (talk) 14:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
result: Nomination withdrawn ==> Not featured. --MichaelMaggs 22:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Edit, not featured
- Info: Image:Icebergs cape york 4.jpg (above right), a 4x3 crop with somewhat different black and grey levels, may address some of the concerns of the reviewers. I think that the feature that some have referred to as a "rock" in the lower right may be a portion of the helicopter from which the photo was taken. Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Quality --Wiki mouse 17:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support--Mbz1 21:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- Oppose As per my comments above. -- Ram-Man 23:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support...has better clarity and resolution than first version.--MONGO 04:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose ack opposers -- Lycaon 06:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose I don't think an interesting subject and difficult shooting situation alone are enough to mitigate so-so composition and quality --MichaD | Michael Apel 16:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- How "interesting subject and difficult shooting" could be alone. Aren't there two of them together?;)--Mbz1 23:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- Oppose Don't like the colours. --Derbeth talk 09:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- Would you please mention this to the icebergs next time you see tmem--Mbz1 17:19, 15 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- Take a look at Image:Fryxellsee Opt.jpg (a featured picture) and we may talk. If you cannot see the difference, I'm not surprised you make such defected photos of such beautiful places. --Derbeth talk 20:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the pointing out a beautiful picture. I sure could see the difference. There's no any single iceberg on it, but it's OK (I assume you do not know the difference between icebergs , ice and glaciers). The picture was taken in Antarctica, while mine was taken in Arctic(you know Antarctica is down South with penguins, while Arctic is up North with the polar bears). The picture was not taken through a clossed helicopter window, and maybe a tripod was used. The picture was named as FP and the picture was selected as the Picture of the Day, while mine was not. Have I named all the differences you were talking about,Derbeth? Thanks again for pointing out the very beautiful picture. I did like it very,very much and I'm glad that sometimes a really interesting shot gets nominated for FP. By the way, I'm glad that you noticed that the place I took picture of was beautiful, even looking at my "defected" picture. I also wonder, if I've given you a reason to believe that I may be interested in talking to you? Well, I'm not, Derbeth. --Mbz1 21:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- Take a look at Image:Fryxellsee Opt.jpg (a featured picture) and we may talk. If you cannot see the difference, I'm not surprised you make such defected photos of such beautiful places. --Derbeth talk 20:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- Would you please mention this to the icebergs next time you see tmem--Mbz1 17:19, 15 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- I withdraw my nomination at the request (via email) of the creator. I would add that I'm disappointed at the level to which this discourse has dropped. Incivility, ad hominem attacks and insults violate Commons policies and guidelines. Walter Siegmund (talk) 14:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
result: Nomination withdrawn ==> Not featured. --MichaelMaggs 22:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:William-Adolphe Bouguereau (1825-1905) - The Prayer (1865) (cropped).jpg, not featured.
_-_The_Prayer_(1865)_(cropped).jpg)
- Info: created by William-Adolphe Bouguereau - uploaded by Abu badali - nominated by Abu badali --Abu badali 20:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support Look into her eyes... would you deny her a vote? :) --Abu badali 20:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose too small, please check guidelines. Lycaon 20:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 |
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because too small. --MichaelMaggs 22:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed. |
- Comment Beautiful picture, though, and a lovely scan. Pity about the size requirement. Adam Cuerden 07:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:MLB Blackout Areas.png, not featured
- Info: created, uploaded, nominated by Braindrain0000 02:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support A similar SVG does exist, but it has no chance of becoming FP because the shapefile for the borders and the shapefile for the blackout regions don't exactly line up (one reason for such a thick border). However, with the PNG (which is scaled for 300dpi on 8.5" x 11" paper), I can (and have) manually edit the border regions pixel by pixel to correct any malalignment. --Braindrain0000 02:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose can't see why this should be featured -- Gorgo 13:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose No anti-aliasing, poor quality. Should be SVG anyhow. Lycaon 18:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment The SVG is here, albeit without a different border. The technical issue with SVG is that the shapefiles used to create the borders and the data layer come from different sources. The data layer is derived from the U.S. Census' Zip Code Tabulation Areas, which are only approximations of actual areas because they are derived from mail routes rather than actual geography. However, it appears to be the way MLB defines blackout areas (off the first 3 digits of the ZIP code). This difference in sources (and the fact that I had to project the ZCTA layer into the same coordinate system as the border layer) results in some slight deviations (e.g., state boundaries not matching corresponding ZCTA boundaries, a flaw that would show on a sufficiently scaled SVG. With a fixed-resolution PNG, those flaws can be manually corrected to present an overall higher-quality graphic. Additionally, there are technical reasons for PNG over SVG. The corresponding SVG file (I haven't reuploaded a new one since I changed the border, so the current size may be smaller) currently in Commons weighs in at 4-5 MB, thanks in no small part to the hatching used to symbolize areas with more than one team exercising blackout rights (which I consider a better symbology over the one used on the map that had been used for this information on enwiki. The wiki-created images are fine, but when I try to view the original svg, my firefox locks up. On the other hand, the PNG comes in at 200-300 KB and doesn't have the pesky font problem that the svg has. Regarding anti-aliasing, I would consider that to be a negative in an image like this one. I prefer to let the rendering engine do the anti-aliasing when it's scaled rather than have it anti-aliased to start with and *then* anti-aliased again when it is viewed at a different size. I've seen that go screwball. This is also the native resolution at which the image was generated, not some scaled knockoff. The mapping software generated the image, with only retouching by me. This wasn't an svg-png conversion. Also, could you explain "poor quality"? If there is something I could actually do to make this picture of higher quality, I would like to know. --Braindrain0000 20:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - Looks like a useful diagram, but I think it lacks the extra quality to make it an FP. I think the pastell colors make it look a bit less proffesional, and could the striped areas be replaced by solid colors instead ? It's harder to follow the borders in a striped pattern, specially when it is as course as here. It should also be inserted in a proper category. Another thing is the color legend at the top. As the background is transparent they should probably have borders or the color square will vanish if the background color is the same (like for the white color now). By the way I also tried to open the SVG and my browser was frozen for several minutes, I guess the svg should be optimized in some way. /Daniel78 22:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- Contra- too bright colors, to bad mixture of colors (created movement, like when you used blue and red together or yellow and blue)also the squares and the text are too tight together even touching in some cases.. by the way what is a blackout right anyway?-LadyofHats 17:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- Question: Could anyone help by suggesting a color palette to use? The difficulty here is trying to individually symbolize so many different teams (and I need to use a lot more than just four colors because there are so many team interactions). --Braindrain0000 03:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- what you need is to lower the intensity of the colors. then you ceate a symbol, or use the team simbol, or the state initial letters to have another way to point them. a bit like this notice that by using this method you can repeat colors as long as they are not touching eachother. and also the final image is smaller becouse you aboid using all the list of names outside the map. you can even make colored outlines for each area, and in the areas they have common borders use double lines. to show both colors.-LadyofHats 05:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination It's clear this won't make it, and I'm already working on a revised SVG version using some of the suggestions I've received. --Braindrain0000 02:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
result: Nomination withdrawn ==> Not featured. --MichaelMaggs 19:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Edmund blair leighton accolade.jpg, featured
- Info: created by Edmund Blair Leighton - uploaded and nominated by grendel|khan 16:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support --grendel|khan 16:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose I really like the picture, but the image quality is too low for a featured picture. There are large pixelated areas especially in the red parts. --startaq 19:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support I have to disagree, I think that's how it's supposed to be. Majorly (talk) 17:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support- -LadyofHats 17:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support -- Looks more than fine to me. And we can't be too strict about any single criterion; there are cases, or at least there should be, in which the overall quality of the work will outweigh one single, given criterion. As far as I am concerned, this is one such case. Redux 22:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support -- Benh 09:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
result: 5 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. --MichaelMaggs 06:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Asian fan dance2.jpg
[edit] Version 1, featured
- Info: I give it a try - this photo was made durring a show where dance groups from various countries and cultures performed. Created, uploaded, nominated by AngMoKio --AngMoKio 20:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support --AngMoKio 20:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support --wau > 23:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Против Beautiful colors, bad crop on the left side. Sorry. Regards --Makro Freak talk 14:31, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Bad crop on the left side. --Digon3 talk 16:04, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Unnatural looking magentas caused by clipping of saturated colors. -- Ram-Man 23:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support I didn't even notice the crop before it was stated here --MichaD | Michael Apel 16:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I don't agree with the opposing votes. I don't mind the crop on the left side. The intention of the picture is not to show a whole circle of fans. Seeing the whole circle you would miss the dancers or see only a part of them and shout: bad crop! This picture does not want to show the whole. What makes it good is the detail of the four hands in the middle and the contrast between the fans and the hands, contrast in colours and sharpness. What an interesting together of the for hands in different positions, what interesting shapes shown by the fans, the red inner parts, the green and yellow spiral-shaped lines! --wau > 20:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support -- Lerdsuwa 13:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support Jina Lee 04:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Malene Thyssen 21:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support - I think it's nicely dynamic. It has a sense of movement about it that the alternate does not. Adam Cuerden 07:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
result: 7 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. --MichaelMaggs 06:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Version 2, not featured
- Info: Another photo of the same moment - though i have to say that the first versions left side is in my my opinion no problem. --AngMoKio 15:28, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support --AngMoKio 15:28, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Too bright, the colors are much better in #1. --Digon3 talk 16:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
- Против Agree with Digon :) Regards --Makro Freak 16:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Unlovely crop --Bergwolf 19:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose clipped, overbright colors. -- Ram-Man 23:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. --MichaelMaggs 06:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Digital clock changing numbers.jpg, not featured
- Info: created by Beyond silence - uploaded by Beyond silence - nominated by Beyond silence --Beyond silence 03:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose low resolution (~1.5mp) -- Gorgo 18:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- Neutral A nice idea. And a new larger version has been uploaded and size is now OK. 2560 × 900 pixel > 2mp. But I would prefer a straight-on composition. Ben Aveling 19:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for your kind.--Beyond silence 02:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Info: The image should be categorised. --MichaelMaggs 22:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
-
- Thanks, I mistake the category link. --Beyond silence 06:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
result: 0 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured (rule of the 5th day). --MichaelMaggs 06:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Honeybee-cooling.jpg, not featured
 |
 |
| Version 1: Honeybee-cooling.jpg | Version 2: Honeybee-cooling_cropped.jpg |
[edit] Version 1
- Info: created, uploaded and nominated by Warden --Warden 19:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Not enough strong present the subject. Try QI! --Beyond silence 12:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Composition & focus --Bergwolf 17:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose I think, the subject seems very lost in this composition JuliusR 09:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
result: 0 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of the 5th day). --MichaelMaggs 06:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Version 2
- Info: created by Warden; cropped, uploaded and nominated by --wau > 18:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Unsharp. --Beyond silence 01:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Thank you Waugsberg, this is definitely a better version. -- Warden 08:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Even with the new crop it doesn't gain my support. --Bergwolf 11:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
result: 0 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of the 5th day). --MichaelMaggs 06:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Squirrel 002.JPG, not featured
- Info: created, uploaded and nominated by IvanTortuga --IvanTortuga 21:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support --IvanTortuga 21:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - Unsharp (even the face). Crop, even one front leg is partly out. --Javier ME 21:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - Lack of sharpness can be ok at lower resolutions but gets annoying when fully zoomed. The cropping is what really annoys me here, it needs a lot more space on the left. --Nattfodd 22:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- Info: Its not zoomed in thats just where the squirrel was next to the camera. Also its at 100% sharp. -- IvanTortuga 23:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- Info: By "zoomed" I meant "at full resolution". And take a closer look, it's very far from being 100% sharp. --Nattfodd 07:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Lack of sharpness can be overlooked, but the crop cannot. How did you get so close to it? --Digon3 talk 23:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose per above. A picture of this nature should contain the entire subject. --Braindrain0000 08:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- Contra- i dont mind the crop, it is just the image is far too small for FP.-LadyofHats 17:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of the 5th day). --MichaelMaggs 06:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Panorama Monte Rosa Hut 1.jpg, not featured
- Info: created by Jojo - uploaded by Jojo - nominated by Przykuta 15:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Przykuta 15:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support--Mbz1 15:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- Support Very nice. --Digon3 talk 15:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Wiki mouse 17:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support Vassil 22:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support -- Ram-Man 23:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Makro Freak 08:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Too much sky, the glacier is cropped, and while the snow is overexposed in some points, the image is overall very dark. The composition is not very good IMO. Keta 16:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Making pictures with snow is very difficult. Here i think slight overexposure is arguable. Regards --Makro Freak talk 16:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I don't think that taking snow pictures is that difficult. Besides, this looks to me more like an edition problem: look at the mountains on the background and some parts of the glacier, the snow is completely white an has lost all the detail. Meanwhile, the rocks on the left are almost totally black. I'd say that too much contrast has been applied. The image is very dark in my eyes, just look at the sky, and still there is overexposure. And the composition is very bad for me: the horizon is in the middle, the glacier is cut... Not good enough for me - Keta 10:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Composition (ack Keta). Lycaon 18:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose nothing special --Karelj 20:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose don't like the composition -- Gorgo 16:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support- -LadyofHats 17:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- Opposefür ein FP überzeugt es mich zu wenig. u.a. zu dunkel--Böhringer 19:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support Fantastic Image --Scrumshus 05:07, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support Good composition too. --Beyond silence 16:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support -- Benh 09:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry, the cut glacier prevents it being FP quality, in my view. --MichaelMaggs 22:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
result: 11 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. --MichaelMaggs 06:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Godward-In the Tepidarium-1913.jpg, not featured
- Info: created by John William Godward - uploaded and nominated by grendel|khan 23:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support --grendel|khan 23:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support--Mbz1 00:54, 7 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- Oppose! Obviously scanned from a reproduction in a book, with moire effect! -- MJJR 19:32, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
- Katja Abstain --Makro Freak talk 20:45, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose it has moire effect Alessio Damato 16:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
- Question: Does anyone have the skills to de-moire it? It's big enough that it could be slightly downscaled with little loss of quality. I tried with Gimp, but everything I do just makes it look worse. grendel|khan 21:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
- I blured it and applied median cut filter. --AM 15:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- Sadly, that makes it look out of focus, particularly around the face. Adam Cuerden 19:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Unsharp.--Beyond silence 06:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. --MichaelMaggs 06:12, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:NGC 2808 HST.jpg, not featured
- Info: NGC 2808 globular cluster in Carina with 3 star populations by Hubble Space Telescope - uploaded & nominated by Winiar --Winiar✉ 17:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Winiar✉ 17:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support--Mbz1 18:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- Oppose I don't see anything special --che 22:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Nothing special for a NASA shot. -- Ram-Man 23:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- Katja Abstain Not my knowledge area --Makro Freak 08:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose As Ram-Man --MichaD | Michael Apel 16:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Boring... as what Ram-Man said. Majorly (talk) 17:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support-i actually like it -LadyofHats 17:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - As a physicist I like it, but I do not think the photo has a sufficiently interesting composition to be featured. -- Slaunger 19:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. --MichaelMaggs 06:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Euthrix potatoria corect.jpg, not featured
- Info: created by Lilly M - uploaded by Lilly M - nominated by Przykuta 18:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Przykuta 18:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Против Looks good in thumbnail, but blurry in source, sorry. Regards --Makro Freak talk 18:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support--Mbz1 19:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- Oppose Blur --Javier ME 21:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Blur --Digon3 talk 16:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Blur --Bergwolf 19:57, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Something is wanting ... sharpness --Wiki mouse 17:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. --MichaelMaggs 06:14, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Sa old indian purse.jpg
[edit] Original version, not featured
- Info: An antique purse used by Indian women to hold coins, created by sanjay_ach - uploaded by sanjay_ach - nominated by sanjay_ach --Sanjay ach 15:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Sanjay ach 15:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Can you give the reason for not supporting? sanjay_ach 23:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- Concordo--Lmbuga gl, pt, es: contacta comigo 08:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- Падтрымліваю --Makro Freak 19:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- Scherzkeks! ;-) --Simonizer 07:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Dirty surface, very oversharpened. Thegreenj 04:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment This is an antique thing. It's pretty old (about 100 years) and has been used many times. Please do not expect it to be like a clean new item. Though sharpened, I do not think that the quality of the image has suffered and the details are excellent even when its fully zoomed. sanjay_ach 15:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- I was refering to the smudges and speckles on the white surface. The purse itself seems pretty clean. As for sharpening, every edge is followed by a dark or light line, a definite artifact of sharpening. For example, look at the coin. See the black shadow towards the top? On any side it is surrounded by (almost) pure white. Thegreenj 16:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Agree that it's way oversharpened, would support a version with less sharpening --MichaD | Michael Apel 19:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 09:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Edit 1, not featured
Info: Ok. I get it. I have put up a second version. This is the un-sharpened one with the surface cleaned. Do let me know of your opinion sanjay_ach 02:25, 07 July 2007 (UTC)
- 支持 --Makro Freak talk 20:32, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support --MichaD | Michael Apel 21:27, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support Good sharpness and lighing, composition. --Beyond silence 11:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
result: 3 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. --MichaelMaggs 06:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Edmund blair leighton accolade.jpg, featured
- Info: created by Edmund Blair Leighton - uploaded and nominated by grendel|khan 16:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support --grendel|khan 16:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose I really like the picture, but the image quality is too low for a featured picture. There are large pixelated areas especially in the red parts. --startaq 19:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support I have to disagree, I think that's how it's supposed to be. Majorly (talk) 17:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support- -LadyofHats 17:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support -- Looks more than fine to me. And we can't be too strict about any single criterion; there are cases, or at least there should be, in which the overall quality of the work will outweigh one single, given criterion. As far as I am concerned, this is one such case. Redux 22:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support -- Benh 09:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
result: 5 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. --MichaelMaggs 06:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Asian fan dance2.jpg
[edit] Version 1, featured
- Info: I give it a try - this photo was made durring a show where dance groups from various countries and cultures performed. Created, uploaded, nominated by AngMoKio --AngMoKio 20:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support --AngMoKio 20:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support --wau > 23:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Против Beautiful colors, bad crop on the left side. Sorry. Regards --Makro Freak talk 14:31, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Bad crop on the left side. --Digon3 talk 16:04, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Unnatural looking magentas caused by clipping of saturated colors. -- Ram-Man 23:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support I didn't even notice the crop before it was stated here --MichaD | Michael Apel 16:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I don't agree with the opposing votes. I don't mind the crop on the left side. The intention of the picture is not to show a whole circle of fans. Seeing the whole circle you would miss the dancers or see only a part of them and shout: bad crop! This picture does not want to show the whole. What makes it good is the detail of the four hands in the middle and the contrast between the fans and the hands, contrast in colours and sharpness. What an interesting together of the for hands in different positions, what interesting shapes shown by the fans, the red inner parts, the green and yellow spiral-shaped lines! --wau > 20:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support -- Lerdsuwa 13:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support Jina Lee 04:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Malene Thyssen 21:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support - I think it's nicely dynamic. It has a sense of movement about it that the alternate does not. Adam Cuerden 07:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
result: 7 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. --MichaelMaggs 06:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Version 2, not featured
- Info: Another photo of the same moment - though i have to say that the first versions left side is in my my opinion no problem. --AngMoKio 15:28, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support --AngMoKio 15:28, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Too bright, the colors are much better in #1. --Digon3 talk 16:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
- Против Agree with Digon :) Regards --Makro Freak 16:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Unlovely crop --Bergwolf 19:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose clipped, overbright colors. -- Ram-Man 23:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. --MichaelMaggs 06:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Canis lupus familiaris disguised.jpg. not featured
- Info: created / nominated by --Makro Freak talk 21:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- Info: A Sibirian-Husky (Canis lupus familiaris) on a kids-playground. The image shows how children disguised this dog.
- Support --Makro Freak talk 21:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support Could have a little more depth of field, but a cute photo, with a nice bit of spontaneity. Not really encyclopædic, but the Commons FPC isn't overly concerned with that. Wouldn't want too many dressed-up pets as featured pictures, mind. Adam Cuerden 00:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- SupportThat dog's head dress reminds me about one man, but the dog really looks much better than that man did.--Mbz1 00:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- Oppose You're kidding.... right? -psylexic
- and if ? :) --Makro Freak 08:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support Much-needed picture, hoho --Bergwolf 09:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Nice detail, but the subject does not convince me. - Keta 10:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- Concordo As per Adam. (Why does "Audrey Hepburn" pop into my mind?) --Digitaldreamer 11:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- Neutral I might give my support when I see the hand-written (by that guy here) permission, in which is stated that you are allowed to publish this photo on the internet. You know German laws are very strict concerning such things. ;) --AngMoKio 11:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- Bin ich jetzt schon zum "Typ oder Kerl" degradiert worden von dir ? --Makro Freak talk 12:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- ich meinte mit "that guy" den Typ auf dem Bild. --AngMoKio 13:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- Axo, du meinst die "Göre". Ja, die gibt dir gerne eine schmutzige Tatze aufs T-Shirt ;) --Makro Freak talk 15:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- @ AngMoKio. Your statement is nonsens.-Wiki mouse 12:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- I forgot that we are a very serious community - I am sorry --AngMoKio 13:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- ich meinte mit "that guy" den Typ auf dem Bild. --AngMoKio 13:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support Funny --Wiki mouse 12:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose This is degrading... Imagine you were that dog... Die Würde des Hundes ist unantastbar! --Jeses 15:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- The dog had a lot of fun, while playing with the kids. It is not uncommon to dress dogs with [| protection vests] or [bags] and [| sunglasses] --Makro Freak talk 16:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose dressing animals up like humans for the pleasure of the humans is just wrong Tbc 16:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
-
-
I Cannot agree. Look for, example at this Silky Terrier. She was not with kids, but with an elderly womam. I asked her why the dog dressed up like that ans she explained to me that dog's eyes are sensitive to light and sunglasses help. Of course as soon as I posted the picture to Toy Dogs page user Jerazol removed it for "vandalism". I still cannot understand what the "vandalism" was - the dog dressed up or my picture at the page, but who cares there are many other things that I cannot understand about Wikipedia.--Mbz1 17:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
-
- Oppose I just don't think this should be a FP, hope thats ok. --Digon3 talk 17:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose ack Digon3 Lycaon 18:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Cute, but not spectacular. We are dropping photos of animals because there is something artificial in part of the background, and now herw we have the artificial elements right in its face :) I think it's dangerous to promote a picture of a manipulated animal (even though in this case it was supposed to be fun for the dog as well), and only very good and/or informative photographs of this practice (like Image:NMMP dolphin with locator.jpeg) should be featured. Anyway, thanks for introducing a fresh theme into this election. --Javier ME 21:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment As you guessed, this nomination was not serious nor encyclopedic. It was my farewell-picture, designed to make you a little bit happy, and i think this list really needs it :). I started doing my public domain macro-photography project here on Wikimedia exactly 8 weeks ago, and in that time i contributed more than 150 pictures, where 24! of them surprisingly earned featured picture promotions. So this encyclopedic thing has come to an end for me, and i am heading for new interesting, unencyclopedic ;) photography projects beyond Wikimedia. A lot of respect goes to Alvesgaspar, Ram-Man, MBZ1 - she should be my bold substitute;), Simonizer, Michael Maggs, Digon3, LC-de, Digitaldreamer on ICQ, Lycaon, Luc Viatour, AngMoKio, MichaD | Michael Apel!, Böhringer the very hot newcomer! and all the users who spend their precious time with Wikimedia. So forget this nomination and post some funny comments until its running out. Best regards, Richard aka --Makro Freak talk 12:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- hmm..too bad..we would lose a high-quality contributor. Have you ever thought of contributing non-macro pictures? Wouldn't that be a challenge? You would leave without giving me one single supporting vote...anyway I will miss your oppose's ;) --AngMoKio 13:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
-
- Schreib mir doch eine Mail wenn es soweit ist, beim nächsten Bild kriegst du blinden Support ;) --Makro Freak talk 22:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
-
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
-
- Don't you know the non-macro pictures he left us? --wau > 21:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- :) This one is my favourite !
:) --Bergwolf 21:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- Echt?, ich mochte das hier immer am liebsten
:) --Makro Freak talk 22:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- Echt?, ich mochte das hier immer am liebsten
- :) This one is my favourite !
- Don't you know the non-macro pictures he left us? --wau > 21:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for contributing with all those good images! Is there a specific reason for leaving, or just moving on... ? /Daniel78 22:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- No, its just to move on. I will be back in spring 2008 and in the meantime I am still collecting ;) --Makro Freak talk 22:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- Makro Freak: danke für die Anerkennung und alles Gute weiterhin --Böhringer 13:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- In der Zwischenzeit kannst du ja für mich weitermachen, der Sommer fängt gerade an, und im Herbst gehts eh wieder hoch aufn Berg, da kannst du denen hier mal zeigen wie schön es bei uns in/an den Alpen ist ! --Makro Freak talk 23:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- Makro Freak, I strongly believe you should have supported few of my pictures, if you are leaving anyway(I hope everybody understans I'm kidding, but I'm not sure everybody does). I'm going to miss you, Richard. I wish you good luck with whatever you up to. I'm sure sooner or later you will come back with new great pictures.--Mbz1 15:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- :) --Makro Freak talk 22:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- Du kannst deinen Username auch einfach ändern. Dann kannst du auch anderes außer Makros hochladen. Wenn du es nicht mehr brauchst kannst du mir ja das MP-E 65 schicken. Ansonsten viel spaß bei deinen weiteren Photoexkursionen. Mit oder ohne Wikipedia. --MichaD | Michael Apel 15:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- Würde es dir ja gerne schenken, aber kennst du die Geschichte meiner Beziehung zum MP-E 65 ? Dann solltest du --> das hier mal lesen ;). --Makro Freak talk 22:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support This may be a joke, but I think it's both encyclopedic and high quality. Farewell! -- Ram-Man 15:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment 24 FP's during 8 weeks? That was a good piece of craftsmanship. Farewell, Richard :) --Bergwolf 18:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Less lighing, less value. --Beyond silence 10:46, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support It actually looks nice. -- Lerdsuwa 13:37, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support Clever. Jina Lee 04:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Not FP quality. --MichaelMaggs 06:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
result: 9 support, 9 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. --MichaelMaggs 09:37, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Papaver rhoeas LC0050.jpg, not featured
- Info: Corn poppy; created, uploaded and nominated by LC-de --LC-de 20:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support --LC-de 20:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support 83.27.209.2 09:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)Basik07 09:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support dezente Farben, schön --Böhringer 22:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- Neutral I think the DoF is probably too low here, as at least one foreground flower is out-of-focus. Not sure right now. -- Ram-Man 15:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- Contra- dislike composition but from all i find colors to be too saturated, rather artificial-LadyofHats 17:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose No Value--Mbz1 14:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- Support Good tehnical conditions. --Beyond silence 11:16, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Focus lost, unclear. --Derbeth talk 09:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. --MichaelMaggs 09:35, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Melanargia galathea-polowiec szachownica.JPG, not featured
- Info: created by Severus - uploaded by Severus - nominated by Przykuta 17:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Przykuta 17:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support Basik07 17:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Out of focus head, bad background, not particularly striking. Sorry. --Nattfodd 18:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose lot of detail lost by noise reduction --che 18:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Noise in background and it could have better lighting. --Digon3 talk 23:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- Contra-i find the composition rather anoying, too much from the image is out of focus and there is a bit of noise -LadyofHats 17:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose --I like the viewpoint at the same level as the subject. It shows the underwing patterns clearly. But, it is only partially illuminated by the sun and fill-in flash was not used. Walter Siegmund (talk) 15:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Unsharp. --Derbeth talk 09:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. --MichaelMaggs 09:40, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Pink twinged daisy on table_edit.jpg, not featured
- Info: created and uploaded by Jina Lee - edited and nominated by Ram-Man. 17:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- Info: A cut daisy (Bellis perennis) flower on a table.
- Support The composition sets this above many other flower featured pictures. Perfect exposure: not to dark and the highlights are not blown. -- Ram-Man 17:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- OpposeThe quality is great, but I do not feel that killing a wild flower is a right thing to do for creating the composition that "sets this above many other flower featured pictures."(I hope it was not done in a protected area). Besides I really see no value in the image. --Mbz1 18:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- This is an extremely common flower, often considered an invasive species and grown in many private gardens. I really doubt it was a wild flower anyway. It was taken in the United States where it is an introduced, non-native species. They are very common cut flowers for use in flower arrangements. -- Ram-Man 19:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for explaining it to me, Ram-Man. Still my second point is valid - the flower is too comon for the picture to hav a value.--Mbz1 19:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- And we continue to disagree on what is "value". -- Ram-Man 19:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- We sure do. It is actually very easy for me. First we should remember that we are at Wikipedia the free encyclopedia and not at a professional photo forum. For example that Golden Gate Bridge picture that I nominated could have some value but not because of the bridge, but because of the kind of interesting fog. Sure the Bridge is beautiful, but there so many pictures of the Bridge. I as a reader go to Wikipedia to learn and I as a reader could not care less, if for example few icebergs are out of focus, because it is unique and interesting picture taken in a very, very remote area. I as a reader probably will not even notice that things. Look how many beautiful high quality insects and flowers pictures are featured. There's no single aerial iceberg picture is featured and probably will not any time soon. It is great, when the value and the quality come together, but, if for some reason it cannot be achieved yet, for me as a reader the value is everything that matters. Besides, if a better picture on the subject will became available later, the other one could get delisted. I'd like to finish at the funny note: somebody told me once that even, if I took a picture of an alien in an alien ship, but the picture came out blurry, he would have voted against it. Oh, well.--Mbz1 21:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- Just a little reminder: We are not at Wikipedia, we are at Wikimedia. Wikipedia has its own featured pictures --Simonizer 23:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- We sure do. It is actually very easy for me. First we should remember that we are at Wikipedia the free encyclopedia and not at a professional photo forum. For example that Golden Gate Bridge picture that I nominated could have some value but not because of the bridge, but because of the kind of interesting fog. Sure the Bridge is beautiful, but there so many pictures of the Bridge. I as a reader go to Wikipedia to learn and I as a reader could not care less, if for example few icebergs are out of focus, because it is unique and interesting picture taken in a very, very remote area. I as a reader probably will not even notice that things. Look how many beautiful high quality insects and flowers pictures are featured. There's no single aerial iceberg picture is featured and probably will not any time soon. It is great, when the value and the quality come together, but, if for some reason it cannot be achieved yet, for me as a reader the value is everything that matters. Besides, if a better picture on the subject will became available later, the other one could get delisted. I'd like to finish at the funny note: somebody told me once that even, if I took a picture of an alien in an alien ship, but the picture came out blurry, he would have voted against it. Oh, well.--Mbz1 21:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- And we continue to disagree on what is "value". -- Ram-Man 19:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose i agree quality is good but i am not satisfied with the composition. The flower is right in the center of the photo. This makes pictures boring. If you would have left more free space on the right it might have been a great photo. --AngMoKio 18:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support Great picture: great colours and composition. Mbz1, this is not Wikipedia. I'm emphasising this, because it's something you've been told before. Anrie 12:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- Simonizer, Anrie, so what it is Wikimedia? Does it mean that Value of the picture does not matter? Please, go to the beginning of this very page and read:Value - our main goal is to feature most valuable pictures from all others. Pictures should be in some way special, so please be aware that: almost all sunsets are pretty, and most such pictures are not essence different from others, nightshots are pretty but normally more details can be shown on pictures taken at daytime, BEATIFUL DOES NOT ALWAYS MEAN VALUABLE.. (I'm emphasising this because it is a quote from Guidelines for nominators for Wikimedia FP.) Besides to me that paricular image is neither beatiful nor valuable, if of course Anrie would not mind me to have my own opinion. OK, Anrie? Thanks, Anrie. Oh, by the way, Anrie, could you please remind me what else I "was told before" and (what is even more important) by whom I "was told before".--Mbz1 14:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- Wikimedia is a media collection for various (current and future) projects - not only wikipedia.--AngMoKio 16:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks AngMoKio. And you, my dear Mbz1, are always putting value on a level with encyclopedic value. That might be true for wikipedia, but once again we are here at wikimedia, so value can be something different too. --Simonizer 21:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- Everybody, (including Anrie) you have won. Next time, when I oppose a no value picture I would write:"I do not see anything special in that picture." Do you believe it would be OK?--Mbz1 16:44, 14 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- Simonizer, Anrie, so what it is Wikimedia? Does it mean that Value of the picture does not matter? Please, go to the beginning of this very page and read:Value - our main goal is to feature most valuable pictures from all others. Pictures should be in some way special, so please be aware that: almost all sunsets are pretty, and most such pictures are not essence different from others, nightshots are pretty but normally more details can be shown on pictures taken at daytime, BEATIFUL DOES NOT ALWAYS MEAN VALUABLE.. (I'm emphasising this because it is a quote from Guidelines for nominators for Wikimedia FP.) Besides to me that paricular image is neither beatiful nor valuable, if of course Anrie would not mind me to have my own opinion. OK, Anrie? Thanks, Anrie. Oh, by the way, Anrie, could you please remind me what else I "was told before" and (what is even more important) by whom I "was told before".--Mbz1 14:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- Support Lovely composition and object, background tends to underexposure. --Bergwolf 17:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose too ordinary -psylexic
- Support --Jeses 09:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support Exellent technical condition, acceptable composition. --Beyond silence 10:25, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Derbeth talk 09:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support I can see this framed on my wall. a classic image. --Scrumshus 03:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support --startaq 04:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose I'm sorry, but whoever did the chromatic abberration reduction on the image did a terrible job. It now looks like each petal has been smeared or blurred. You should have cloned in some background cutting the CA out. Aside from that dislike the grey object top LHS, dislike the browny arc mid LHS, and consider the image overall underexposed and lacking any punch/interest --Fir0002 www 06:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Considering how overexposure is handled here the underexposed comment is a bold statement :) --MichaD | Michael Apel 16:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Composition and Ack Fir0002 on 4th sentence. --Digon3 talk 16:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support FYI this is not a cut flower; rather it is a very small weed "daisy", found in a field of grass, not the kind a florist would use. (Think buttercups and clovers...) They grow in patches in the grass, like weeds, and don't get much taller than a blade of grass, either. Jina Lee 04:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose In my opinion it has no 'wow'-factor and I find it uninteresting. -- Slaunger 19:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose so schön die Blume ist, aber hier fehlt mE die natürliche Umgebung. --Böhringer 20:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose composition --Wiki mouse 20:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination -- Ram-Man 20:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
result: Nomination withdrawn ==> Not featured. --MichaelMaggs 22:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Mont Blanc depuis la gare des glaciers.jpg, featured
- Info: created uploaded and nominated by Nattfodd --Nattfodd 16:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Nattfodd 16:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support Basik07 17:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support Rugged. --Digon3 talk 17:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support --startaq 18:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Atoma 21:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support -- MartinD 09:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support - Keta 09:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support Exceptional and very high quality. -- Ram-Man 16:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support-cool -LadyofHats 17:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support--Mbz1 17:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- Pour-- Brrrrrr... J-Luc 13:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- Pour --Bergwolf 18:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- Pour --Badhy 15:05, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support Breathtaking view <~KULSHRAX~> 01:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support A lovely image. Majorly (talk) 20:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose. Another boring mountain picture. Dantadd✉ 22:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
result: 15 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. --MichaelMaggs 09:39, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Divers - Illustrated London News Feb 6 1873-2.PNG, featured
- Info: created by Unknown 1873 Engraver - uploaded and nominated by Adam Cuerden --Adam Cuerden 22:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Adam Cuerden 22:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Shadow at the left border. Other than that it's all good, IMHO. --Digitaldreamer 11:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- This image is only a whisker narrower than my scanning bed, so it's hard to get a good scan. I'll have a go at a levels adjustment, or a rescan, to edit that out. Adam Cuerden 17:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- Adjusted the image (on the right) Adam Cuerden 03:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support Consequently. --Digitaldreamer 20:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Adjusted the image (on the right) Adam Cuerden 03:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- This image is only a whisker narrower than my scanning bed, so it's hard to get a good scan. I'll have a go at a levels adjustment, or a rescan, to edit that out. Adam Cuerden 17:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support- adjusted version-LadyofHats 17:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support Right. Fantastic tehnical quality, resulation. --Beyond silence 10:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support Manecke 22:19, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Dantadd✉ 22:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
result: 5 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => RH image featured. --MichaelMaggs 09:38, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Hawaii_turtle_2.JPG, kept
- Info: Very low quality and disturbing background. I've used only 2 megapixels point and shot camera. One cannot take a good quality picture with 2 mega pixels point and shot camera and with no tripod. Besides the composition is very confusing. I believe there are too many corals to understand what is really going on.Original nomination
- Delist --Mbz1 00:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment This picture is not the version that was featured. It was Image:Hawaii turtle 2.JPG. --Digon3 talk 01:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, Digon3. I've changed the picture.User:Mbz1|Mbz1 01:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- Keep This is too soon for delisting. It has only been featured a little over a month. -- Ram-Man 02:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- With all do respect I do not think it is a valid reason to keep the picture. If the picture is as bad as this one is, it should have never been featured in the first place, but, if it already have, there cannot be timeline set for delisting it.--Mbz1 02:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- Our standards have not dramatically changed since this became a featured picture and it had unanimous support by 20 people. Since people don't pay attention as much to delistings, it wouldn't be fair to discount all of those votes just because a few people here might think it wasn't good enough. The time for voting on this picture was when it was first nominated. We have to have a reasonable limit on when a picture can be delisted, otherwise you could nominate a FP for delisting as soon as it was passed, which would be ridiculous. Unless you can prove that our standards have changed substantially, I see no reason to delist. -- Ram-Man 03:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- I'd say you yourself have given the reason. You have not opposed delisting of the next 2 images. They have been featured for much less time than that image was. Please understand me correctly I submitted the picture for delisting only because I took that picture. I would have never ever submitted somebody else picture for delisting--Mbz1 03:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- It's a funny thing: you really have very limited input on whether your own pictures are featured or not. -- Ram-Man 21:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- I'd say you yourself have given the reason. You have not opposed delisting of the next 2 images. They have been featured for much less time than that image was. Please understand me correctly I submitted the picture for delisting only because I took that picture. I would have never ever submitted somebody else picture for delisting--Mbz1 03:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- Our standards have not dramatically changed since this became a featured picture and it had unanimous support by 20 people. Since people don't pay attention as much to delistings, it wouldn't be fair to discount all of those votes just because a few people here might think it wasn't good enough. The time for voting on this picture was when it was first nominated. We have to have a reasonable limit on when a picture can be delisted, otherwise you could nominate a FP for delisting as soon as it was passed, which would be ridiculous. Unless you can prove that our standards have changed substantially, I see no reason to delist. -- Ram-Man 03:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- With all do respect I do not think it is a valid reason to keep the picture. If the picture is as bad as this one is, it should have never been featured in the first place, but, if it already have, there cannot be timeline set for delisting it.--Mbz1 02:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- Keep per Ram-Man. --MichaelMaggs 06:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per Ram-Man. -- Lycaon 21:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per Ram-Man,MichaelMaggs,Lycaon --LadyofHats 17:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep --Atoma 08:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Keep or substitute by a similar but better image. Corals may be confusing but the turtle can be detected clearly enough due to brightness of colours. --Javier ME 13:51, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per Ram-Man. Raphael17 18:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep --Lerdsuwa 13:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep --Derbeth talk 20:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Plenty of wow factor. Good shot of a difficult subject. This photo is special. Ben Aveling 04:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Basik07 23:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Finally, people are looking at the delisting section! --Digon3 talk 14:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Maybe it'll get more keep votes than original support votes! Where is the rule of 5th day anyway? -- Ram-Man 14:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Never needed it before. Ben Aveling 18:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Maybe it'll get more keep votes than original support votes! Where is the rule of 5th day anyway? -- Ram-Man 14:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 delist, 11 keep, 0 neutral => kept(rule of 5th day). --MichaelMaggs 21:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Play fight IMG 3018.JPG, kept
- Info: I do not know how I have not noticed that the the left ear of the right bear is out of focus. I really am sorry about this. Original nomination
- Delist --Mbz1 00:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Sorry, I can't support delisting this soon after it was featured. -- Ram-Man 11:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep The fact that the left ear of the bear is out of focus is not a problem. --Digon3 talk 00:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep --Javier ME 13:59, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep --Lerdsuwa 13:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Basik07 22:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep --Beyond silence 06:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Too difficult and dangerous an image to get for such a minor flaw to matter. You are a perfectionist, aren't you? Adam Cuerden 01:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 delist, 7 keep, 0 neutral => kept(rule of 5th day). --MichaelMaggs 21:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Eagle Owl IMG 9203.JPG, kept
- Info: Harsh lighting, half background is in focus while other half is not, the owl (please look at his left eye) does not look civil. As a matter of fact that owl looks like he is about to commit a Personal attack. Besides the fraiming is bad and the owl is overexposed. The left ear (as well as the right one too) are out of focus. Original nomination
- Delist --Mbz1 00:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep I supported this picture a month ago when it was nominated, and I still do, even if you the author do not. -- Ram-Man 11:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep I originally opposed this, but almost everyone else thought this was good enough for a FP, which tells me I missed something. This picture is nowhere near needing to be delisted, especially so soon after it nomination. --Digon3 talk 00:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep --Lerdsuwa 13:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Basik07 22:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC) What is going on - picture is good, just past FP?
- Keep Okki 04:19, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 delist, 5 keep, 0 neutral => kept (rule of 5th day). --MichaelMaggs 21:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Itsukushima torii angle.jpg, delisted
- Info: Reason to delist: Too small, poor lighting. Striking only because of photogenic subject matter, but it I don't think it can't be said to be an excellent photograph. --MichaelMaggs 15:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delist --MichaelMaggs 15:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delist Poor quality and low resolution. -- Ram-Man 15:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delist Because of lighting and composition. --Digon3 talk 00:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delist Poor techinal quality and lighing. --Beyond silence 10:53, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delist too small --Simonizer 13:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delist There are better photos like Image:ItsukushimaTorii7396.jpg Image:ItsukushimaTorii7403A.jpg or Image:ItsukushimaTorii7421.jpg which are not FP's. --Javier ME 14:02, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delist--Böhringer 20:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
result: 7 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. --MichaelMaggs 21:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Handmade soap.jpg, kept
- Info: Reason to delist: too small
- Delist --MichaelMaggs 15:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delist too small. --Digon3 talk 21:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- here is - it's being uploadet now. --Malene Thyssen 19:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- Great. Time to change my vote. --MichaelMaggs 06:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- Neutral The resolution is still on the low side for my personal standards, but there is no longer sufficient reason to vote to delist. -- Ram-Man 11:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- here is - it's being uploadet now. --Malene Thyssen 19:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep --MichaelMaggs 06:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delist per nom, and a Lambis shell together with Danish artisanal soap? A bit kitschy... Lycaon 17:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delist Bad artifical composition, less space to the subject. --Beyond silence 10:51, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep --Simonizer 13:10, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep --Lerdsuwa 13:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep --Derbeth talk 20:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
result: 3 delist, 4 keep, 1 neutral => kept at higher resolution. --MichaelMaggs 21:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Amur Tiger Panthera tigris altaica Eye 2112px edit.jpg, kept
- Info: Bad quality, very noisy, bad cropping, distracting reflections —the preceding unsigned comment is by 62.117.13.237 (talk • contribs)
- Keep It's hard to see how it could be done better. Adam Cuerden 01:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep --Digon3 talk 13:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep --Derbeth talk 20:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Too soon, and well... it's my picture :) See the original nomination. Is this IP address a vandal nominating just my pictures or just one of our German users who forgot to login? -- Ram-Man 14:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
result: kept. No anonymous proposers, please. --MichaelMaggs 21:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Eastern Tiger Swallowtail Papilio glaucus 2000px.jpg, kept
- Info: distracting background, bad lightning, not sharp, there are much better images of this species. —the preceding unsigned comment is by 62.117.13.237 (talk • contribs)
- Keep Nice.--Beyond silence 06:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Is this an IP address dedicated to trying to delist just my FPs? -- Ram-Man 14:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep--Böhringer 20:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
result: kept. No anonymous proposers, please. --MichaelMaggs 21:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Ujazz2007 00048.jpg
- Info: created by dantes102 - uploaded by Flickr upload bot - nominated by Grifomaniacs --Grifomaniacs 15:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Grifomaniacs 15:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
|
|
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because too small. -- Lycaon 15:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC) | Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed. |
- Although the degree of detail, does anyone think the picture is eligible due to its individuality?--Grifomaniacs 15:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think so. I agree with what is stated above.--MichaelMaggs 16:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Raspberryfruit.JPG
- Info: created by Yongxinge - uploaded by Yongxinge - nominated by Yongxinge --Yongxinge 04:30, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Yongxinge 04:30, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
|
|
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because too small. -- Lycaon 07:03, 21 July 2007 (UTC) | Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed. |
[edit] Image:Metrioptera roeselii Female.jpg, not featured
- Info: created by Julius Rückert - uploaded by Julius Rückert - nominated by Username --84.172.164.241 19:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support great macro with a great composition - "Richard ...bist du's?" ;-) --AngMoKio 20:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- Ich würde nie einen Fuß oder Fühler ab-oder anschneiden. Aber von der Qualität her könnte es hinkommen :) Pass auf mit deinem Support, das Bild ist nicht besonders groß (853 × 1280). --Makro Freak talk 21:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- Es ist ein Irrglaube, zu glauben dass abgeschnittene Teile des Hauptobjekts ein Fehler sind....das kann Teil der Komposition sein. So sehe ich das hier. Was die Größe angeht...das kann ich hier übersehen. --AngMoKio 21:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- Haha! Ich sprach ja auch nur von | mir . --Makro Freak talk 21:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- Es ist ein Irrglaube, zu glauben dass abgeschnittene Teile des Hauptobjekts ein Fehler sind....das kann Teil der Komposition sein. So sehe ich das hier. Was die Größe angeht...das kann ich hier übersehen. --AngMoKio 21:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Very nice picture. Unlovely crop and strange axis --Bergwolf 17:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
-
- what do you mean by strange axis?--AngMoKio 18:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose ditto Bergwolf -- Gorgo 18:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support Great sharpness. --Beyond silence 10:31, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose The crop does not help. The foreground is a bit distracting. This is not up to the standards of other insect FPs, sorry. -- Ram-Man 13:18, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support --C·A·S·K 09:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support The quality is excellent, and I find the composition very nice. - Keta 09:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose crop --Wiki mouse 20:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support Excellent photograph - I love the detail in the legs. I don't think I believe the exposure data, though - 1/13 sec is NOT going to result in a sharp photo like this of a live animal (or is it?) -- ChemistHans 19:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks! The exposure data is right. It was a cloudy day with no wind and I did some experiments with my new remote control for the camera. I took about 10 pictures with different exposure settings to see how they come out. This one was the best. JuliusR 10:53, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support Good photo, sharp! Nice colors! And a nice Bokeh in the background -- Robo47 11:11, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support Bananaseb 12:58, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose as per Ram-Man Lycaon 12:35, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
result: 7 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. --MichaelMaggs 17:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Emperor Tamarin portrait.JPG, not featured
- Info:Female (She) Emperor Tamarin (She with mustache)
- Info: created by , uploaded and nominated by Mbz1 --Mbz1 17:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose --Mbz1 17:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
-
- How come you are opposing your own nomination? --MichaelMaggs 22:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Even in a bad dream I would not have thought about nominating the image. It has too many problems even to name them all. Of course the condition of the shooting was even harder than with icebergs (you know these same icebergs about which Ram-Man said: "Icebergs look good like sunsets". )Anyway let's get back to monkeys. These monkeys are behind the stained glass that gives a very, very strong reflection. You hardly could see anything at all leave alone take pictures. Of course as absolutely correctly said Lycaon "But in the end... it is the result that counts..." So I'm not looking for any excuses. I just nominated the picture because Digon3 said about my prior nomination "By the way, "she" has a mustache :) ". See with the monkeys it does not work this way, and here we at last got to the most interesting part of the nomination, which could have some encyclopedic value. I know for sure that the pictured monkey is she. The thing is that the monkeys just got twins and the father is always the one, who carries babies at his back. As you could see that monkey has no babies on her, which clearly shows that in spite she is she, she still has a mustache. On the other hand here's the picture of him also with mustache and with the babies.
. I do hope all that she/he/mustache thing does not sound very complicated--Mbz1 17:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1 - Comment I was trying to be funny when I said she has a mustache and I never doubted that it was a she (I am not an animal expert at all). I know that animals come in all different shapes and sizes and I just thought it was funny when compared to humans. --Digon3 talk 18:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- And it was very funny :). By the way you as well could have been right about that nomination. To tell you the truth I've no idea, if that Patas monkey is she or he. I just feel so sad after Richard left us that I try to be funny. Thanks for helping me with that,Digon3 :)--Mbz1 18:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- Oppose Overexposed, unnatural colours, very unsharp. --Derbeth talk 09:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
![[1]](http://www.capilano.com.au/media/contentresources/image/aboutbees_growthstages.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_a_Kwakwaka%27wakw_big_house.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
![[4]](http://www.flagfocus.info/worldflags-large/flag-BritAntarcticTerr-deta.gif){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
![[11]](http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/Image:_MosaikJungferExuvie09.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[13]](http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Acanthochondria_cornuta.jpg){kind=link}
![[14]](http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Diastylis_laevis.jpg){kind=link}
![[15]](http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Hibiscus_rhodanthus.jpg){kind=link}
_-_The_Prayer_(1865)_(cropped).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
result: 0 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. --MichaelMaggs 17:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Eiffel daedalus.jpg, not featured
- Info: Details of the metallic structure of the Eiffel Tower, taken from the stairs between first and second floors.
- Info: Created, uploaded and nominated by Nattfodd --Nattfodd 17:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Nattfodd 17:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support Lovely image, with a nice depth of field (a very few very near objects are blurry, but not enough to be troublesome). Beautiful! Adam Cuerden 22:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- Info: - Images of the Eiffel Tower at night have come up before. I do not believe this image can be featured due to copyright problems. See w:Eiffel_Tower#Image_copyright_claims and w:Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Eiffel_tower_nuit. Cacophony 05:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Hum, I hadn't thought of this. My understanding was that this copyright thing applied only to external views of the tower lighting, but there seems to be no mention of this in texts I could find, and a 1/15 shutter speed clearly shows I have used more than ambient lighting. Let me know if you want me to delete the image. (and ${insert your favorite swearword here} to SNTE). --Nattfodd 08:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment It would be nicer without a flashlight. --Bergwolf 18:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- Info: That's good, because no flashlight was used :) Just check exif if you don't believe me. --Nattfodd 18:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose I don't think this is a copyright issue, because of the lack of creative lighting, but what do I know about things like that? This picture would have been better if taken during the day time I think with a properly lit blue sky, or even if taken in the evening around sunset. -- Ram-Man 13:21, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose I don't like the composition -- Gorgo 23:20, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Odd colours. Chaos in composition. --Derbeth talk 09:19, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- Info: That's on purpose, the point of this shot was to show how complex the internal structure is and how easy it is to get lost in its perspective. As for 'odd colours', go complain to the SNTE. --Nattfodd 13:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support For the same reasons. The Eiffel Tower is a very heavy object and this chaos reflects this internal complexity. J-Luc 08:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support Good picture, very 'graphic'! I like it. I also agree with J-Luc. -- MJJR 20:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Pour I like. Romary 18:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose per Derbeth --Böhringer 10:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - no wow factor. Confusing subject. Dantadd✉ 22:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- Please say why you are opposing. --MichaelMaggs 21:18, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose João Felipe C.S 01:20, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
- Please say why you are opposing. --MichaelMaggs 21:18, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
result: 5 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. --MichaelMaggs 17:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:A bee and a rose.JPG, not featured
- Info:Tea Rose 'Ingrid Bergman' (Rosa) Rose and a Western Honeybee
- Info: created uploaded and nominated by Mbz1--Mbz1 19:12, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Mbz1 19:12, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Wiki mouse 20:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I'm really doing much better with that nomination than with the other ones - no noise problem, no out of focus problem, no composition problem and no croping problem. So far. That's great. Thanks. By the way I did ID for both the rose and the bee , so oppose reason is no longer valid(sorry), but no worries you still have plenty of time to come up with a new one as I know you will. I also like to mention that, if I wanted to get IDs for "organism" from somebody else picture I would have rather comment and ask, if ID could me made, instead of opposing the picture right away (and if I were administrator on Wikimedia Commons I would have offered my help in trying to ID the "organism" on a picture.) --Mbz1 22:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
Support --Donarreiskoffer 08:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose It is not a good picture of a bee and not a good picture of a rose. --wau > 19:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- agree -the bee is not good and the rose is not good,except the bee inside the rose makes the picture beautiful (in my opinion).--Mbz1 23:00, 20 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- Support as above Mbz1 Basik07 00:46, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Don't really like the composition. - Keta 09:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose aggree with wau and it's low res (~1.6mp) -- Gorgo 14:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination It is too small Mbz1 15:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
.
result: Withdrawn => not featured. --MichaelMaggs 17:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Complete neuron cell diagram en.svg, featured
- Info: created , uploaded and nominated by LadyofHats --LadyofHats 15:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support -- Lycaon 16:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support I have a tough time judging diagrams, but this one is easy. --Digon3 talk 16:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- Info:- increased text size, made lines thiner, and corrected some text and capitulation problems.. now it is much better :), i think anyway-LadyofHats 16:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support --MichaelMaggs 16:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support great job.--Mbz1 17:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- Support very nice and clear, but shouldn't there be an extra 'l' in the title? --Nattfodd 17:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- true.. but there the only thing that i have left to say is Oops. since i do not know how to changed the title once the image is up :P -LadyofHats 17:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
-
- Upload the picture with the correct file name and tag this one {{badname|''image''}}. --Digon3 talk 18:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- ok i did it. thanks for the tip-LadyofHats 18:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- Upload the picture with the correct file name and tag this one {{badname|''image''}}. --Digon3 talk 18:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- Supportsehr lehrreich --Böhringer 20:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support -- informative, clear. Can't see why not support. Redux 22:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support this one is simple :-) --che 02:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support First rate; good color choices and usage. Walter Siegmund (talk) 15:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support Perhaps my first illustration that I've supported for FP. Very nice. -- Ram-Man 13:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support My first time at FP! Absolutely excellent work. Fvasconcellos 16:19, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support // tsca [re] 20:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support sweet, so I will not see that it's not numbered :P--WarX 15:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- where have you been? i waited for that sentence the whole week :). the numbered version you can find linked to this one, you numberFan -LadyofHats 15:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support Chabacano 22:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Pimke 08:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. --MichaelMaggs 17:42, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Damsel fly on my hand.jpg
- Oppose I do not know what "organism" the damselfly is, but I know for sure the name of "organism" :), on which the damselfly is sitting-it is my own hand(Homo sapiens). It was the hardest picture I've ever took (with only one hand free). Is it a mitigating reason?:) I'd say: "no", and I should Oppose. --Mbz1 06:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
|
|
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because too small. -- Lycaon 12:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC) | Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed. |
- CommentThat nomination was not meant to succeed. I would never let it to succeed. That picture has no value. That nomination was posted here for fun and fun only. Haven't you noticed that I opposed it myself 2 times already? Thanks for the adding the template. It really made my nominatioun even funnier:)--Mbz1 13:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- I don't know about other users, but I for one am not fond of considering pictures for FP status, only to find out that the nominator only posted the picture to make a point/for fun. This page is for Featured picture candidates. Posts like this also makes it difficult to take actual nominations seriously. If you really don't intend on seeing your nominations reach FP status, please do not post them here. Anrie 20:36, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
- Agree. I'll make no more fun of Featured picture candidates, but thanks for considering the picture even after you saw a delist request.--Mbz1 22:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- I don't know about other users, but I for one am not fond of considering pictures for FP status, only to find out that the nominator only posted the picture to make a point/for fun. This page is for Featured picture candidates. Posts like this also makes it difficult to take actual nominations seriously. If you really don't intend on seeing your nominations reach FP status, please do not post them here. Anrie 20:36, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Egret and fish.JPG, not featured
 |
 |
| Egret and fish.JPG | Egret and fish edit.jpg |
- Info: A great Egret and still alive fish
- Info: created, uploaded and nominated by Mbz1 --Mbz1 17:32, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Mbz1 17:32, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- CommentLet's try to play a game. If you want to oppose the picture because you do not like the crop of the egret, think about the fish(it is not cropped at all). If you want to oppose the picture because the fish body is in a shadow, think about egret's bill that casted the shadow ,if you, believe that the egret is overexposed, please try to think about the fish that is underexposed (maybe they compensate each other?) . Maybe then somebody will be brave enough to support that funny image(I'm sure the fish did not think it was funny at all) , or maybe not. But whatever you support (I doubt it) or oppose (I'm sure you will) the image, maybe you'll be able to enjoy that rare wildlife action. Anyway I'm ready for all your comments, except one, please don't tell me that the picture is boring. Good luck!--Mbz1 17:32, 14 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- Oppose ditto mbz1 ;). overexposed, underexposed = bad lighting, bad crop, noisy and some purple fringing (last 2 things can probably be edited, picture has high enough res) -- Gorgo 23:10, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Very overexposed. I think if the fish is fully dark can be better.--Beyond silence 01:53, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose as an action shot, most def not boring. too bad about over-contrast and crop —the preceding unsigned comment is by Psylexic (talk • contribs) 03:54, 15 July 2007
- Oppose Overexposed. Poor fish... --Digon3 talk 12:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- CommentI'm not sure how one could possibly take such a shot with the correct expousere of both the fish and the bird. I did not want to make a fish fully dark (who would have guessed that it was a fish then?) Still I do enjoy your "oppose". Keep them coming please.--Mbz1 14:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- Oppose per above, and part of the bird's head is missing... Majorly (talk) 20:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Nothing ventured, nothing gained. Technical quality is below average. --Bergwolf 21:19, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- CommentThank you, everybody, for taking your time to oppose and comment on the picture. I do like your "oppose" almost as much as I like your "support" and I like your "oppose" much more, than when nobody votes at all (it is so boring). So in my opinion that nomination is doing great.--Mbz1 22:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- Oppose -- As above. Also Mbz1, can I ask why you selected the image in preference to Egret and fish 2? -- Snowwayout 04:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- You sure can. I believed that the nominated image is more interesting because the fish is hanging in the air, while in the other image the egret simply holds a fish in his bill. I hope it answers your question. Please feel free to ask me, if you have more questions.--Mbz1 05:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- Comment would appreciate location info. Lycaon 18:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Sure. The picture was taken at Middle Lake in Golden Gate Park, San Francisco--Mbz1 20:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- Comment I would have supported Egret and fish 2 -psylexic
- Thank you, psylexic. It is really nice of you to tell me that.--Mbz1 04:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- Support Just being annoying ;-) (I like the s-lines, the background and the action. Missing some of the head of the bird and a bit more sharpness on the fish. A pity with the overexposure, it really is a great scene) --Malene Thyssen 20:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Top of head cut off, hurts enc. --RedCoat 12:23, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Result: 8 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured Lycaon 05:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Canis mesomelas.jpg, featured
- Info: created, uploaded and nominated by Lycaon -- Lycaon 00:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support Lycaon, you forgot to support the image yourself.--Mbz1 00:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- Neutral I like the photo, but I find the DOF a bit distracting because the background transitions from blurred to sharp right around the jackal, which make some of the twigs around it sharp while others that a right next to them blurry. (This also affects parts of the jackal itself.) Also, the face seems a little blurred, although that could probably fixed with some editing. <~KULSHRAX~> 01:59, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support On second thought, when you compare this to other mammal featured pictures, this one is excellent in comparative quality. In fact, it seems as if some of the others should be delisted if more pictures like this should come along. <~KULSHRAX~> 10:57, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support great photo, although not sure if its my monitor but seems a bit lacking in brightness/saturation. Also I agree with kulshrax, the face is slightly blurry. But these things are secondary. How did you get so close to a wild coyote? -psylexic
- It's a matter of luck, I guess, as with most pictures taken in the wild. You just have time to take a few snaps before it runs, and you hope there is a least one good one ;). There is very often no time to fidget with ISO's, DOF's or white balances... I'm already very happy if the right lens for the job is on my camera, and the car window is down! BTW, it is not a coyote but a black-backed jackal, in Etosha, Namibia. Lycaon 09:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose good picture. But focus is sadly on the back of the animal and not on the face --Simonizer 07:38, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Snapshot level. Motionblur on the cute face. --Bergwolf 10:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support The quality is just barely good enough at 2MP, so I must support. -- Ram-Man 13:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose face is out of focus --che 14:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support --MichaD | Michael Apel 15:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support It's big enough that what slight bluriness exists wouldn't be visible in a downsample well within the FP requirements. But why downsample when you'd lose detail elsewhere? Adam Cuerden 03:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose The hairs on the back are in sharper focus than the face and eyes. --MichaelMaggs 19:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support I've been in doubt, but I finally think the focus in the face is good enough. - Keta 20:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support relevant --Böhringer 20:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Face is out of focus --Wiki mouse 20:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support as per Keta -- Klaus with K 18:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support Lycaon 19:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support Makro Freak 19:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Result: 11 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => featured Lycaon 05:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Herbstzeitlose01.JPG, not featured
- Info: created by [[--Böhringer - uploaded by [[--Böhringer - nominated by [[--Böhringer -Böhringer Please correct your Info. When nominating a picture change User:Username|Username to your User-ID. Thanks --Simonizer 09:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- Info:'Colchicum autumnale' Blütendetail einer Herbszeitlose mit Staubbeutel und Blütenstempel [16]
- Support --Böhringer 09:12, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- Pour -- Very nice colors. J-Luc 13:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Many details are out of focus in that no value 1 picture. Still I'm glad we are back to English(kind of)--Mbz1 14:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- What does "no value" mean? --LC-de 16:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- Well, it means that the image is not special in any way (in my opinion)--Mbz1 17:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- Support really nice composition and as J-Luc said nice colors --AngMoKio 16:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose All that glitters is not gold. Unlovely composition & underexposed sky. --Bergwolf 16:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- Question: underexposed sky ?!? I don't understand, can you explain how you would like the sky to be exposed ? J-Luc 08:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose The composition does not compensate for the shallow DoF inherent to pictures at this magnification. -- Ram-Man 13:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose It's dull, there's nothing interesting or outstanding about it. Majorly (talk) 20:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support Jina Lee 04:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support Lovely photograph. This is a Commons Featured Picture, not a Wikipedia one, because instead of being encyclopedic by showing every detail in naturalistic focus and exposure, it's artistic. Beautiful colors and color contrast, composition; wonderful use of shallow depth of field. Fg2 12:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support Very, very nice. ---donald- 16:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support An attractive image. Good colours and nice use of shallow depth of field. It's a pity that shallow depth of field always seems to draw oppose votes here, even when done as here for artistic effect. --MichaelMaggs 20:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support Ack MichaelMaggs - Keta 09:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose DoF --Wiki mouse 20:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support (weak) colours are very nice, DOF is so-so. Lycaon 16:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose nothing special, very small focused part of picture and the rest is totally unclear --Karelj 21:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Result: 9 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured Lycaon 05:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:POL województwo czernihowskie COA IRP.svg, not featured
- Info: created by Bastianow (vector version) - uploaded by Bastianow - nominated by Przykuta 05:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Przykuta 05:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Too pure of colours. Looks like it was made largely using the standard pallette, which is kinda ugly. It's encyclopædic and good as far as it goes, but it needs something more to really be the best work on Commons. Adam Cuerden 18:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- Neutral I like it, but agree that it may need a little "more" to be featured. <~KULSHRAX~> 01:52, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose I usually have trouble evaluating illustrations, but this one doesn't wow, even though it is technically good. -- Ram-Man 13:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose No wow factor. --Digon3 talk 12:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support // tsca [re] 20:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support I'll be rebelious and support this - I like it :) Majorly (talk) 20:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support I have my doubts about the 'wow' factor indeed. But it's technically very good. So I'd like to support it... -- MJJR 20:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support Ditto MJJR - Keta 10:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support on technical merit --Braindrain0000 04:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose There are some weird effects as if every layer is floating above the underlying one. E.g. even the red is not centred over the pink, while the double eagle is slightly shifted to the right. Have my doubts about the 'wow' too. Lycaon 07:59, 18 July 2007 (UTC)