Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/June 2006
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:Kanakwomen.jpg, not featured
Info: created by Bananaflo - uploaded by Petaholmes - nominated by nico@nc 06:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC)]]
Support --nico@nc 06:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Oppose - the costumes are distinct, but the shopping mall / railway station background isn't, and spoils the pic - MPF 13:02, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Noumea domestic airport (no railways in New Caledonia)nico@nc 07:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose--Shizhao 13:49, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --Huebi 08:09, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support--Sebastianm 09:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Contra --Dti 16:41, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose composition --Luc Viatour 06:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Pour -- Bananaflo 23:49, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Pour Cary "Bastique" Bass parler voir 17:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Neutral --- gildemax 12:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)- Oppose -- Rüdiger Wölk 16:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose MGo 09:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --ßøuñçêY2K 13:35, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose--Lmbuga gl, pt, es: fala comigo 15:44, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Result: 4
[edit] image:Anna Stępniewska2.jpg, not featured
- Info: Made, uploaded and nominated by WarX 06:34, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support --WarX 06:34, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose nothing special with an ugly background --Huebi 08:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support--Shizhao 11:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Ss181292 14:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC) - generally I like the picture, I find the subject very, very pretty, but I believe this is not the kind of picture which should be featured.
- Oppose Not especiallySebastianm 14:56, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Not even remotely pretty MPF 15:53, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose -- a) what Huebi said, b) her left eye is red and c) I also agree with MPF -- Boereck 18:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose what is the point? --Tarawneh 15:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose - nice picture, but nothing for featured pictures candidates --- gildemax 12:29, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose MGo 13:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose nice mood, but far from FP quality as a whole. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 00:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --Joonasl 16:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose DO NOT WANT Notwist 08:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Get_It (Talk) 00:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support Neat composition...luv the noisy background. Cary "Bastique" Bass parler voir 20:00, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Result: 3 support, 12 oppose => not featured Mglanznig 10:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Gateway Arch edit1.jpg, not featured
- Info: created, uploaded and nominated by Moof 06:41, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support I know this picture has its faults, particularly the blur. I was wondering if anyone could improve upon it, or if the composition merits featured status alone. Thanks! :) --Moof 06:41, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support Good photo of architecture. Sebastianm 14:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose - the thing isn't going to go away, it should be easy to retake a sharper image on a better day - MPF 15:57, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Good picture, Low res, blur-- Luc Viatour 16:25, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Shame about the blur, it would have been a good picture. —Pixel8 17:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose -- sorry, I need to strongly agree with the above: it is wiggly like a ride over cobblestone pavement. but the motive is well chosen! -- Boereck 18:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
- Opposesame as Boereck , --Tarawneh 15:16, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose -- nice try, though. Look forward to seeing a better version of this on FPC soon. Howcheng 16:21, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support I really like it. pfctdayelise (translate?) 13:26, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --Joonasl 16:51, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Result: 3 support, 7 oppose => not featured Mglanznig 10:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Ponte San Michele.jpg, not featured
- Info: created by Loox - uploaded by Loox - nominated by --Felyx 13:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Felyx 13:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Ss181292 14:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC) - it should be taken daytime. No reason for nightshot.
- Oppose Bad white balance in my opinion.Sebastianm 14:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose -- dramatic effect with the night shot, but to many significant dark areas Gnangarra 15:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support - I don't normally like night-time pics of buildings, but this one is very attractive - MPF 16:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support -- Luc Viatour 16:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Why wasn't this shot with a long exposure? The noise is overwhelming at 100% —Pixel8 17:45, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose - Agree with pixal8. Snowwayout 07:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose too dark , needs more exposure --Tarawneh 15:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support although it is noisy. Colours and ammount of dark areas are great, IMO. Possibly, the color noise in the sky could be reduced by some clever noice reduction tools--Wikimol 10:23, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose too dark --- gildemax 12:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose -- too noisy. Howcheng 16:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support / tsca @ 19:06, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Joonasl 16:51, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support 'Pertsa 15:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Tomascastelazo 20:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Result: 8 support, 8 oppose => not featured Mglanznig 10:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Image:RedTulip.JPG, not featured
- Info: created by Me --Yongxinge 05:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support -- I like this technique and focusing being unequal. ♦ Pabix ℹ 06:38, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Photography is of a high standard, but the subject in uninspiring. Snowwayout 07:46, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --Shizhao 12:39, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose old idea, nothing new --Tarawneh 15:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose -- its nice but with the number of tulip photos taken, to obtain FP status it requires something really special Gnangarra 10:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
- Neutral --- gildemax 12:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Urban 03:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support Its nice in colour and composition, and even if there had been many smilar pictures, every picture should be valued by itself and not in comparison to others
- Oppose MGo 13:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Result: 2 support, 6 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured Mglanznig 10:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] image:Justin Gatlin cropped.JPG, not featured
- Info: created by Teveten, modified byDake - uploaded by Teveten - nominated by Teveten 09:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Teveten 09:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
- Contre Composition Rama 10:57, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Camera (?) on the left, microphone(?) on the right, feet cut off. --Huebi 11:02, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --Shizhao 12:39, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --Tarawneh 15:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose - ditto to Huebi - MPF 10:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --- gildemax 12:07, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose MGo 13:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Result: 1 support, 7 oppose => not featured Mglanznig 10:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Museum für Ostasiatische Kunst Dahlem Berlin Mai 2006 007.jpg, not featured
- Info: created by Gryffindor - uploaded by Gryffindor - nominated by Gryffindor 14:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support Can't decide which one is better, therefore posting alternate picture of same statue as well, maybe that one is better (or not?)--Gryffindor 14:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Image on Left, not featured
Result: 0 votes => not featured Mglanznig 10:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Image on Right, not featured
Result: 0 votes => not featured Mglanznig 10:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Both Images, not featured
- Oppose both too dark --Tarawneh 15:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
- I was not allowed to use any flash in the museum. Gryffindor 15:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose - lighting, noise/artifacts @ full res. If the museum restrictions prevents taking quality photographs, unfortunately not much can be done about it. --Wikimol 10:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Too much noise Gnangarra 11:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose both too dark --- gildemax 12:06, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
- Neutral - I think the points above could be addressed. --Miljoshi 09:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose both too dark --Tarawneh 15:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured Mglanznig 10:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Grand Palais Paris Mai 2006 002.jpg, not featured
- Info: created by Gryffindor - uploaded by Gryffindor - nominated by Gryffindor 15:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support nominate another version as well, don't know which one users would prefer? --Gryffindor 15:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Would like to see it more from the front and without the cropped building norro 17:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, anonymous users cannot vote. Freedom to share 16:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
- The building was undergoing renovation work and was all covered up, trust me you don't want to see that part. Check the category for further images of the quadriga, maybe you'll see something that you like better? Gryffindor 15:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Image on left, not featured
Result: 0 votes => not featured Mglanznig 10:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Image on Right, not featured
Result: 0 votes => not featured Mglanznig 10:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Both Images, not featured
- Oppose -- To dark Gnangarra 10:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --Shizhao 12:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose - images are too dark --- gildemax 12:04, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose - Both too dark --Tarawneh 15:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose -- ditto. Howcheng 16:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Result: 1 support, 6 oppose => not featured Mglanznig 10:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Portrait of the Xiaosheng Empress Dowager.jpg, not featured
- Info: created by anonymous - uploaded by Gryffindor - nominated by Gryffindor 15:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Gryffindor 15:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support -- Luc Viatour 08:56, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support--Shizhao 12:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
- Neutral --- gildemax 12:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Can't see anything special about it --Pumbaa 12:21, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose ACK Pumbaa. We shouldn't feature every nice image just because it's nice. It should be special somehow norro 16:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
- Is the featured picture candidate voting only for "special" images? Gryffindor 17:07, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
- No, sorry. I didn't ment it like that. Every candidate is welcome. I just wanted to say, that candidates should stand out in some way to get my support. norro 23:01, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
- Is the featured picture candidate voting only for "special" images? Gryffindor 17:07, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
- Neutral --Miljoshi 09:01, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose} -- It's a nice portrait, but nothing stunning. It might just by the Chinese style, but she looks too much like a statue. Howcheng 16:18, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Urban 03:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
- Too much like a statue? What do you want her to do, dance a jig? I don't understand this voting system, how does a grainy b&w photograph like Image:Stalin-Lenin-Kalinin-1919.jpg get votes, but this image not, how is this voting system based? Gryffindor 09:27, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
- What I meant by that was that the painting doesn't seem to capture the personality of the empress dowager. She's just sitting there, looking straight ahead at the artist with a blank look on her face. I don't know if that happens to be characteristic of paintings of Chinese monarchs or what, but it just doesn't grab me. (You'll also note that I opposed the Stalin-Lenin picture too). Howcheng 22:00, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Result: 4 support, 6 oppose, 2 neutral => not featured Mglanznig 10:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Amenbo_06b6787v.jpg, not featured
- Info: created, uploaded and nominated by Cory 16:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Cory 16:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose disturbing stuff in the water next to the water spider, low res -- Gorgo 18:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
- There is no spider Roger McLassus 10:11, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
- Pond-skater is the name you want. Probably two different species in the photo, not adult and young as suggested - MPF
- Thank you for comment. Sorry, I have no knowledge to identify about species positively. I entitled by an impression. But, these are not spider dropped on water, these are a kind of Water strider (called "Amenbo" in Japanese) that is a kind of an insect, walking on water by six legs is unique. And these are on a breeding season in Japan. --Cory
- Pond-skater is the name you want. Probably two different species in the photo, not adult and young as suggested - MPF
- There is no spider Roger McLassus 10:11, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
- Neutral is it taken from under the water? :o pretty amazing! pfctdayelise (translate?) 02:56, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
- No, floating on the water - MPF
- Oppose Low res -- Luc Viatour 08:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose - a valuable pic for encyclopaedia use, but not really featurable quality - MPF 10:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --- gildemax 11:54, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose--Shizhao 12:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose -- I realize this might be difficult, but a horizontal shot would be a lot better. Howcheng 16:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Result: 1 support, 6 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured Mglanznig 10:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Todoroki_yurikamome_karugamo_06x0026s.jpg, not featured
- Info: created, uploaded and nominated by Cory 16:16, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Cory 16:16, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose composition, background, colors basically only grey, res -- Gorgo 18:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Sussie 20:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose nothing special -- Luc Viatour 08:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
- Neutral --- gildemax 11:39, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose--Shizhao 12:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Tbc 20:10, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. Not a very interesting picture. Howcheng 16:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose MGo 13:38, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose -- nico@nc 08:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Result: 1 support, 8 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured Mglanznig 10:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Image:KujiBairin_Mejiro_06p2835hs.jpg, not featured
- Info: created, uploaded and nominated by Cory 16:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Cory 16:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose composition (only backside of bird), extremely low res -- Gorgo 18:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Composition, Res. Snowwayout 20:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose composition -- Luc Viatour 08:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose - only backside of bird --- gildemax 11:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose--Shizhao 12:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose per above. Howcheng 16:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose -- nico@nc 08:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Result: 1 support, 7 oppose => not featured Mglanznig 10:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Kujibairin_mejiro_06p2689sv.jpg, not featured
- Info: created, uploaded and nominated by Cory 16:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Cory 16:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose low res -- Gorgo 18:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose I agree with Gorgo Sussie 18:37, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Res. Composition. Snowwayout 20:37, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Support that is perfect! pfctdayelise (translate?) 02:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)- Support excellent - MPF 10:39, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
- Neutral -- the branch across the bird is too distracting Gnangarra 10:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support --- gildemax 11:36, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose--Shizhao 12:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --Pumbaa 12:23, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Tbc 20:10, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose -- this has a lot of potential, but the composition is lacking. Howcheng 16:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support --che 15:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Rex 16:10, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support -- nico@nc 08:04, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support Cary "Bastique" Bass parler voir 06:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Malene Thyssen 21:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Result: 8 support, 8 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured Mglanznig 10:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Boelge stor.jpg, featured
- Info: created, uploaded and nominated by Malene Thyssen 19:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Malene Thyssen 19:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support real hard to get --Tarawneh 21:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support very nice norro 22:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support Very dynamic. Beautiful, the sea.. Reminds me of japanese ink-drawings. -- AlMare 22:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support -- Gnangarra 10:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support --- gildemax 11:35, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support--Shizhao 12:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support Sussie 14:40, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support. --Howcheng 16:12, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Luc Viatour 06:15, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support how can you not? pfctdayelise (translate?) 13:26, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support, and my school is now using this picture for its desktop background. --Hughcharlesparker 09:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support MGo 13:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Klemen Kocjančič (Pogovor - Quick response) 08:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support Oonagh 11:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support -- nico@nc 08:02, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 00:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Joonasl 16:47, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support 'Pertsa 15:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support, awesome image. --tomf688 (talk - email) 20:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support Cary "Bastique" Bass parler voir 20:01, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose nothing special Gérard Janot 20:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support Great image!--Tomascastelazo 20:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Result: 22 support, 1 oppose => featured Mglanznig 10:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Image:746px-Hip replacement Image 3684-PH.jpg, featured
- Info:the patient’s right hip (on the left in the photograph) has been replaced, with the “ball” of this ball-and-socket joint replaced by a metal head that is set in the thighbone or femur and the socket replaced by a white plastic cup Photographer: Unknown - uploaded by Teveten Hi resolution picture http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/2f/Hip_replacement_Image_3684-PH.jpg also available - nominated by Teveten 10:23, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Teveten 10:23, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support --- gildemax 11:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support--Shizhao 12:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support--Tarawneh 22:21, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support-- Luc Viatour 04:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Miljoshi 08:59, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose -- I would support this on Wikipedia for its encyclopedic value, but not on Commons. Howcheng 16:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose
1. It's a low res-version of a >20 Megapixel photograph 2. There is no image description3. I'm not sure, what is possible with X-ray today, but it's blurry and mottled. Perhaps a bad scan? norro 18:18, 18 May 2006 (UTC)- What do you mean "There is no image description"?, see above. Hi definition picture is also available, see link above.--Teveten 07:50, 19 May 2006 (UTC) Ps. discription was missing on pictures page, sorry!
- Support pfctdayelise (translate?) 13:23, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose doesn't seem like featured quality to me -- Gorgo 23:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support Ss181292 08:38, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support--Wikimol 10:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Result: 9 support, 3 oppose => featured Mglanznig 12:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Victoria Memorial London April 2006 054.jpg, not featured
- Info: created by Gryffindor - uploaded by Gryffindor - nominated by Gryffindor 10:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support Not sure which one users would prefer, adding another one as well. --Gryffindor 10:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Image on left, not featured
- Support --Shizhao 11:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Result: 1 support => not featured Mglanznig 12:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Image on right, not featured
Oppose ----Shizhao 11:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Result: 1 oppose => not featured Mglanznig 12:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Both Images, not featured
- Oppose -- Gnangarra 10:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose -- In both images, you have blown-out highlights. The left image needs a greater depth of focus as the bottom is out of focus. The statue is also too dark in the right. Howcheng 16:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Fodder 00:40, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Result: 1 support, 3 oppose => not featured Mglanznig 12:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Victoria Memorial London April 2006 063.jpg, not featured
- Info: created by Gryffindor - uploaded by Gryffindor - nominated by Gryffindor 10:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support I personally find it spectacular, but would like to hear what others think. --Gryffindor 10:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support -- Compostion / POV strong enough to over come softness and resolution Gnangarra 10:54, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
- Neutral --- gildemax 11:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
- 反对--Shizhao 11:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Dark Object--Tarawneh 15:39, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. Good composition and I like the halo effect but the drawback to it is that the subject becomes too dark. You need fill-in flash or some reflectors to brighten up the statue. Howcheng 16:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Urban 03:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Klemen Kocjančič (Pogovor - Quick response) 08:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support --/\/\π 09:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Joonasl 16:46, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured Mglanznig 12:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Image:XN Nomada sp.jpg, not featured
- Info: created by User:XN - uploaded by User:XN - nominated by XN 20:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support --XN 20:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose background is too bright for me --che 12:55, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. Subject not entirely in focus. Howcheng 16:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support --- gildemax 19:37, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Urban 03:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose--Shizhao 12:09, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --there are already a better insect pics (just not compareable)Anatol 22:06, 27 May 2006
- Oppose Background messy & too bright. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 00:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Result: 2 support, 6 oppose => not featured Mglanznig 13:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Lego CAD Racecar.JPG, not featured
- Info: created by Reuvenk - uploaded by Reuvenk - nominated by Reuvenk 03:45, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Reuvenk 03:45, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Wikimol 06:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Ss181292 09:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC) -- nice rendering, but I don't see the point in featuring this kind of pictures. If it was a photograph, I would support it, but it is just a rendering. LEGO parts are not very difficult to model in computer program, model is not very complicated, light effects are not outstanding, surfaces are very simple and wheels are much below FP standards.
- Oppose see Ss181292 comments. The modeling is not that difficult, if You have 3dmax or other software. OK it take 40 to 90 minutes, but still nothing special --Tarawneh 15:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose per above. Howcheng 16:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --- gildemax 19:36, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose--Shizhao 12:09, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Seems like it is only 256 colors. --Keeleysam 03:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Result: 2 support, 6 oppose => not featured Mglanznig 13:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Saint-Hippolyte_2006-8.JPG, not featured
created by gildemax - uploaded by gildemax - nominated by gildemax 22:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support --gildemax 22:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Colors, Bad composition --Luc Viatour 06:16, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose-- Lower section out of focus --Tarawneh 09:37, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose--Shizhao 12:09, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose looks like the buildings are falling --che 15:21, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
- Comment You can rotate the photo and adjust the perspective. Fg2 00:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose hopefully the houses will not not glide outside the picture --Huebi
- Oppose MGo 13:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support God, you people are harsh. Cary "Bastique" Bass parler voir 20:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Result: 2 support, 6 oppose => not featured Mglanznig 13:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Narzissen.jpg, not featured
- Info: created by Deelkar (talk) - uploaded by Deelkar (talk) - nominated by Deelkar (talk) 00:36, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Deelkar (talk) 00:36, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose nothing special --Luc Viatour 06:17, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose--Shizhao 12:09, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose - Tbc 15:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose fine picture, but the composition is not that great and the highlights are burned out in the red and especially in the green channel --che 15:21, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Ss181292 15:24, 19 May 2006 (UTC) - nothing outstanding
- Neutral --- gildemax 21:40, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose MGo 13:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Result: 1 support, 6 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured Mglanznig 13:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit]
- Info: source: NASA - taken feb 19. 2003 - nominated by Minto 02:18, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support -I can almost see my own house, incredible ;) - Minto 02:18, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Luc Viatour 06:18, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support - Definitely --XN 08:16, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Tarawneh 09:33, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support -- Image a little small, but well... ;) Rama 12:01, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
- Neutral nice, but there is quite a lot of nice satellite images --che 15:17, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support !!Sebastianm 16:48, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
- Neutral --- gildemax 21:39, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support -- Lerdsuwa 18:10, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Agree with Che. The frontier lines spoil the picture because they aren't thick enough to be seen in the global view. El Comandante 20:48, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support -- AlMare 11:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support - MPF 17:47, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Klemen Kocjančič (Pogovor - Quick response) 08:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Olegivvit 17:05, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Pour -- nico@nc 08:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support yeah, very nice. 'Pertsa 15:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support -- Get_It (Talk) 00:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support, who says those billion-dollar satellites don't pay dividends? --tomf688 (talk - email) 20:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Result: 14 support, 2 oppose, 2 neutral => featured Mglanznig 13:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Image:NikkoCaparisonedHorse5423.jpg, not featured
- Info: Horse in caparison at spring festival Procession of a Thousand Warriors of Toshogu in Nikko, Tochigi Prefecture, Japan. - nominated by Minto 01:05, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support -- Minto 01:05, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose -- not sharp -- YolanC 14:35, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
- maybe You should visit an eyespecialist it is sharp. --Feodora 18:42, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --- gildemax 18:11, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support very pensive. pfctdayelise (translate?) 05:38, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Klemen Kocjančič (Pogovor - Quick response) 08:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Urban 06:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose It's very sharp, but I don't quite get what I'm looking at. --che 23:12, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Pour -- nice -- nico@nc 07:58, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Neutral the idea was very good...but i think there is a lack in the composition. This orange thing hanging down should have been completly on the pic...maybe the impression would be better --AngMoKio 09:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured Mglanznig 13:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Munich_subway_GBR.jpg, not featured
- Info: Munich subway station Georg-Brauchle-Ring - uploaded by FloSch - nominated by Minto 01:13, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support -- Minto 01:13, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose -- not outstanding (IMO) -- YolanC 14:36, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose--Shizhao 15:13, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support --- gildemax 18:08, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support -- Lerdsuwa 18:09, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --Tarawneh 23:49, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support pfctdayelise (translate?) 13:23, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Rosarium Orans 05:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- Neutral I don't like the 4:3 aspect ratio of this picture Barcex 23:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose ACK YolanC norro 16:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Urban 06:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support MartinD 08:41, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Anatol 22:06, 27 May 2006
- Oppose Ordinary. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 00:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Result: 6 support, 7 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured Mglanznig 13:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Image:NMMP dolphin with locator.jpeg, featured
- Info: created by the US Navy - uploaded by Johantheghost - nominated by — Omegatron 02:38, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support — Omegatron 02:38, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support -- nice, we see the dolphin and his master ? -- YolanC 14:37, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support --- gildemax 18:09, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support -- Lerdsuwa 18:10, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support woow! Sebastianm 19:03, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose low res. --Tarawneh 23:42, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose composition not to good (guy cropped and dolphin needs a bit more of space at the top and right) + not that interesting subject norro 09:00, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support pfctdayelise (translate?) 13:23, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Rosarium Orans 05:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose - ditto to norro - MPF 17:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support Very nice photo! Kjetil_r 11:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Klemen Kocjančič (Pogovor - Quick response) 08:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Thermos 14:32, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose -- ack norro, dolphin needs more space --che 23:13, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose the subject is interesting but other than that, I agree with Norro's points. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 23:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support--Ziga 22:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Result: 11 support, 5 oppose => featured Mglanznig 13:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Pelicans in flight.jpg, aborted
- Info: created by Tomas Castelazo - uploaded by Tomas Castelazo - nominated by Tomascastelazo 22:04, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Tomascastelazo 22:04, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support - MPF 23:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- Contra the animals are underexposed --Artefacto 02:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Ss181292 06:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC) -- nothing special
- Support --Luc Viatour 11:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose this picture is for no commercial use only, should change license or be deleted!! Barcex 11:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Gérard Janot 12:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose license is not commons compliant. mus be deleted with this license tag. --Huebi 12:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support --- gildemax 13:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Urban 15:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
candidature aborted due to licensing problems. Clear licensing is one of the essential requirements for featured picture candidates. norro 16:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Mime in guanajuato.jpg, aborted
- Info: created by Tomas Castelazo - uploaded by Tomas Castelazo - nominated by Tomascastelazo 21:33, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Tomascastelazo 21:33, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose - nothing special - MPF 23:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- Contra --Artefacto 02:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Ss181292 06:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC) -- tourist photo, nothing special, ugly composition
- Oppose --Joonasl 09:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose see mpf --Huebi 12:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose noncommercial license Barcex 12:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Strongly oppose --- gildemax 13:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
candidature aborted due to licensing problems. Clear licensing is one of the essential requirements for featured picture candidates. norro 16:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Crocodylus acutus mexico 01.jpg, not featured
- Info: created, uploaded and nominated by Tomas Castelazo --Tomascastelazo 18:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Tomascastelazo 18:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment Nattfodd: just watch!--Tomascastelazo 18:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)- Oppose Low sharpness. Sorry, you should try Commons:Quality images candidates first! --Beyond silence
19:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
-
- Indeed, beyond silence... way beyond... beyond beyond... must be very dark in there... :o)--Tomascastelazo 19:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I am intrigued by the interference pattern of all the circular small water waves. Is this a wild-life shot? I suggest you add geodata to the photo. The photo is not thaat sharp, and all this water gives a subjective feeling of blurriness leaving the impression of a slightly messy composition. I cannot make up my mind on what to vote on it though. I would like to give an additional comment. I do not like sarcastic comments and personal attacks rearding other reviewers evaluations as above. There seems to an uprising of harsh sarcastic comments like that, which are not in the spirit of the guidelines stating that you should always be polite. I too do not always agree with other reviewers opinions and often shake my head. However, I propose either to ignore reviews you cannot approve of or give a more balanced reply. In the end single wrong evaluations does not normally influence the end result as normally quite a lot of users vote on FPC, which averages out anomalies. The rules state that any Commons user is entitled to vote on and have an opinion on the photos here. It is not stated that you should have qualified as a reviewer somehow. -- Slaunger 20:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- You get out what you put in, just my opinion. No robots here. --Richard Bartz 20:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Slaunger, It is a wildlife shot, hanging from a manglar, low light conditions. Sharpness? Well, that is an academic point… The picture was taken at 60th of a second, so there is motion blurr, and the subject itself was moving. The skin color and texture do mimic the environment, a good predator camouflage. Distance? 10 feet? Maybe less. But of course, the technical difficulties and the danger inherent in this type of situation in no way match the mortal danger incurred in close up lady bug photography. Next time I will take to the swamp lighting equipment, a make up artist, several crocs in order to take that “Feature Picture” with a 200 megapixel camera. Sarcasm? Yes. But what is sarcasm an answer from?--Tomascastelazo 21:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
-
- BTW, the danger incurred is of course irrelevant: or you take the picture or you don't, and BTW you can make a 200 Mpix picture by stitching 40-odd 5Mpx (allow some overlap) snaps. Lycaon 21:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment The circular patterns in the water are most probably produced by the croc vocalizing with infrasound underwater. Lycaon 21:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose if only for those patterns. But quality is really too low. Lycaon 21:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- Support Thank you for explaining the special circumstances. That is one of the reasons why I asked without coming to immediate conclusions first. I think the special circumstances overcompenstaes technical issues. Very nice. And no, I still do not approve of the sarcasm, I was just asking a question to learn more. -- Slaunger 21:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Slaunger: Sarcasm not directed at you and thanks for your vote!. Lycaon: Thanks! All: This is true for me: I am my own harshest critic, and when I critique someone else's work, I do it following well established photographing judging criteria. That it the least I owe to someone I critisize. Do I fall short? Probably, and due to my own ignorance. However, by acknowledging my own ignorance and shortcomings, and doing something about it, I lessen the damage bad judging can create.--Tomascastelazo 21:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- Support I think Lewis Carroll put it best: Calibas 22:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
-
- How doth the little crocodile
- Improve his shining tail,
- And pour the waters of the Nile
- On every golden scale!
-
- How cheerfully he seems to grin
- How neatly spreads his claws,
- And welcomes little fishes in,
- With gently smiling jaws!
- Oppose Not so much on its technical merits - it is sharp enough and has sufficient light - but the subject is too much hidden in it's environment to generate an outstanding image, a wow factor. I understand that hiding is the predator's intend and yet as a photographer I have to have the patience and yes luck to find it in a situation where it stands out and presents itself in all its beauty (well here beauty is relative) to the viewer. Wwcsig 23:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose due to technical quality, and I hope people are not getting themselves in dangerous situations just to get FPs. Dori - Talk 17:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- Support I said elsewhere that I was not going to be participating in these things, but this photograph is awesome! I know that the collection which is the Featured pictures is not necessarily mentioned in the guidelines but if you look at the collection; the photographs that are there and the photographs that are missing and judge photographs like you would how a teeter totter works where it is a total weight not just both sides being perfectly matched. As far as safety goes, the more crocodile photographs there are, the less of a need for them and that much more is understood about photographing them. I can see a day in the future when a photograph of a crocodile is not supported because the Featured pictures collection has 30 of them and 4 dead photographers as well. My support hopefully will move these photographers into a future like that. Thank you for not only giving this photograph to the commons collection but having the balls to show it here where the bug and flower people will try to hurt your feelings. -- carol 05:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment This kind of so-called support vote is actually there to debase photographer who do an effort to sit still for hours trying to capture a high quality botanical or entomological picture. Sarcasm has become the rule in FP. It doesn't matter whether you make a picture of a fly in your garden with your 100€ digital camera or whether you are fortunate (as in having lots of money) enough to make that shot with your state-of-the-art camera on the top of the world. A good picture is a good picture. Every good syrphid picture gets my support, every bad Asian tsunami pic my oppose, and vice versa. If the only thing you are here for is to insinuate and spew sarcasm, it would be better if you stayed away. Criticize pictures not people, you can always start FPh (Featured Photographer) if you want to do that. I can very much appreciate critics (in al senses) from people who contribute and show they know what they are talking about but in your case it is as we say in Dutch "De beste stuurlui staan aan wal", Lycaon 06:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
-
- Well, sir or madam Lycaon, I love those Macro shots as well. I really do. Lord knows, they do not get the support they deserve around here and I will try to vote favorably for more of them. Thank you for correcting me. -- carol 07:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
- By the way, do the Commons Photographers use a buddy system when getting photographs like this? I was wondering if there was a gallery of photographers being eaten by their subject yet or plans for one in the future? You know, things just happen and it would be nice to have a camera around when they do happen. -- carol 13:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
- Oh my, what happened there, Carol? Did a million neurons just zap instantaneously in your brain causing a spasm of arbitrary keyboard commands followed by a violent jerk unwillingly pressing you finger on the mouse button while having the pointer positioned over the Save page button? (This is not meant as sarcasm. This is meant as concern.)-- Slaunger 13:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
- Nope. And no offense is taken. I was imagining hanging from a tree getting photographs of a crocodile and thought it would be nice to have a photograph of this photographer taking that photograph -- regardless of the outcome. There was that bird photograph and Dori mentioned (or hinted) that the photographer had to be lying on his belly in the wet sand to get it. There is a joke somewhere within all of this about imagining imagery imaging but I can't make it work out correctly. I began all of this with the assumption that the photographer knew the equipment that was being used and was comfortable with it and was mostly safe the whole time.-- carol 14:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, so that's what you meant? I got the impression from your previous comment that you suggesting feeding Commons photographers to wild animals while photographing it. I'm glad we settled that misundertsanding of mine. I think these thoughts about imagining imagery imaging (albeit interesting) are quite off-topic for the evaluation of this FPC though. -- Slaunger 14:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
- Oh my, what happened there, Carol? Did a million neurons just zap instantaneously in your brain causing a spasm of arbitrary keyboard commands followed by a violent jerk unwillingly pressing you finger on the mouse button while having the pointer positioned over the Save page button? (This is not meant as sarcasm. This is meant as concern.)-- Slaunger 13:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
- By the way, do the Commons Photographers use a buddy system when getting photographs like this? I was wondering if there was a gallery of photographers being eaten by their subject yet or plans for one in the future? You know, things just happen and it would be nice to have a camera around when they do happen. -- carol 13:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
- Well, sir or madam Lycaon, I love those Macro shots as well. I really do. Lord knows, they do not get the support they deserve around here and I will try to vote favorably for more of them. Thank you for correcting me. -- carol 07:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I would love to support this. Could someone have a go at applying an unsharp mask, please? --MichaelMaggs 07:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- MichaelMaggs – I normally upload images that are mostly unprocessed, except perhaps histogram adjustments and minor color adjustments. The reason I do this is so if the image is used in print (or other media), it can be manipulated with freedom for any application, that is, from unsharp to sharp, from low to high contrast, to the measure required by the final output. Over processing may look a picture look nice on screen, but be usless for other applications. In fact, most of the time reduces the possibilities of the editor.
-
-
-
- ALL: Well, I leave you all, and take my sarcasm away with me…. Have fun with the bees and the flowers!!! Love,
-
--Tomascastelazo 15:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
- Support - It is sharp enough all right, and if it has not enough wow factor, I don't know what has. Sometimes this evaluation process is a real farce. We accept very-very simple maps only because they are self-made, but very old and rare ones are rejected, because they are old...--Szilas 18:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
result: 5 supports, 4 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured. Cecil 22:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Salmonberry Blossom.jpg, not featured
- Info: created by en:User:David McMaste - nominated by — WεFt 18:03, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support WεFt 18:03, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose nothing special --- gildemax 18:10, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --Tarawneh 23:41, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Good picture but nothing exceptionnal or informative --Luc Viatour 16:17, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose--Shizhao 12:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support - very good, sharp pic showing both the flower and leaf very well - MPF 17:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
* Support --- gildemax 21:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Urban 06:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
- Pour -- nico@nc 07:57, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support -- Lerdsuwa 16:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Luc l'a dit. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 00:39, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support - Beautiful, caught my eye right away. Cary "Bastique" Bass parler voir 20:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Result: 5 support, 6 oppose => not featured Mglanznig 18:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Coenobita variabilis.jpg, not featured
- Info: created by Vanessa Pike-Russell - nominated by — WεFt 18:02, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support WεFt 18:02, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
- Neutral --- gildemax 18:12, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
- Neutral -- Minto 23:00, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
- , but Neutral Low res. --Tarawneh 23:37, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Low res --Luc Viatour 15:59, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support -- Even if the resolution is "low" , this picture is excellent!!! El Comandante 20:31, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support--Shizhao 12:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose - overexposed, particularly the background - MPF 17:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Urban 06:43, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 3 neutral => not featured Mglanznig 18:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Astronotus ocellatus.jpg, featured
- Info: created by User:Amything - nominated by — WεFt 18:02, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support WεFt 18:02, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support --- gildemax 18:12, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support - PERFECTION... Minto 22:59, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose - Too dark --Tarawneh 23:19, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support what a champ! pfctdayelise (translate?) 05:38, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Luc Viatour 16:01, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support -- Even if the centring is not as best as it could... El Comandante 20:32, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support -- very good.--Songloed 23:35, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support -- AlMare 11:22, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support -- dark background helps focusing on the fish. Berlin-Jurist 13:12, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support--Sebastianm 14:23, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Klemen Kocjančič (Pogovor - Quick response) 08:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Malene Thyssen 07:30, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Thermos 14:40, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support / tsca @ 19:04, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support -- Lerdsuwa 16:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support I mean...all creatures are beautiful but with fish I'm almost tempted to make a few exceptions!! Great shot though. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 14:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support great capture--AngMoKio 09:48, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support, great image. --tomf688 (talk - email) 20:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support, very nice image. Cary "Bastique" Bass parler voir 20:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support FML
hi 02:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Result: 20 support, 1 oppose => featured Mglanznig 18:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Pump-DSC 624111.jpg , not featured
- Info: created by SUZUKI Machiko - uploaded & nominated by Jnn 00:54, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
same picture reframed
- Support --Jnn 00:54, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose nothing special --- gildemax 11:49, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose why the hell is the main pbject so small? --Huebi 14:27, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose mystical??? --Luc Viatour 16:01, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- Neutral How about this reframing ? Teofilo 11:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose--Shizhao 12:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Urban 06:43, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured Mglanznig 18:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Image:S205 Lynx-Heildelberg Zoo 2005.jpg, not featured
- Info: created, uploaded and nominated by --Feodora 12:22, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
The picture is taken in Heidelberg Zoo Germany, EOS 1000 F, Jan. 2005
- Support what else... --Feodora 12:36, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose colors are not so bright and ugly background --Huebi 14:26, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- The lynx is an animal which lives in a forest, so the background is typical! --Feodora 18:29, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --Luc Viatour 16:10, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- can You give a reason please --Feodora 18:29, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- Colors,blur,not natural (zoo)--Luc Viatour 06:25, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose--Shizhao 12:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Ss181292 12:16, 22 May 2006 (UTC) -- distracting background
- Oppose - have to agree with Luc Viatour and Ss181292. Bad scanning artefact at right edge too. - MPF 17:25, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose per above. --- gildemax 21:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- Contre -- reflection, bad scan, pale colours... sorry -- nico@nc 23:02, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Contre Feodora, the lynx is an animal which indeed does live in forests. This one's from a zoo - like the title says. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 14:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- PourGérard Janot 23:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Result: 2 support, 8 oppose => not featured Mglanznig 18:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Dandelion sun.jpg, not featured
- Info: created by avmaierfr - uploaded by FlickrLickr - nominated by Fabien1309 15:41, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Fabien1309 15:41, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose -- too bright -- YolanC 17:27, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- Neutral I am very inclined to support but the composition is lacking. pfctdayelise (translate?) 05:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose--Shizhao 12:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Ss181292 12:15, 22 May 2006 (UTC) -- some artistic value but wikimedia projects are not collections of art.
- Well, kind of... pfctdayelise (translate?) 07:22, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- Why is that so and where does it say that? I haven't heard of a rule that requires pictures to be of a certain value/category/notion... correct me if I am wrong :-) -- Boereck 22:47, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
- Hm?? I just meant to point out that we already have collections of art...pfctdayelise (translate?) 08:33, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Why is that so and where does it say that? I haven't heard of a rule that requires pictures to be of a certain value/category/notion... correct me if I am wrong :-) -- Boereck 22:47, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
- Neutral --- gildemax 21:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- Neutral -- I am not sure what to think. It is special and different on the one hand but a bit on the boring side on the other hand... so I went with the middle. -- Boereck 22:47, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Urban 06:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support Makes a commonplace thing seem quite uncommon. Cary "Bastique" Bass parler voir 20:08, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 3 neutral => not featured Mglanznig 18:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Sumway tunnel- copenhagen.jpg, not featured
- Info: created by Procsilas Moscas - uploaded by FlickrLickr - nominated by Fabien1309 15:40, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Fabien1309 15:40, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Luc Viatour 16:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose -- not special (IMO) -- YolanC 17:26, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- Neutral Pretty good, but I think we can find better. Colours are a bit grey and washed-out, boring. pfctdayelise (translate?) 07:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Minto 18:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- Neutral --- gildemax 21:15, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --Tarawneh 04:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Urban 06:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
- Contre -- nico@nc 07:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 2 neutral => not featured Mglanznig 18:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Lion waiting in Nambia.jpg, featured
- Info: created by yaaaay - uploaded by FlickrLickr - nominated by Fabien1309 15:39, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Fabien1309 15:39, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Luc Viatour 15:57, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support Rex 16:06, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support -- nice -- YolanC 17:26, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support -- El Comandante 20:16, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Rosarium Orans 05:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support--Shizhao 12:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support - MPF 17:22, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support --- gildemax 21:16, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Sebastianm 14:22, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose boring composition. I could imagine more interesting images of a lion norro 16:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Klemen Kocjančič (Pogovor - Quick response) 08:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support -- support, no doubt! :-) (even though the shadow under his tummy is a bit disturbing) -- Boereck 22:41, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support Powerful image. Excellent expression. Fg2 01:53, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Pour -- whaow ! -- nico@nc 07:50, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support cool! 'Pertsa 15:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support -- Get_It (Talk) 00:37, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support great --AngMoKio 09:45, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support, excellent image. --tomf688 (talk - email) 20:55, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose - not a Commons original...source: Flickr. This is my opinion Cary "Bastique" Bass parler voir 20:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- Hi. I think, this reason isn't fair. No image is a commons original in that every image is the work of its creator. The fact, if it was uploaded to flickr first or to the commons shouldn't take any effect on this candidature. We only vote if the candidates should be features as extra useful for wikimedia projects. norro 18:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Gérard Janot 20:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Result: 18 support, 3 oppose => featured Mglanznig 18:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Seating - Seattle Public Library.jpg, not featured
- Info: created by Jan Tik - uploaded by FlickrLickr - nominated by Fabien1309 15:38, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Fabien1309 15:38, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Luc Viatour 16:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Dark and strange -- YolanC 17:25, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- Neutral the structure of the glassfront is cool but the front is disturbing --Feodora 18:34, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose -- The lower part of the picture is too confused, the shadows are too complex. El Comandante 20:19, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support pfctdayelise (translate?) 07:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose--Shizhao 12:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose - ditto to El Comandante; it looks like there is a large puddle on the floor there, but it isn't clear - MPF 17:20, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support --- gildemax 21:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --Tarawneh 04:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Urban 06:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Anatol 22:06, 27 May 2006
Result: 4 support, 7 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured Mglanznig 18:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Insect crawling on human.jpg, not featured
- Info: created by Rodrigo Senna - uploaded by FlickrLickr - nominated by Fabien1309 15:37, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Fabien1309 15:37, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose -- not special (IMO) -- YolanC 17:25, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support the details are very good seen nice picture, hard to do that way --Feodora 18:36, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Good picture but nothing exceptionnal or informative. El Comandante 20:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Watermark --Keeleysam 03:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support very good. Bug ID would be even better. pfctdayelise (translate?) 05:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- Neutral - would support if identification provided - MPF 17:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support --- gildemax 21:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Urban 06:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support great quality and detailing Slovik 07:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose - Not a commons original Cary "Bastique" Bass parler voir 20:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Result: 5 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured Mglanznig 18:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Flammulina velutipes.JPG, featured
- Info: Flammulina velutipes fungo invernale - created by Archenzo - nominated by Minto 17:29, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support -- Minto 17:29, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support nice picture, rare to find that way --Feodora 18:38, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support -- Clear, nice and informative. El Comandante 20:21, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support -- this is not bad! --Songloed 23:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Rosarium Orans 05:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Luc Viatour 06:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support pfctdayelise (translate?) 07:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support--Shizhao 12:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support Ss181292 12:12, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support - (though would like to know the identity of the tree it is growing on, too; it may be a Populus but I'm not certain on bark alone) - MPF 17:16, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
* Support --- gildemax 21:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose -
-
- That's NOT an argument!!! El Comandante 20:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Cut at the bottom and upper-right. Would like to see it slightly from the side norro 16:40, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support Oonagh 18:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support -- Gnangarra 03:58, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Klemen Kocjančič (Pogovor - Quick response) 08:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Urban 06:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support / tsca @ 19:02, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support -- Anatol 22:06, 27 May 2006
- Pour -- good encyclopedic content -- nico@nc 07:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support -- Lerdsuwa 16:49, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose I do not see how this deserves to be featured. OK shot for sure and the colours are nice, but that's it. The resolution isn't exactly sky-high. And it should be when the subject and composition is what it is (OK I admit it's hard to get mushrooms to dance etc.) --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 23:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support —FoeNyx 15:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support Cary "Bastique" Bass parler voir 20:12, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support Nice pic. Ziga 22:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Result: 20 support, 4 oppose => featured Mglanznig 18:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Sandro Botticelli 046.jpg, featured
- Info: created by Sandro Botticelli - uploaded by User:File Upload Bot (Eloquence) - nominated by Gryffindor 17:30, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Gryffindor 17:30, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support--Teveten 19:03, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Hasta ∞ 17:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)- Support -- Minto 01:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support--Keeleysam 03:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Luc Viatour 06:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support -- AlMare 11:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support--Shizhao 12:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose - Don't care for this one. Can think of much nicer famous paintings to select for inclusion - MPF 17:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- But this is truly one of the nicest and most famous paintings ever made, along with "Mona Lisa", "Scream" and a few others.. and the quality is excellent.. what's your point? Minto 18:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --gildemax 21:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support have value for encyclopedia--Sebastianm 14:21, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Klemen Kocjančič (Pogovor - Quick response) 08:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Prevert(talk) 23:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support -- Lerdsuwa 16:50, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support pfctdayelise (translate?) 14:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Gérard Janot 20:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Result: 12 support, 3 oppose => featured Mglanznig 08:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Waterval_Ova_Fedoz.jpg, not featured
- Info: Waterval Ova Fedoz - uploaded by Gerrit - nominated by Minto 17:43, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Minto 17:43, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support You can really feel the waterfall and smell it...Nice done --Feodora 18:49, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose -- I enjoy more this one, ok it is not the same subject but... YolanC 19:02, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- You can't be serious comparing two pics that different.. the falls and landscapes can't be compared at all, i like both.. the dark looks like nordic mystery, it makes this pic very special .. Minto 19:55, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- ok, they are different but I can't say they have the same quality/beauty (IMO). YolanC 20:04, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- You can't be serious comparing two pics that different.. the falls and landscapes can't be compared at all, i like both.. the dark looks like nordic mystery, it makes this pic very special .. Minto 19:55, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Too dark and chaotic for me. El Comandante 20:24, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Rosarium Orans 04:59, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Luc Viatour 06:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support That mist is perfect! pfctdayelise (translate?) 08:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support - very nice. Would like to see a bit more info on the location on the photo page - MPF 17:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
* Support --gildemax 21:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose -
- Support Incredible!Sebastianm 14:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Overexposed sky, too dark foreground and not the best quality norro 16:39, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support -- Gnangarra 03:42, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Klemen Kocjančič (Pogovor - Quick response) 08:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose -- sorry, I don't like it due to very dark foreground! without the stone it would have been at least twice as good! -- Boereck 22:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Urban 06:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Malene Thyssen 07:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Rex 22:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Joonasl 16:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose like it, but featered.... not SO good. 'Pertsa 15:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support Excellent composition. Freedom to share 15:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose unbalanced lighting. --Dschwen 14:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support Beautiful picture. Cary "Bastique" Bass parler voir 20:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Result: 13 support, 9 oppose => not featured Mglanznig 08:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Hvalba.jpg, not featured
- Info: The village Hvalba in the Faroes (Faroes gallery) - created by Erik Christensen - nominated by Minto 18:01, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Minto 18:01, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Nothing really special about this picture. El Comandante 20:24, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I really like this, its composition is good etc, but when I look more closely it seems like this pic has some kind of Photoshop error on the island in the background? don't think that's a featured quality. Minto 20:52, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose -Quasipalm 00:48, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support - Nice pic. I think the dark patch on the island is a cliff in shadow - MPF 17:08, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Oppose Can't see any thing special, OK nice pic, that's all --Tarawneh 04:48, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose blur? --Luc Viatour 09:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- Neutral - I think it to be a cute pic. But that is it. Cute. -- Boereck 22:39, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Urban 06:40, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support / tsca @ 19:01, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support I don't know about the black hole either. It looks like a cave entrance to a hideout of an enemy of James Bond. But that aside, I dig this. Even the village name is cute. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 14:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support Beautiful picture Cary "Bastique" Bass parler voir 20:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support Gérard Janot 23:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Result: 6 support, 6 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured Mglanznig 08:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Red_Maple_Leaves_in_Yahiko.JPG, not featured
- Info: created by Aney - nominated by Minto 18:39, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Minto 18:39, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose -- focus and sharpness -- YolanC 18:52, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Bad composition (not enough contrast of the subject on the background). El Comandante 20:25, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose -- out of context! --Songloed 23:32, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose nothing special, Colors --Luc Viatour 06:51, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose - no single, whole, complete uncropped leaf - MPF 16:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose -
- ??? when did POTD became the same thing as a fetured pic? and if; why isn't this pic categorized as a FP? Minto 22:51, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- POTD is NOT the same as FP. POTD do not have to be featured and FPs don't have to be POTDs. They're not related concepts (yet), please don't confuse them --pfctdayelise (translate?) 01:09, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- ??? when did POTD became the same thing as a fetured pic? and if; why isn't this pic categorized as a FP? Minto 22:51, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- Contre -- nico@nc 07:46, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Opposeno leaf is completly on the pic--AngMoKio 09:43, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Result: 1 support, 8 oppose => not featured Mglanznig 08:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Don Quixote 1.jpg, featured
- Info: A strong subject for a great illustrator...
Uploaded by Holger Thölking and nominated by El Comandante 21:03, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support --El Comandante 21:03, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support -- Minto 02:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Luc Viatour 06:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- 反对--Shizhao 12:12, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support - fascinating. MPF 16:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- Neutral --- gildemax 21:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Klemen Kocjančič (Pogovor - Quick response) 08:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Prevert(talk) 23:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Urban 06:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
- Pour -- nico@nc 07:46, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support -- Lerdsuwa 16:46, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Joonasl 16:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Gérard Janot 23:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Result: 9 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral => featured Mglanznig 08:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Map_at_millstaetter_see.svg, featured
- Info: Map of Lake Millstatt (Austria) with surrounding towns
created and uploaded by Mglanznig - self nomination 21:32, 21 May 2006
- Support -- great work, I've made a few maps for wikimedia and know how much work is involved. kudos. --Quasipalm 00:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support -- great work.. Minto 02:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Rosarium Orans 04:59, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Luc Viatour 06:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support -- AlMare 11:15, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support - MPF 16:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --gildemax 21:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC) Any suggestions for refinements? Thanks. --Mglanznig 07:39, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support -- Greate graphic.Sebastianm 14:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support I think, this map is really outstanding. This is exactly what we need for wikipedia. Great job, Mglanznig. norro 16:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Klemen Kocjančič (Pogovor - Quick response) 08:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support -- Anatol 22:06, 27 May 2006
- Support Exemplary graphics for maps. You should do some tutoring. --Bep 20:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support - Well done ! -- Fabien1309 10:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Looks fine enough but there's some techical fishiness - when you try to view it at full res, a horde of new, empty browser windows open. So that's superannoying and I have to oppose! --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 14:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- Comment I used Inkscape to create this map and haven't edited the SVG code directly. If you tell me what kind of browser (and version) you have used I could try to reproduce and fix this. Firefox seems to have no problems with the image, so maybe it's a bug in your browser's SVG implementation? --Mglanznig 19:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- Actually I'm using Firefox, the version is Mac 1.0.4. In the prefs, it says that .svgs are opened by Firefox itself. Dunno! --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 00:52, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Result: 12 support, 2 oppose => featured Mglanznig 08:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Athabasca Rail at Brule Lake.jpg, featured
- Info: created by Anomity - uploaded by Anomity - nominated by Anomity
- Support -- Anomity 21:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support just like a painting --che 21:29, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose grainy and boring, no real subject norro 21:47, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support - I came back three times to look at the image and I was torn... I LOVE the thumb but the bigger views reveal a somewhat lacking cut on the right hand side (by the way, I love the color of exactly that patch of the thumb image): I am talking about the very light spot on the far right. The contrasting colors are vivid and well done and the mist adds a little extra. As I said, I like it in thumb size. I am unsure about full size! :-) -- Boereck 22:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose colors are quite weird, the mountains in the background are too blurry and the foreground is not that great to counter that -- Gorgo 23:16, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Malene Thyssen 07:02, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Wikimol 10:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - baffled . . . "This photo was taken on January 6, 2006" . . . so why the trees in autumn colours, and lack of snow in a heavy-snowfall area? Definitely something odd here. I'd say October or early November. - MPF 16:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- Interesting that you noticed. This photo was taken in January, but this year we had one of the most bizarre winters in Alberta I have ever seen. We didn't get any snow until early February. If you look at this picture you can see the river is a bit frozen over. Regarding the color of the trees, those are all evergreens. Anomity 19:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- Thanks for the extra info; I took the yellow trees in the middle distance to be Subalpine Larches in autumn colour. Voting Support for the pic - MPF 15:07, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the extra info; I took the yellow trees in the middle distance to be Subalpine Larches in autumn colour. Voting
- Neutral Take photo in this place with train! Will be greate.--Sebastianm 18:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- That is what everyone keeps telling me, unfortunately it is a difficult place to get too and the tracks are not used very often. Anomity 19:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose - too grainy --Pumbaa 20:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support - the image itself is good but the uniqueness of the weather(lack of snow) is more interesting than the image. For this alone the image has the potential to become a significant artifact on climate change. Gnangarra 08:13, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support / tsca @ 18:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support Beautiful, painterly photo Fg2 01:50, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Dti 16:48, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 00:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Joonasl 16:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support Great colors. --Bep 16:51, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support - there is some noise in the pic and it is a bit blur but the composition and atmosphere is great; --AngMoKio 09:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support --tomf688 (talk - email) 20:58, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support -- Rüdiger Wölk 16:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Klemen Kocjančič (Pogovor - Quick response) 07:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Tomascastelazo 17:12, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Result: 18 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral => featured Anomity 17:06, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Image:100_2466.jpg, not featured
- Nomination by User: AnjelaWhite template fixed by Gnangarra 10:19, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose - what's on his beak ? - YolanC 10:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
They call it food... Anjela White
- Neutre Oppose -- nice but bad lightning and same as YolanC. -- nico@nc 11:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- 反对--Shizhao 11:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose - unsharp, strange angle. Rex 21:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes strange angle-those woodpeckers get into the weirdest poses!
- Oppose ACK Rex, bad image quality norro 22:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose blurry -- Fabien1309 19:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose blurry (tho' angle is OK for a woodpecker). Species is Melanerpes carolinus. - MPF 23:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose bad image quality --Luc Viatour 09:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --- gildemax 12:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose MGo 09:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --ßøuñçêY2K 13:40, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Results: 0
[edit] Image:Jakriborg, juni 2005 e.jpg, not featured
- Info: created by Väsk - uploaded by Väsk - nominated by Grillo 18:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support Grillo 18:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Ss181292 19:58, 28 May 2006 (UTC) - walls should be vertical
- Contre -- it would be better with few people, sun and vertical walls... ;-) -- nico@nc 23:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Colors, nothing special, horizon --Luc Viatour 06:27, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose see nico --Huebi 07:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- 反对--Shizhao 11:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --Joonasl 16:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose - Aka Nico@nc -- Fabien1309 19:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Get_It (Talk) 00:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --- gildemax 12:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Rüdiger Wölk 16:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --ßøuñçêY2K 13:39, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Result: 1 support, 11 oppose => not featured Mglanznig 21:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Fin 121004 04.gif, not featured
- Info: created by Klafui - uploaded by Maksim - nominated by Grillo 16:18, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support Grillo 16:21, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Contra --Dti 16:37, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Contre -- not exceptionnal and the house with its streetlight in the right corner isn't very interesting... sorry -- nico@nc 23:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose not exceptionnal, best color --Luc Viatour 06:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Strongly oppose Ss181292 08:59, 29 May 2006 (UTC) -- 1. Resolution - only 454x567px, 2. It's GIF! So it is only 256 colours! It's been about 10 years since we had 256 colour graphic cards in our computers, 3. Nothing special about this photo anyway.
- Comment See here for file types : Commons:File_types (I think it's best on this page but it's in French). The size is also very small...
- Oppose --Joonasl 16:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose - GIF, not very interesting picture -- Fabien1309 19:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose - 256 colours seems plenty enough to look good. But I don't like the building and street light in the bottom corner - MPF 23:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Get_It (Talk) 00:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose - intention of pic is not visible; not a good quality --AngMoKio 09:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support a nice fall picture --- gildemax 12:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose MGo 09:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --ßøuñçêY2K 13:39, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Result: 2 support, 11 oppose => not featured Mglanznig 21:18, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Nouméa Ile des Pins Upi.JPG, not featured
- Info: created by Bruno.Menetrier - uploaded by Bruno.Menetrier - nominated by nico@nc 09:40, 28 May 2006 (UTC)]]
- Pour -- nico@nc 09:40, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- 反对--Shizhao 11:22, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --Huebi 13:19, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Dti 16:38, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose noise, colors, error compression? --Luc Viatour 06:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- yes, you're right... so Neutre -- nico@nc 11:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- yes, you're right... so
- Contre -- Bananaflo 23:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --Joonasl 16:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support - unique limestone erosion features. Very useful pic for the encyclopaedias - MPF 23:18, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Get_It (Talk) 00:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support Cary "Bastique" Bass parler voir 17:12, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose usefulness for the encyclopaedia does not mean "featured picture" Gérard Janot 12:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- Neutral --- gildemax 12:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Rüdiger Wölk 16:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --ßøuñçêY2K 13:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Result: 3 support, 9 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured Mglanznig 21:14, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Plage ouvea.jpg, not featured
- Info: created by Bananaflo - uploaded by Bananaflo - nominated by nico@nc 09:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)]]
- Pour -- maybe a bit cloudy... ? -- nico@nc 09:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose just a beach --Huebi 13:20, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose clearly tilted norro 14:23, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose horizon, low res --Luc Viatour 06:33, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Urban 20:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Pour -- Bananaflo 23:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --Joonasl 16:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Neutral Yes, it is tilted, by about 2.5°. It would be a nice pic if straightened, though the flora here (Casuarina) is not one of New Caledonia's numerous weird endemics - MPF 23:46, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Neutral --- gildemax 12:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Rüdiger Wölk 16:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Neutral --ßøuñçêY2K 13:37, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Result: 2 support, 6 oppose, 3 neutral => not featured Mglanznig 21:13, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Sud NC.JPG, not featured
- Info: created by Bananaflo - uploaded by Bananaflo - nominated by nico@nc 09:27, 28 May 2006 (UTC)]]
- Pour -- nico@nc 09:27, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Huebi 13:21, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose blurry. Especially motion blur in the leafs. Freaky colours though norro 14:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Dti 16:38, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose blurry --Luc Viatour 06:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Pour -- This picture is a scan of an argentic one, this is why you may find it blurry. Moreover, I do assure that the colors are genuine !! Bananaflo 23:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support just love the colours. pfctdayelise (translate?) 14:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support - valuable encyclopaedic pic of phytotoxic nickel-rich serpentine soils unique to New Caledonia. We need more pics of this fascinating country and its strange flora! - MPF 23:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose very nice photo, but too much saturation or something.... 'Pertsa 14:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose I cannot believe the colours are for real. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 00:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose maybe useful, but ugly Gérard Janot 12:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support --- gildemax 12:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Klemen Kocjančič (Pogovor - Quick response) 07:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --ßøuñçêY2K 13:37, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support -- Lerdsuwa 13:19, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Result: 9 support, 6 oppose => not featured Mglanznig 21:12, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Second_world_war_europe_animation_large_de.gif, not featured
- Support I love it cause I'm learning for my matura (~general qualification for university entrance in austria) and it helps me a lot to imaginate and remember, so I think it also has a high value for the encyclopedia - Anatol
- Pour Very good work, although it is in German... - nico@nc 07:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Pour ♦ Pabix ℹ 07:29, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support--Sebastianm 09:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support--Shizhao 11:22, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Hi Gnangarra. This is an general issue with animated GIFs when scaled down. Look at it at full-size to see it working. Kindly norro 12:55, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- thank for info, Only the high res version works properly Gnangarra 15:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- according to Commons:Help Desk its the size of the image that is causing the problem the more RAM your machine has that better it scales down. For this reason I have changed my vote back to oppose as the animation isnt useful if it cant be viewed by the majority of users Gnangarra 12:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Dti 16:40, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Contre It would be an excellent document if it could be used reduced, because like this, it's unusable on most of the screens. El Comandante 18:38, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: This is a MediaWiki bug. ♦ Pabix ℹ 16:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- OK, but I'll vote for it only when the bug will be solved and the image usable, otherwise I think it doesn't mean anything. El ComandanteHasta ∞ 22:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- OK, but I'll vote for it only when the bug will be solved and the image usable, otherwise I think it doesn't mean anything. El Comandante
- Comment: This is a MediaWiki bug. ♦ Pabix ℹ 16:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Pour --Luc Viatour 06:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose, Picture is usable only in full resolution. --Teme 09:22, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Contra, as per above --Artefacto 15:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Joonasl 16:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose - the full size is too large to see on-screen, the smaller size suffers from the weird bug (which the Canadian Provinces animated gif didn't; scroll down this page) - MPF 23:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose 'Pertsa 14:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support amazing work -- technical problems aren't an issue with the image, it's an issue with the MediaWiki tech involved. -Quasipalm 19:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC) 19:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support great work - Gwir 09:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose animation does not work Gérard Janot 12:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- Neutral --- gildemax 12:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support Slovik 03:44, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --ßøuñçêY2K 13:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose--83.165.98.117 15:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose doesn't work correctly (Mozilla/Linux) --Wmeinhart 18:07, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Result: 11 support, 10 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured Mglanznig 21:10, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Image:201 au 28 -07-2004 553.jpg, not featured
- Info: created by Bananaflo - uploaded by Bananaflo - nominated by nico@nc 05:59, 27 May 2006 (UTC)]]
- Support --nico@nc 05:59, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support - MPF 13:00, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support--Shizhao 13:49, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support -- Gnangarra 03:27, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support -- Huebi 08:09, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose cliff is cut at the left, bad lighting, not a very interesting subject. For me just a technically not too good postcard shot norro 12:58, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Comment Definitely an interesting subject - it is the only photo we have of the endangered species Araucaria luxurians - MPF 23:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- Neutre Support low res, Interesting, very particular vegetation --Luc Viatour 06:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- A lot of featured pictures are 1024*768 (i.e: Image:Port_wine.jpg, Image:Kerala_India_tea_fields.jpg) and sometime smaller (i.e:Image:Karachi_-_Pakistan-market.jpg). I hope you'll reconsider your decision. -- nico@nc 10:59, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- De nombreuses images de qualité sont en 1024*768 (ex : Image:Port_wine.jpg, Image:Kerala_India_tea_fields.jpg) voire même plus petit (ex : Image:Karachi_-_Pakistan-market.jpg). J'espère donc que vous reconsidererez votre jugement. -- nico@nc 10:59, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Il est dommage de ne pas avoir une meilleure résolution, le plus intéressant dans cette image, c'est cette végétation particulière et elle n'est pas suffisamment détaillée. Si le nombre de votes n'est pas suffisant, je changerai mon vote! Par contre, par ma neutralité j'espère inciter l'auteur à faire un upload d'une version plus détaillée --Luc Viatour 14:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- I was running out of memory during the trip, and was forced to downgrade the rez setting of the camera.... I regret I couldn't post an higher quality shot !! Bananaflo 02:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Ok, i change my vote --Luc Viatour 04:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Good News !! (or maybe not !?) Uploaded a new version of the picture, took with another camera of mine, in hirez, available here : [[1]]. Unfortunately, the weather was not as shiny as the previous verson. Thus, i uploaded the new picture as another file, so you can judge by yourself the pros/cons of changing the actual picture. Please give feedback on my Wikipedia user page =) Please remember to reconsider your vote if the new picture tricks you ! Bananaflo 10:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
- Ok, i change my vote --Luc Viatour 04:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- I was running out of memory during the trip, and was forced to downgrade the rez setting of the camera.... I regret I couldn't post an higher quality shot !! Bananaflo 02:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Il est dommage de ne pas avoir une meilleure résolution, le plus intéressant dans cette image, c'est cette végétation particulière et elle n'est pas suffisamment détaillée. Si le nombre de votes n'est pas suffisant, je changerai mon vote! Par contre, par ma neutralité j'espère inciter l'auteur à faire un upload d'une version plus détaillée --Luc Viatour 14:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support -- Lerdsuwa 16:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Pour -- Bananaflo 23:49, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Contre I appreciate the rarity of the vegetation in question, but we're voting on the quality of the photographs here. The cut cliff on the left bothers me. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 23:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support --- gildemax 12:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose mal cadré Gérard Janot 22:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Bad centring and poor emotional strength. El ComandanteHasta ∞ 10:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Boereck 16:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support --ßøuñçêY2K 13:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
- Contra --Artefacto 14:32, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Result: 10 support, 6 oppose => not featured Mglanznig 21:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Lunar libration with phase2.gif, featured
- Info: Made by Tomruen - uploaded by Saperaud - nominated by Jon Harald Søby 23:06, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Jon Harald Søby 23:06, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support Ss181292 07:44, 27 May 2006 (UTC) -- very high encyclopedic value! Good resolution as for an animation.
- Support Makes me wonder how the hell he did that... 172.200.154.175 12:14, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Anonymous users cannot vote, but I wonder that too and Support the picture. Freedom to share 15:24, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Anonymous users cannot vote, but I wonder that too and
- Support fascinating norro 12:26, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support--Shizhao 13:50, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support El Comandante 22:38, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support -- Gnangarra 03:28, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Pour interesting -- nico@nc 07:20, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Huebi 08:10, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support--Sebastianm 09:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Dti 16:41, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Luc Viatour 06:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Prevert(talk) 16:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support -- Lerdsuwa 16:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support nice. (I'm in a verbose mood tonight) --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 00:47, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Joonasl 16:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support -- Fabien1309 19:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support -Quasipalm 19:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support Gordo 15:30, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support Notwist 08:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support -- Get_It (Talk) 00:35, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support - really great --AngMoKio 09:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support —FoeNyx 15:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support --tomf688 (talk - email) 20:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support Cary "Bastique" Bass parler voir 17:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support --- gildemax 12:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support MGo 09:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --ßøuñçêY2K 13:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support----Lmbuga gl, pt, es: fala comigo 15:35, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Wmeinhart 18:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support--Miguel303xm 10:01, 11 Jun 2006 (UTC)
Result: 30 support, 1 oppose => featured Mglanznig 21:07, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Lech Augsburg.jpg, not featured
- Info: created by Thgoiter - uploaded by Thgoiter - nominated by 84.155.81.230 19:50, 26 May 2006 (UTC)]]
- Oppose I don't see anything special --che 00:59, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose--Shizhao 13:50, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- I am the author of this photography and I have to admit that there is nothing excellent in this picture even though it illustrates many articles. If there are no objections the candidate might be deleted. --Thgoiter ⇔ 14:28, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Whoa, this is FPC, not deletion requests! :) It doesn't need to be deleted just because it's not feature material. pfctdayelise (translate?) 00:14, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Neutral nice but nothing special nico@nc 07:14, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose nothing special with boaring foreground --Huebi 08:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose nothing special --Luc Viatour 06:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --- gildemax 16:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --Joonasl 16:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose nothing special -- Fabien1309 19:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose absolutely 'Pertsa 15:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Rüdiger Wölk 16:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --ßøuñçêY2K 13:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Result: 10 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured Mglanznig 21:06, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Maple-oliv2.jpg, not featured
- Info: created by Olegivvit - uploaded by Olegivvit - nominated by Olegivvit 17:36, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Olegivvit 17:36, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Good photo, and illustrative, but not exceptionnal in an aesthetic point of vue. El Comandante 18:53, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support -- even though one of the leaves is cut on the top of the pic, it is still exceptional. great work! -- Boereck 20:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Dti 16:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Neutre -- nice but nothing exceptionnal... -- nico@nc 23:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Urban 20:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --- gildemax 16:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Joonasl 16:39, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support - been hesitating a while, but decided I like it, not least because the leaves and fruit show well enough for it to be readily identifiable. Species is Acer platanoides. - MPF 15:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --Ggonnell 00:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support --ßøuñçêY2K 13:32, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
- Contra --Artefacto 14:30, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Result: 6 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured Mglanznig 21:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Skreifiske.jpg, not featured
- Info: created by Røeds father - uploaded by Røed - nominated by Røed 17:31, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Røed 17:31, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Kjetil_r 17:47, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Strongly oppose Ss181292 18:09, 26 May 2006 (UTC) --- Arrrrgh, another sunset!
- Oppose Too dark, and agree with Ss181292. El Comandante 19:08, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose -- too dark -- YolanC 23:52, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose {{Oppose-sunset}} --che 01:01, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --Shizhao 13:51, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose nothing special and another sunset! --Luc Viatour 06:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --- gildemax 16:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
-
Oppose sunset. Sunsets are nice. However, featured sunsets should IMO be either outstanding among all sunsets or have other strong theme than sunset. --Wikimol 21:01, 4 June 2006 (UTC) - Oppose -- Rüdiger Wölk 16:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --ßøuñçêY2K 13:32, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose I don't like the centered position of the sun. Aditionally, the silhouette of the boat is uninteresting - just one big black area. The fish had potential, but they should never "merge". --Artefacto 14:29, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Result: 2 support, 11 oppose => not featured Mglanznig 21:04, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Image:PilierKomOmbo.jpg, not featured
- Info: created by Gwir - uploaded by Gwir - nominated by Gwir 14:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Gwir 14:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Neutral I love the subject and the photo is very good and informative, but I don't know... The centring, the composition? I don't feel it's an outstanding picture. Sorry, try again. El Comandante 19:16, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- I put this picture for the colors and the detailed sculptures of the hieroglyphs. The centring gives volume to the pictures, but I know that the background is poor. Gwir 10:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- 反对--Shizhao 13:50, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Anatol 21:47, 27 May 2006
- Contre -- bad centring, a bit dark, sorry -- nico@nc 07:27, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Neutral I agree with El Comandante --Luc Viatour 06:49, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Urban 20:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Neutral --- gildemax 16:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Joonasl 16:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support - Great picture for me :) -- Fabien1309 19:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support 'Pertsa 15:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Tarawneh 22:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Malene Thyssen 21:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose ACK El Comandante norro 16:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --ßøuñçêY2K 13:29, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Result: 7 support, 5 oppose, 3 neutral => not featured Mglanznig 21:03, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Image: Circo y cima de Peñalara1.JPG, not featured
- Info: created by Miguel303xm - uploaded by Miguel303xm - nominated by Miguel303xm 13:12, 26 may 2006 (UTC)
- Support -- I like the landscape and the reflect which is not perfect. -- YolanC 13:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support - Beautiful - MPF 15:27, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose -- the mirror effect is neat. but the horizon is slanted, the lighting is akward and the motive seems too busy and disturbing to me - sorry. -- Boereck 21:01, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- En contra Miguel: el horizonte está inclinado, y no me gustan las fotos 4:3 de paisajes. El efecto es bueno y simétrico, pero la foto vista en tamaño reducido es un poco confusa para mi gusto. Barcex 21:02, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Pour -- nice (maybe a bit dark on the front ?) -- nico@nc 07:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose I agree with Boereck --Luc Viatour 06:50, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Urban 20:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose a bit dark --- gildemax 16:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Not bad, but not outstanding -- Fabien1309 19:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support nice picture Gérard Janot 22:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- Neutral -- Rüdiger Wölk 16:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --ßøuñçêY2K 13:29, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Result: 4 support, 7 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured Mglanznig 21:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Schwaznacht.jpg, not featured
- Info: created by User:Know_Nothing - uploaded by User:Know_Nothing - nominated by Yoda]]
- Support --Schönes Panorama
- Neutral - nice picture Gnangarra 08:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose -- licence missing -- YolanC 13:20, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose -- licence missing --Luc Viatour 06:52, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Urban 20:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose -- licence missing --- gildemax 16:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Pour - Gwir 08:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support FML hi 02:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Rüdiger Wölk 16:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support --ßøuñçêY2K 13:30, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Result: 4 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured Mglanznig 21:00, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Canada provinces evolution.gif, featured
- Info: created by Golbez - uploaded by Golbez - nominated by White Cat -- Cat ちぃ？ 15:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Support -- Cat ちぃ？ 15:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Support Very cool! JaGa 15:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Support This is a fantastic, useful and valuable animation. Good technical quality and a clear purpose and useability make it a definite featured picture. Freedom to share 15:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Question: I find that it is a very good animation. But, is there a good explanation for selecting grey, pink and light brown as the main colours? In my opinon they do not look very good together. Admittedly, I do not have the perfect alternative suggestion readily available, but how a about using a pale red, pale blue and pale yellow or other more 'pure' colour combinations? But again, I like the animation, and it is good way to illustrate the timeline of the provinces in Canada. -- Slaunger 19:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Explanation: I started making locator maps using pale pink and bright red. Then when I had to include foreign areas, I started using brown. When I started doing this, I used brown for territories and decided to go with a neutral gray for foreign areas. I'm not justifying it, but you did ask for an explanation. ;) --Golbez 05:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Thank you for the explanation, it was an honest one ;-) I have thought about it, and I think the colours selection has to be improved to make it FP worthy. Sorry -- Slaunger 20:33, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- Explanation: I started making locator maps using pale pink and bright red. Then when I had to include foreign areas, I started using brown. When I started doing this, I used brown for territories and decided to go with a neutral gray for foreign areas. I'm not justifying it, but you did ask for an explanation. ;) --Golbez 05:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- Support Very nice. --Karelj 20:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Support -LadyofHats 15:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- Support--Mbz1 17:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- Support --MichaelMaggs 21:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- Support Though I am with Slaunger on the colors. --Digon3 talk 15:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- Support Oh Canada. Doo-dle-doo 20:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- Support Poromiami 6:03 3 October 2007 (CEST)
result: 10 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 19:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Tired-moose.jpg, not featured
- Nominated by Liftarn 11:30, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Liftarn 11:30, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose -- very zooish.. Minto 11:35, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose--Shizhao 11:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose - ditto to Minto - MPF 16:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Ss181292 07:20, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support -- I just like this one, looks like he had a great party! MartinD 08:36, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Contre -- looks dead -- nico@nc 07:29, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Dti 16:45, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- A favor --Artefacto 17:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Urban 20:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --- gildemax 16:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Joonasl 16:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support Notwist 08:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support I like it - it's funny Gérard Janot 23:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose lelote 16:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --ßøuñçêY2K 13:27, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Result: 7 support, 9 oppose => not featured Mglanznig 20:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Caveja.png, not featured
The Caveja (read as: "Caveya") is a symbol of Romagna, a historical region of Italy. This Caveja is a scan from a very very old print that is typical of this region. Simple but very ancient, it is a recurring element in popular culture of Romagna.
[edit] Image on left (PNG version), not featured
- Info: scan, upload and nomination by /\/\π 10:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support --/\/\π 10:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
- 反对. I support SVG --Shizhao 11:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose -- a fancy stickman. big: NO! -- Boereck 15:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
- Contra --Dti 16:46, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Contre El ComandanteHasta ∞ 09:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Result: 1 support, 4 oppose => not featured Mglanznig 20:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Image on right (SVG version), not featured
- Info: I've uploaded SVG version of this image. Ss181292 20:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support great!! thnx for the vector version. --/\/\π 21:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
- Contra --Dti 16:46, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Contre El ComandanteHasta ∞ 09:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Result: 1 support, 2 oppose => not featured Mglanznig 20:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Both Images, not featured
- Oppose nothing special norro 09:33, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Contra --Dti 16:46, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support --- gildemax 16:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Contre El ComandanteHasta ∞ 09:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --ßøuñçêY2K 13:27, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Result: 1 support, 4 oppose => not featured Mglanznig 20:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Heron herdsman lake.jpg, not featured
- Photo take by Gnangarra and nominated by Gnangarra 03:40, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support -- Gnangarra 03:40, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support -- nice, natural environement, not yet this bird in Featured --Luc Viatour 04:34, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Ss181292 07:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC) distracting foreground. Legs hidden. Foreground little blurry. Ss181292 07:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Klemen Kocjančič (Pogovor - Quick response) 08:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose--Shizhao 11:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Tarawneh 14:43, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose To catch a heron in such a situation is not too rare, so ich think, it should be possible to do it in a better way. Less sticks in the foreground (better in the background) and heron not covered by them. And yes, it's a little bit blurry norro 16:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose composition (gras should be in the background and bird in the foreground, not the other way round) -- Gorgo 23:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Urban 06:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support - species is Egretta alba - MPF 16:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support Gordo 19:12, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose - composition - Rex 21:58, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --Joonasl 16:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Rüdiger Wölk 16:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Ggonnell 00:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Tomascastelazo 17:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --ßøuñçêY2K 13:25, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Result: 8 support, 9 oppose => not featured Mglanznig 20:55, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Coal and Fire.JPG, not featured
- Info: created by snty-tact (Talk) - uploaded by snty-tact (Talk) - nominated by snty-tact (Talk) 14:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support If you have a some improvement, please tell me.--snty-tact (Talk) 14:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Not too bad, but cut at the bottom and very grainy even when not zoomed to fullsize norro 16:33, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Bad centring. El Comandante 17:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- Neutral --- gildemax 09:40, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --Tarawneh 14:44, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Urban 06:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
- Neutral Very beautiful image, but too much grainy --/\/\π 12:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Rüdiger Wölk 16:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --ßøuñçêY2K 13:25, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Result: 1 support, 6 oppose, 2 neutral => not featured Mglanznig 20:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Giraffe.JPG, not featured
- Info: created by Scambelo - uploaded by Scambelo - nominated by Scambelo 13:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Scambelo 13:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Ss181292 07:16, 24 May 2006 (UTC) distracting background
- Oppose - ditto to Ss181292, particularly the blurred Giraffe neck appearing to hang from the near one's chin - MPF 16:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
- Contre -- Same remark as MPF -- nico@nc 07:34, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Neutral --- gildemax 16:23, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --Joonasl 16:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Neutral - Quite good, but the neck in the backgound is disturbing -- Fabien1309 10:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Rüdiger Wölk 16:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. Unfortunately, the second giraffe creates a very disturbing effect. Bad luck with timing... Jastrow 18:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose MGo 09:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Neutral --ßøuñçêY2K 13:25, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Result: 1 support, 7 oppose, 3 neutral => not featured Mglanznig 20:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Image:DaChanBaoShaoChan.jpg, not featured
- Info: created by Richy - uploaded by Shizhao - nominated by Shizhao 09:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Shizhao 09:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose nothing special --Huebi 13:09, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose nothing special --Luc Viatour 14:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose poor composition. Doesn't even look very tasty for me :) norro 16:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose nothing special --- gildemax 09:39, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose--Tarawneh 15:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose -- I try not to be bold, but this is poor. There is like NO special thing about this picture whatsoever. Sorry! -- Boereck 22:49, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
- Contre -- disgusting -- nico@nc 07:36, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Strongly oppose sorry ... ;-) --Dti 16:50, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --Joonasl 16:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support It demonstrates the subject fairly well, and has a good composition. Cary "Bastique" Bass parler voir 20:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Rüdiger Wölk 16:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose MGo 08:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --ßøuñçêY2K 13:24, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose--Lmbuga gl, pt, es: fala comigo 15:41, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Result: 2 support, 13 oppose => not featured --Mglanznig 20:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Lotus2mq.jpg, featured
- Info: created by Willa - uploaded by Willa - nominated by Willa 09:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)]]
- Support I hope it has a "high encyclopedic value" :-D Willa 09:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support very cool Gryffindor 10:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support--Shizhao 11:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- SupportSebastianm 14:16, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support--Luc Viatour 14:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose--Too low resolution for an only esthetic image. And I'm not quite sure Commons must be an art gallery of new works. My opinion is that its interest is much more in historical works. El Comandante 16:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- You're right, commons are no art gallery, but this work should illustrate the lotus effect [2], so not just an esthetic image. norro 17:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- OK. That information was important to know! Support El Comandante 18:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- See image description next time :) norro 19:23, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- I've read the description, but WHO knows the Lotus effect? I didn't, and there is no link or explanation. El Comandante 19:35, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
- OK. That information was important to know!
- Support --Klemen Kocjančič (Pogovor - Quick response) 08:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support -- I like it (even though the image is quite small) - very sharp, crisp and precise! Good work! -- Boereck 22:17, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
- There is a highRes Version mentioned at the bottom of the Image description. This is my first Image uploaded, I don't know all techniques... Willa
- This nomination should be for the high-res version. The software automatically scales images, so you should always just upload the highest res you have. pfctdayelise (translate?) 08:28, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Ok, thanks for the information. I overwrote the original file with a high resolution Version. Willa
- Support -- Rodge500 19:27, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support -- Anatol 22:06, 27 May 2006
- Support --Joonasl 16:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support -- Fabien1309 10:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support --tomf688 (talk - email) 20:58, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support Jastrow 17:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support BTW, there simply has to be link to the en:Lotus effect in the description (I added it now). --romanm (talk) 10:49, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support--Lmbuga gl, pt, es: fala comigo 15:39, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Result: 16
[edit] Image:YoungWomanWearingRosary.jpg, not featured
- Info: created by Pacian - uploaded by Pacian - nominated by Rosarium Orans 04:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Rosarium Orans 04:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose nothing special --Luc Viatour 06:48, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose--Shizhao 12:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Ss181292 12:12, 22 May 2006 (UTC) -- lacks in encyclopedic value
- Oppose MGo 13:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose yukky - MPF 16:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --gildemax 21:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose -Sebastianm 14:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose -- maybe it is me, but I really don't get it :-) -- Boereck 22:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Anatol 22:07, 27 May 2006
- Contre -- nico@nc 07:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --Joonasl 16:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose -Quasipalm 19:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose - i dont know what the intention of this pic is?!--AngMoKio 09:37, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Rüdiger Wölk 16:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Voting results: only 1
[edit] Image:Rosary 2006-01-23.jpg, not featured
- Info: created by Dti - uploaded by Dti - nominated by Rosarium Orans 04:48, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Rosarium Orans 04:48, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose nothing special --Luc Viatour 06:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose too shiny. Could just be my atheist values here, but I do not find rosaries inherently photogenic. pfctdayelise (translate?) 08:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- Neutral I like the picture, but I'm not convinced it's good enough for featuring... El Comandante 19:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --gildemax 21:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose--Tarawneh 04:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose MGo 06:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support --/\/\π 09:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support 172.212.168.22 15:07, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- no anonymous votes. -- nico@nc 07:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Neutre -- nice composition, but... I don't know... -- nico@nc 07:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --Joonasl 16:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose -Quasipalm 19:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. The lighting could be perfected and the plane of sharp focus is a bit odd (too much focus on the bottom left bead). Jastrow 07:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Rüdiger Wölk 16:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Voting results: 2
[edit] Image:Nagasaki 1945 - Before and after.jpg, withdrawn and Image:Nagasaki 1945 - Before and after (adjusted).jpg, featured
.jpg)
- Info: Nagasaki, Japan, before and after the atomic bombing of August 9, 1945. U.S. National Archive RG 77-MDH
Uploaded by Fastfission. Nominated by El Comandante 20:06, 21 May 2006 (UTC), for the high interest and emotion of this picture, even if the resolution isn't incredibly high.
- Support --El Comandante 20:06, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support Gryffindor 21:03, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- Neutral - Nice, but res.. Minto 01:59, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose - Resolution is too little. I'm sure there is a better version somewhere. --Keeleysam 02:59, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- Neutral Support Nice, but res --Luc Viatour 06:50, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support fantastic historical document, if we could find (or recreate) a higher-res version that would be awesome. pfctdayelise (translate?) 08:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- Neutral Ss181292 16:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC) I see no point in featuring such images. I believe, this picture is well known anyway... and I strongly oppose to recreating such picture -- to dropping another nuclear bomb anywhere.
- If I'd have to chose only one interest in featuring this image, it would be to NOT FORGET what war can do, even (or especially?) made by occidental countries that autoproclaim themselves defenders of the Human Rights... El Comandante 17:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support - agree with pfctdayelise - MPF 17:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose agree with Ss181292 --gildemax 21:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support - Featured pictures should be more than just pretty sunsets and cute animals. Gnangarra 06:12, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support an important thing to see --che 02:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support and it's aa small bomb compare to the recent ones —Gwir 06:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Klemen Kocjančič (Pogovor - Quick response) 08:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Prevert(talk) 23:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose there are some technical problems: pictures are not the same zoom-level/resolution, which is important if you want to compare two pictures (which is obviously the intention here), there are several numbers on it without any explanation (units) and it's low res (which would be ok given it's age). It has a good encyclopedic value though. --Gorgo 23:29, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- I thought the same, but I didn't change the zoom of the first image to avoid decreasing the resolution or having a too grainy photo. And I don't think the information about the unit used must be included in the picture. El Comandante 19:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Urban 06:40, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose left one. ACK Gorgo Neutral regarding to the edit. norro 09:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Result: 10 support, 5 oppose, 2 neutral => not featured (withdrawn) Mglanznig 21:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- New proposition. I don't know what are the rules for featured pictures candidates, but I would like to propose this adjusted version, rotated and scaled (on the right). El Comandante 20:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support -- Anatol 22:06, 27 May 2006
- Support --Jonathaneo 12:04, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Joonasl 16:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support Freedom to share 15:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support --AngMoKio 09:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Result: 5 support => featured Mglanznig 21:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Voting results: 15 Support, 3 Neutral and 4 Oppose = featured. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 02:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC) Changed the result because first version was withdrawn by the nominator. --Mglanznig 21:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Vitruvian.jpg - not featured
- Info: created by mrmariokartguy - uploaded by hii - nominated by mrmariokartguy -- Mrmariokartguy 21:01, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Mrmariokartguy 21:01, 25 May 2008 (UTCf
- Info: This image has been superseeded by Image:Da Vinci Vitruve Luc Viatour.jpg, which is already a featured picture. Please read carefully the image info, as well as the instructions above, before nominating -- Alvesgaspar 22:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Result >> Nomination closed. Not featured -- Alvesgaspar 22:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Eugène Delacroix - La liberté guidant le peuple.jpg, featured
- Info: created by artcopy-munich.com - uploaded by Yann - nominated by El ComandanteHasta ∞ 21:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support A masterpiece of french art. El ComandanteHasta ∞ 21:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support -- Get_It (Talk) 00:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support —FoeNyx 14:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Luc Viatour 18:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support --tomf688 (talk - email) 20:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose nothing special Gérard Janot 20:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Tarawneh 22:01, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --- gildemax 12:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Hasta ∞ 07:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)- Support support of course, anyone who knows anything about art knows this is a masterpiece. Gryffindor 16:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Klemen Kocjančič (Pogovor - Quick response) 07:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --ßøuñçêY2K 13:45, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Konstable 08:50, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support -- Lerdsuwa 13:16, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose -- On ACM is stated: "The site may not be duplicated, transmitted or made access to a whole network in another way without a permit from Artcopy Munich. All rights reserved." The painting in it self may be free to make public, but the reproduction is not. Who took the picture? Was it legally taken and uploaded by the photografer/reproducer or with aproval? To me is seems to be a copyright violation. Sorry. Xauxa 11:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- "The site may not be duplicated". Not a single image extracted from the site. See Template_talk:PD-Art for further information. El Comandante
Hasta ∞ 18:03, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- "The site may not be duplicated". Not a single image extracted from the site. See Template_talk:PD-Art for further information. El Comandante
Result: 10
[edit] Image:Death of Marat by David.jpg, not featured
- Info: created by www.wga.hu - uploaded by Kelson - nominated by El ComandanteHasta ∞ 20:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support A masterpiece of french painting. El ComandanteHasta ∞ 20:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose resolution. --Wikimol 14:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
- A 1001x1287 res is not enough? What kind of screen can show it complete? Moreover, a lot of featured pictures are 1024*768 (i.e: Image:Port_wine.jpg, Image:Kerala_India_tea_fields.jpg) and sometime smaller (i.e:Image:Karachi_-_Pakistan-market.jpg). I hope you'll reconsider your decision.
- El ComandanteHasta ∞ 15:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Let me first make one thing clear - I'm not voting about quality of Death of Marat, that's without question. In case of such reproductions I consider only technical quality (full uncropped picture, colors, and resolution). The origanl has 162 x 128 cm ... at 300dpi, that would be 20k x 15k pixels - that would be real digital reproduction, allowing to study also structure of the painting. 1287x768 means good print of postcard size... IMO that's not enoug to call a reproduction good. Where it was said Commons are media library for viewing on screen only? --Wikimol 15:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- Where it was said Commons must be a media library for print? To my point of vue, it's a media library for all the other Wikiprojects. El ComandanteHasta ∞ 21:12, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- Because other wikimedia projects may want to have printed edition. Or someone may just want to print specific article. Commons shoud aim at resolutions suitable for print. --Wikimol 22:12, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- Where it was said Commons must be a media library for print? To my point of vue, it's a media library for all the other Wikiprojects. El Comandante
- Yes, there are smaller FP, some of which should eventually be defeatured. Generally, the case of digital photography is IMO different, digital photohraph itself is the "original", usually in a way "creative" and "unique" work. Reproduction of David's painting is not (the painting is). --Wikimol 15:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- Let me first make one thing clear - I'm not voting about quality of Death of Marat, that's without question. In case of such reproductions I consider only technical quality (full uncropped picture, colors, and resolution). The origanl has 162 x 128 cm ... at 300dpi, that would be 20k x 15k pixels - that would be real digital reproduction, allowing to study also structure of the painting. 1287x768 means good print of postcard size... IMO that's not enoug to call a reproduction good. Where it was said Commons are media library for viewing on screen only? --Wikimol 15:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support --tomf688 (talk - email) 20:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --- gildemax 12:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Gérard Janot 18:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support - MPF 00:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support--Konstable 08:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support -- Lerdsuwa 13:16, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Result: 5
[edit] Image:Hausrotschwanz Brutpflege 2006-05-24 212.jpg, not featured
- Info: The Nest of and a Black Redstart (Phoenicurus ochruros) --Stefan-Xp 13:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC) (cre- & Nominated)
- Oppose -- can support only one the other is better Gnangarra
- Oppose Gordo 15:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry, Oppose (comment was left by Freedom to share on June the 1st 2006) --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 01:01, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support nice picture Gérard Janot 12:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --- gildemax 12:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Rüdiger Wölk 16:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --ßøuñçêY2K 13:45, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Result: 1
[edit] Image:Hausrotschwanz Brutpflege 2006-05-24 211.jpg, featured
- Info: The Nest of a Black Redstart (Phoenicurus ochruros) --Stefan-Xp 13:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC) (cre- & Nominated)
- Support -- Gnangarra 14:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support Amazing! Brilliant! Gordo 15:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support OK, so this image has many strenghts:
- Relatively high resolution
- Very good moment of capture
- Table is very useful
- Great F number and exposure time
- Fantastic composition
- Good zoom
- Great subject
- Freedom to share 19:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Great, but I Oppose because of the white balance. The adult bird looks too blue. --che 20:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support - MPF 21:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support - YolanC 00:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support pfctdayelise (translate?) 00:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Luc Viatour 04:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose I don't like the vantage point or the sky triangle on the left. -Quasipalm 14:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support Ss181292 08:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC) -- high encyclopedic value
- Support --Tarawneh 22:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- Contre A great snapshot but... pretty bad centring, ugly colours and not natural background (even if it's not been chosed by the photographer). El ComandanteHasta ∞ 10:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Neutral -- Rüdiger Wölk 16:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Klemen Kocjančič (Pogovor - Quick response) 07:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --ßøuñçêY2K 13:45, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support -- Lerdsuwa 13:17, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Result: 11
[edit] Image:Valley of Fire Nevada1.jpg, not featured
- Info: created, uploaded and nominated by Urban 05:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support -- Urban 05:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose beautiful place, bad colors, weak definition --Luc Viatour 09:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose 'Pertsa 14:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --Huebi 16:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support -- the image just captivates me Gnangarra 05:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose resolution sucks. I'd support a larger version. -Quasipalm 14:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support -- the resolution might be lower than of some other featured pictures. yet despite what Luc said: I LOVE THE COLORS and the way I can tell, it is not even retouched in Photoshop? That is amazing! -- Boereck 16:41, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Bad colors weak definition. -- Get_It (Talk) 00:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support Cary "Bastique" Bass parler voir 17:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose ugly colours Gérard Janot 20:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support This is a great image.--Konstable 06:54, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --ßøuñçêY2K 13:45, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support--Lmbuga gl, pt, es: fala comigo 18:07, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support -- Lerdsuwa 13:17, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Result: 7
[edit] Image:Chateau de murol auvergne.jpg, not featured
- Info: created, uploaded and nominated by Fabien1309 19:51, 30 May 2006 (UTC) Please view full, the thumbnail is ugly :)
- Support -- Fabien1309 19:51, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Well, it should work as a thumbnail, and it does not. --Bep 20:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Neutral Ss181292 21:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC) -- I think it require some cropping.
- Oppose overexposed, boring background and too small subject norro 22:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose - lighting (makes the landscape flat), compositon (too small subject) --Wikimol 06:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --Joonasl 06:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose contrast and color, composition --Luc Viatour 09:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support, shows the chateau and the surrounding area well. Just a bit pale. And also support to offset Bep's vote, as we cannot require all good pictures to look good when compressed. --Golbez 09:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose where is the chateau? --Huebi 16:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Lighting. -- Get_It (Talk) 00:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support Gérard Janot 12:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --- gildemax 12:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --ßøuñçêY2K 13:44, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Result: 3
[edit] Image:Agneau lac chambon.jpg, not featured
- Info: created, uploaded and nominated by Fabien1309 19:51, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support -- Fabien1309 19:51, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose A tourist snapshot, nothing more. --Bep 20:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Ss181292 20:59, 30 May 2006 (UTC) -- nothing special
- Oppose --Joonasl 06:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support best "tourist snapshot" ;-) --Luc Viatour 09:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support yeh, nice "tourist snapshot". 'Pertsa 14:26, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support Maybe a tourist snapshot, but an FP quality one.. Love the simplistic composition... Freedom to share 15:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support composition is excellent, foreground is sharp ... nice shot norro 22:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support HM, not bad I guess. Would've liked to see more background on the sides. But still nicely done. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 23:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support -- is this mary's little lamb? 8) very nice composition Gnangarra 05:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose not a FP in my opinion --13:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC) --Rodge
- Oppose - tilted (needs rotating abot 2.5° or 3° clockwise; see line of trees on skyline which should have vertical trunks); also piece of blue litter (rope/string?) just above sheep is distracting - MPF 15:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think the image need to be rotated : see the axis of the fence's stakes and the trunk of the tree in the center. El ComandanteHasta ∞ 19:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think the image need to be rotated : see the axis of the fence's stakes and the trunk of the tree in the center. El Comandante
- Contra dark spots on the animal --Artefacto 19:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Neutre Good picture, much more than a tourist snapshot, but not outstanding either, in my opinion. El ComandanteHasta ∞ 19:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Neutral -- Get_It (Talk) 00:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support Cary "Bastique" Bass parler voir 17:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --- gildemax 12:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support Lelote 16:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Klemen Kocjančič (Pogovor - Quick response) 07:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --ßøuñçêY2K 13:44, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Konstable 08:52, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support -- Lerdsuwa 13:18, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Result: 12
[edit] Image:Elias_Kirken_Copenhagen_font.jpg, not featured
- Info: created, uploaded and nominated by IbRas 18:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support --IbRas 18:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose - pedestal in the bottom and arc in the top are cropped. Colours of window washed out. --Wikimol 19:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose ACK wikimol norro 22:23, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose colors, Bad composition --Luc Viatour 09:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose never mind 'Pertsa 14:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Pour Gwir 08:55, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Get_It (Talk) 00:31, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support Cary "Bastique" Bass parler voir 17:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --- gildemax 12:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Ggonnell 00:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --ßøuñçêY2K 13:43, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support--Lmbuga gl, pt, es: fala comigo 15:27, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Result: 5
[edit] Image:BKK-panorama.jpg, not featured
- Info: created by bep - uploaded by bep - nominated by Bep 16:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Bep 16:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose tilt, dull colours, jpeg artifacting in full res, ugly subject. --Wikimol 19:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- Well, as to ugly subject: My point with this was to give a 180° view of Bangkok, from luxury hotels to rural villages. It ain't pretty, but it is real. --Bep 20:46, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose - for the same reasons as above -- Fabien1309 19:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose colors, jpg compression --Luc Viatour 09:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose 'Pertsa 14:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose -- its a nice bit of editing to create the panorama but the tree on the balcony just doesn't add to the composition. Gnangarra 06:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Get_It (Talk) 00:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose, inconsistent (darker on left and lighter on right). --tomf688 (talk - email) 20:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Neutral --- gildemax 12:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose MGo 09:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --ßøuñçêY2K 13:43, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Result: 1
[edit] Image:Rooma 2006 065.jpg, not featured
- Info: created by Joonasl - uploaded by Joonasl - nominated by Joonasl 16:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I rotated the image slightly and adjusted brighness and contrast. --Joonasl 07:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Joonasl 16:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support Though it's not balanced very well, I'm fascinated. The sunlight gives an accent to the relief. --XN 19:20, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose The ceiling is stunning, the sunlight can create interesting effects, but for me it doesn't work here. Maybe too light. --Wikimol 19:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Please categorize images - uncategorized images are hard to find, which means of little use for other Wikimedia projects. --Wikimol 19:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Comment The picture is included in the article Il Gesù (Roma) and Category:Baroque architecture --Joonasl 06:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose that sunlight spoils the picture. Ss181292 20:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose ACK wikimol norro 22:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Interesting effort but for me, too, the sunlight is a drawback. Though, considering the name of the church (Gesù), maybe it's just his father interfering...? --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 00:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose sunlight --Luc Viatour 09:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose 'Pertsa 14:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Get_It (Talk) 00:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose, not a fan of the sunlight coming in. --tomf688 (talk - email) 20:48, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --- gildemax 12:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose MGo 09:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --ßøuñçêY2K 13:42, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Result: 2
[edit] Image:XN Palomena prasina.jpg, not featured
- Info: created by User:XN - uploaded by User:XN - nominated by XN 15:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)]]
- Support --XN 15:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Joonasl 16:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Ss181292 20:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC) - not every animal porno ;) is good enough to be featured. Too many elements out of focus.
- Oppose ACK Ss181292 and overdriven colours norro 22:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose - ditto to Ss181292, too much out of focus - MPF 00:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose focus and the respect with the intimacy ;-) --Luc Viatour 09:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --- gildemax 12:50, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose MGo 09:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --ßøuñçêY2K 13:42, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Result: 2
[edit] Image:Bengal Cat (Fia).jpg, not featured
.jpg)
Created and uploaded by User:SirBoo, Nominated by pfctdayelise (translate?)
- Support I love the colours here, and the framing is perfect. pfctdayelise (translate?) 12:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Joonasl 16:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Bep 16:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Uninteresting backround Sussie 17:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose - Background too -- Fabien1309 19:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Ss181292 20:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC) - distracting background, too short focal length (head is unproportionaly big).
- Oppose ACK Ss181292 norro 22:20, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose - ditto to Ss181292 - MPF 00:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose best colors but nothing exceptionnal or informative --Luc Viatour 09:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Excellent ears and whiskers, but distracting bg. --Rodge 19:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- A favor --Artefacto 19:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support -- it is cute, funny and: CUTE. the quality is somewhat on the low side and the patch on the lower right that has gotten "slightly" more exposure to "some light source" is a bit disturbing. but the composition saves the day/pic... :-) -- Boereck 16:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support -- Wonderful subject & photo -- Tvpm 17:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose ???? no interest Gérard Janot 20:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support --- gildemax 12:50, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Rüdiger Wölk 16:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Ggonnell 00:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support I've to admit that I've grown to like this picture. It must've been the 12 612nd reload of this page or sth that did it. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 02:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Klemen Kocjančič (Pogovor - Quick response) 07:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --ßøuñçêY2K 13:42, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support Excellent shot. Nice composition, Great colours and has a nice mood to it.--Konstable 23:50, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Lycaon 17:32, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Result: 11
[edit] Image:Panthera tigris5.jpg, not featured
- Info: created by Raul654 - uploaded by Raul654 - nominated by Astrokey44 01:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --Joonasl 16:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose A plain zoo image. Nice, though. --Bep 20:51, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose ACK Bep norro 22:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose zoo image --Luc Viatour 09:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support Great quality. Jon Harald Søby 16:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Neutral -- Get_It (Talk) 00:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support very beautiful Gérard Janot 12:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --ßøuñçêY2K 13:40, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Result: 2
[edit] Image:Pic headquarter col.jpg, not featured (withdrawn)
- Info: Headquarters of the Credit Suisse bank in Zürich, Switzerland. Created by en:User:DarioPersino - uploaded and nominated by Lumijaguaari.
- Support --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 23:27, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support pfctdayelise (translate?) 14:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Joonasl 16:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Bep 16:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Prevert(talk) 18:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support -- Fabien1309 19:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support --IbRas 20:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support --XN 20:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose There are a few technical things: 1. The license conditions are not fullfilled. The GFDL requires to give the full history, that means the full revision history of en-wp (see moving images to the commons points 7 and 8 for more infromation). In this way it's a license violation, i think 2. please give it an appropriate image description and a speaking name. Nice picture though norro 22:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Du hast recht, I might've been sloppy. I'll look into it and withdraw the whole thing if the licenses are not OK. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 23:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose following the explanation of user norro --Luc Viatour 09:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support feature it or delete it. --Wikimol 09:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- CommentWhy delete? why not just copy over the relevant stuff from en-wp? - MPF 12:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support 'Pertsa 14:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, the (c)-issues were not OK. I guess just dug the img so much that I got careless. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 22:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
![[1]](http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:TurtlebayNC.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
[edit] Image:Miniture rose gnangarra.jpg, not featured
- Info:Image taken and Uploaded by Gnangarra 28th May 2006. Self Nomination
[edit] Original Version (Withdrawn)
- Support -- Gnangarra 10:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Neutre -- excellent quality picture, but the pot bothers me... maybe I'll reconsider this later... -- nico@nc 11:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- 反对--Shizhao 11:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose -- For the most part it is a nice picture but there is some noticable fringing. -- Killeroy 21:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose unspectacular. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 00:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --Joonasl 16:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose - Not bad, but not outstanding either -- Fabien1309 19:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose pot bothers, unspectacular --Luc Viatour 09:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose cropping, backroung 'Pertsa 14:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support if you suitably crop out the pot. Beautiful photo of rose. Fg2 00:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
results 2
[edit] Cropped Version
Image cropped to reduce background, especially the pot as per original nomination. Cropped version by Gnangarra and nominated by Gnangarra 05:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support -- Gnangarra 05:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Centring... and not an exceptionnal flower. -- El ComandanteHasta ∞ 19:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Pour -- yes, it's better -- nico@nc 22:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support This really lets us concentrate on the beautiful flower. Fg2 21:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Good but not outstanding. Flower not in the centre. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 00:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose - there's masses of good pics of named rose cultivars; this one doesn't even have a name - MPF 18:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --ßøuñçêY2K 13:40, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Result: 3
[edit] Image:Solid spade (frog view).jpg, not featured
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg)
- Info: nominated by&uploaded by Hyena 21:50, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --Teme 22:24, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose unusual viewpoint, but the masking is very obvious --Rodge 22:27, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
- Contra --Artefacto 22:55, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
- Contra --Fastfood 23:44, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Ss181292 06:57, 11 June 2006 (UTC) -- simply bad picture
- Oppose --ßøuñçêY2K 12:33, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose I can't see any artistic value of this picture--Eirissa 20:24, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose — I like the concept and the artistry of the image, but the execution of the editing has detracted from the image, suggest maybe a neutral out of focus background would have produced a better result. Gnangarra 14:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Get_It (Talk) 14:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Result: 9
[edit] Image:san carlos sonora.jpg, not featured
- Info: created by Samuel Oth - uploaded by World Trekker - nominated by World Trekker 15:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment One of the world´s most beautiful places!
- Support --World Trekker 15:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose -- a bit... how can I say it? ...boring! :-) -- Boereck 15:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Contre Not an exceptionnal picture, especially because of the dark triangle in the low left corner. El ComandanteHasta ∞ 15:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose - the low left is too dark - YolanC 20:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Neutral Ss181292 14:25, 9 June 2006 (UTC) -- good quality, interesting object, but (mentioned above) dark tringle in lower left corner is distracting.
- Oppose --ßøuñçêY2K 14:04, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Result: 1
[edit] Image:Triglav.jpg, not featured
- Info: created by Andrejj - uploaded by Dani 7C3 - nominated by Klemen Kocjančič (Pogovor - Quick response) 07:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Klemen Kocjančič (Pogovor - Quick response) 07:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose resolution. --Wikimol 09:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose - resolution - YolanC 09:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --ßøuñçêY2K 14:03, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Result: 1
[edit] Image:Kocha na Krishki gori.JPG, not featured
- Info: created by JakobZ - uploaded by JakobZ - nominated by Klemen Kocjančič (Pogovor - Quick response) 07:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Klemen Kocjančič (Pogovor - Quick response) 07:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose -- I am still dizzy from the from the tilt... -- Boereck 15:53, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --ßøuñçêY2K 14:02, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose -->Not FP material. Snowwayout 09:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Get_It (Talk) 14:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Result: 1
[edit] Image:StNicholas-Ljubljana.JPG, not featured
- Info: created by Sl-Ziga - uploaded by Sl-Ziga - nominated by Klemen Kocjančič (Pogovor - Quick response) 07:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Klemen Kocjančič (Pogovor - Quick response) 07:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose -- leaning ?! and quality compression -- YolanC 09:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Ss181292 10:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC) -- walls, towers etc should be vertical (as in nature). Resolution is also too small.
- Strongly oppose From the author's point of view, this image was not ment to be at Featured candidates. It was made purely for wp. article informational purpose. If possible, I would like to withdraw it. Thx., --Ziga 13:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --ßøuñçêY2K 14:01, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Get_It (Talk) 14:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Result: 1
[edit] Image:SvRok-Ljubljana.JPG, not featured
- Info: created by Sl-Ziga - uploaded by Sl-Ziga - nominated by Klemen Kocjančič (Pogovor - Quick response) 07:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Klemen Kocjančič (Pogovor - Quick response) 07:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --Wikimol 09:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose -- common -- YolanC 09:53, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Ss181292 10:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC) -- as above
- Oppose looks like falling, you might want to look at [3] --che 10:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Strongly oppose From the author's point of view, this image was not ment to be at Featured candidates. It was made purely for wp. article informational purpose. If possible, I would like to withdraw it. Thx., --Ziga 13:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --ßøuñçêY2K 14:01, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Get_It (Talk) 14:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Result: 1
[edit] Image:FranciskacChurch-Ljubljana.JPG, not featured (withdrawn)
- Info: created by Sl-Ziga - uploaded by Sl-Ziga - nominated by Klemen Kocjančič (Pogovor - Quick response) 07:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Klemen Kocjančič (Pogovor - Quick response) 07:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose statue mixed up with the building, sky is burned out --che 10:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Strongly oppose From the author's point of view, this image was not ment to be at Featured candidates. It was made purely for wp. article informational purpose. If possible, I would like to withdraw it. Thx., --Ziga 13:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Neutral -- a nice shot, but very busy and I think we shall not vote on it anyways, right ;-) -- Boereck 15:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --ßøuñçêY2K 14:01, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose I'll happily grant Sl-Ziga the withdrawal of this candidate.. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 04:30, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Results: voting cancelled (withdrawn at uploader's request) --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 04:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Bottiglia vino chianti sull'Arno a Pisa.jpg, not featured
- Info: created by Twice25 and Rinina25 - uploaded by Twice25 - nominated by Ggonnell 00:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC) because I think is particularly nice composition and a good illustration of Tuscany unique gastronomy and architecture
- Support --Ggonnell 00:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --Tarawneh 01:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose too much pavement, I don't think the composition is great. pfctdayelise (translate?) 03:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose The bottle isn't valorized by the angle so it pollutes the picture. El ComandanteHasta ∞ 08:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Boereck 15:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --ßøuñçêY2K 14:00, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose LadyofHats 22:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Result: 1
[edit] Image:victims of wealth.jpg, not featured
- Info: created by Tomas Castelazo - uploaded by Tomas Castelazo - nominated by Tomascastelazo 16:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose The filename obviously has a political agenda (=not NPOV). Reuvenk 16:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose really nothing special Slovik 17:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Nice, but composition lacks energy. Besides, the title doesn't quite fit with the subject. With a title like this, you want children digging in heaps of consumer-society garbage, not two children just looking bored in the street. Jastrow 17:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --Huebi 19:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Agree with Jastrow. El ComandanteHasta ∞ 20:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --Rodge500 20:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose ACK Jastrow pfctdayelise (translate?) 03:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose MGo 09:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose - licence missing - YolanC 09:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose -- the pic is a "victim of it's own title"... -- Boereck 16:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --World Trekker 16:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --ßøuñçêY2K 13:59, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --Fastfood 23:41, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Get_It (Talk) 14:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Result: 14
[edit] Image:Paris metro3 - pont de levallois - entrance1.jpg, not featured
- Info: created, uploaded, nominated by FiP 10:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- another one. This one isn't overexposed :) and the composition is clearer.
- Contre Another one very common photography. El ComandanteHasta ∞ 11:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Contra -- Rüdiger Wölk 13:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --Huebi 14:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose -- good quality, no doubt! but the scene is cluttered and too busy. -- Boereck 16:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Too many elements --World Trekker 20:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --ßøuñçêY2K 13:58, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Get_It (Talk) 14:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Result: 7
Info: too busy? 'Tain la prochaine fois je prendrais en photo un seul objet. sur fond blanc.
[edit] Image: StreetScene_LaLatina_district_Madrid.jpg, not featured
- Info: created by Xauxa - uploaded by Xauxa - nominated by Xauxa 23:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Xauxa 23:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Ss181292 04:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
bad compositionchange of mind, this picture is all bad. Can't say what is the subject: trees, graffiti, buildings, bald guy in the foreground? Tourist shot. - Oppose What is the subject? If it's the mural painting, there are too much interfering elements. Jastrow 07:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Rüdiger Wölk 13:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --Huebi 19:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- CommentHe-he! Thanks for the comments. I was curious about your opinion about an average image. I have tested the picture on some ordinary persons, who after some looking become confused. Mostly they think one picture is superimposed on another, and in some way they are right. Trained picture-viewers like Ss181292 and Jastrow of course instantly go beyond that, they reveal intuitional the secret, so to them there is no illusion left, they see things as they are - just a messy picture, all bad without composition and with many interfering elements.
- I have uploaded an uncropped version, for those interested that remain, the illusion is easier to understand on the original photo. The mural painting in its original gives a very nice view, although badly affected by graffiti.Xauxa 19:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --ßøuñçêY2K 13:58, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Get_It (Talk) 14:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Result: 1
[edit] Image:guanajuato mummy 02.jpg, not featured
- Info: created by Tomas Castelazo - uploaded by Tomas Castelazo - nominated by Tomascastelazo 23:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Tomascastelazo 23:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Ss181292 05:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC) as above
- Oppose - I support one, not two - YolanC 10:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose - I support one, not two - --Luc Viatour 11:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Rüdiger Wölk 13:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose vide supra Slovik 17:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --Huebi 19:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --Rodge500 20:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --ßøuñçêY2K 13:57, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Get_It (Talk) 14:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Result: 1
[edit] Image:guanajuato mummy 04.jpg, not featured
- Info: created by Tomas Castelazo - uploaded by Tomas Castelazo - nominated by Tomascastelazo 23:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Tomascastelazo 23:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Ss181292 05:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC) as above
- Oppose - I support one, not two - YolanC 10:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose - I support one, not two - --Luc Viatour 11:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Rüdiger Wölk 13:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose vide supra Slovik 18:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose i hate spamming the FP to get at least one or two honors --Huebi 20:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --Rodge500 20:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Neutral -- interesting subject, average motive. -- Boereck 16:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --ßøuñçêY2K 13:57, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Get_It (Talk) 14:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Result: 1
[edit] Image:Ballenas.jpg, not featured
- Info: created by Tomas Castelazo - uploaded by Tomas Castelazo - nominated by Tomascastelazo 18:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Tomascastelazo 18:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose it's nice and blue and all ... but ... there is nothing even remotely featured with this picture -- Gorgo 18:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment It is an aereal view of the ocean, mother whale and baby whale in center--Tomascastelazo 03:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose "larger image available upon request for a fee" --Rodge 19:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
- Contra per above, plus low resolution --Artefacto 22:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose - idem - YolanC 22:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Ss181292 05:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC) too much blue, too little subject, too low resoltion
- Oppose Too little subject, strange colour balance. Jastrow 08:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Rüdiger Wölk 13:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --Huebi 20:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose -- is this a picture of the ocean? if not what is it? not all of us own electron microscopes to identify the "artefact" in the water... ;-) -- Boereck 16:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --ßøuñçêY2K 13:56, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose — question license fee required for larger image, no date, subject too small Gnangarra 14:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Get_It (Talk) 14:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --> It’s a shame that such a nice photo of the ocean was spoilt by the white dot in the middle. Snowwayout 08:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment White dot is a mother whale and baby whale.... This pic is about color and texture.... eve seen the ocean from this viewpoint???--Tomascastelazo 03:04, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Result: 1
[edit] Image:Paris metro3 - pont de levallois - entrance2.jpg, not featured
- Info: created, uploaded, and nominated by FiP 12:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
- I started, some time ago, to take pictures of the parisian metro station entrances. Among the ones i already uploaded, i really like this one, so i thought i'd try my luck making it a featured picture :) FiP 12:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose It's really a nice photograph, but overexposure and the lack of a clear subject inhibit my support for featuring it. norro 13:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Gordo 15:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Overexposed:--Rodge 18:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose overexposed and composition is quite confusing -- Gorgo 19:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose far too busy. --Golbez 03:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. Burnt highlights, confusing composition. Jastrow 08:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --Huebi 20:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose -- too cluttered, too busy. -- Boereck 16:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --ßøuñçêY2K 13:55, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Get_It (Talk) 14:24, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Result: 10
[edit] Image:Rosary 2006-01-16.jpg, not featured
- Info: created by Dti - uploaded by Dti - nominated by Photographer 18:31, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Photographer 18:31, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose nothing special --Luc Viatour 18:48, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Nothing special Snowwayout 20:08, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose, not really that pretty. --tomf688 (talk - email) 20:35, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose -- didn't we just vote on another version of this... :-( -- Boereck 13:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose yes we did, a week ago --Tarawneh 21:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --- gildemax 13:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Rüdiger Wölk 16:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --ßøuñçêY2K 13:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Roger McLassus 06:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Get_It (Talk) 14:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Result: 1
[edit] Image:LandscapeInCrete.JPG, not featured
- Info: Made, uploaded and nominated by Gérard Janot 06:21, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support -- Gérard Janot 06:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Colors, barrier --Luc Viatour 18:31, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose flat colors, hills with low contrast --Huebi 07:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose -- image has nothing special about it. -- Boereck 13:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose - awful jpeg compression artefacts in the sky - MPF 18:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --Tarawneh 21:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --- gildemax 12:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --ßøuñçêY2K 13:50, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Result: 1
[edit] Image:Orchis militaris P5271390.JPG, not featured
- Info: Orchis militaris found near Tübingen, Germany.
- Neutral --Luke1ace 08:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Neutral contrast, colors --Luc Viatour 18:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose - not enough depth of field, and bottom half of flowerhead cut off - MPF 18:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Urban 15:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --ßøuñçêY2K 13:49, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Get_It (Talk) 14:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Result: 4
[edit] Image:New Melones Lake.jpg, not featured
- Info: created by snty-tact (Talk) - uploaded by snty-tact (Talk) - and nominated by snty-tact (Talk) 05:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support --snty-tact (Talk) 05:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Good picture but nothing exceptionnal or informative --Luc Viatour 18:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose - ditto to Luc, not very informative - MPF 18:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose What is the point? --Tarawneh 21:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --- gildemax 12:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --ßøuñçêY2K 13:49, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Result: 1
[edit] Image:CRDA Cant Z.1007bis Alcione bombing (1941).jpg, not featured
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
File:CRDA Cant Z.1007bis Alcione bombing (1941).jpg
.jpg){kind=link}
- Info: A very rare color picture of a very graceful Italian warbird named CRDA Cant Z.1007bis Alcione (Kingfisher) – created, uploaded and nominated by Reptil (♣)
- Support --Reptil (♣) 23:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Ss181292 08:33, 3 June 2006 (UTC) very bad quality... I know that it impossible now to get better one, but this is blurry, has low resolution and I think it is coloured, not colour photo.
- Oppose bad quality norro 10:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment, don't think you created the picture. Thats a bad scan or something. What is the source? What literature? Darkone 14:20, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Contre for all the reasons given by Darkone, Norro and Ss181292. El ComandanteHasta ∞ 15:43, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment by Reptil I cannot understand your bad votes. The picture may be a bit blurry on the right end but in all it is NOT really bad quality and it is NOT colored. It is a real color picture – believe it or not. What do you expect regarding the time (early color photography so no resolution like today) and circumstances (it was taken in full action during a bombing mission over the Balkans) the photo was taken? I was glad to get one color photo of this CRDA plane at all! Of course I did not take it originally, I was not flying for Regia Aeronautica then in 1941. I took it from my own picture collection and scanned it into my PC. So at lest I created this scan. And right, it would be impossible to find a better color photo of this airplane. --Reptil (♣) 15:45, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose interesting but not a beautiful picture --Luc Viatour 18:38, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Maybe it's not bad photo, but it's not good also. I really don't believe it is colour picture. In those times it was common, that pictures was coloured after they were taken and developed, and it is strongly unlikely that crewman on the bomber was equipped with colour camera (it's 1941). Of course it is not a reason to vote against, and it is not a reason of my opposition. I don't like this photo because it lacks quality to be featured. Ss181292 19:38, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment by Reptil Again, it is a color photo, it was taken for propaganda purposes, but you are of course free to believe whatever you want. It is true that Italian color photos of this time are rare, there are much more German made ones, but you are completely wrong regarding history of color photography. The first color photos date from the 1930s and they are more than you may think. This photo is not colored, an expert can confirm this, but it is obvious if you look thoroughly at it. I have many in my collection and you can also find many on the net. --Reptil (♣) 20:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- Just scanning a photo doesnt allow you to put it into the public domain. are you the photograph of that picture? Did the phoograph put it into PD? I dont think so, and i believe that this picture has to deleted cause of the unsure license. If the photo itself is under PD, please mention that and correct the license tag. With that statements here that you only scanned it but didnt take it ist has to be deleted. --Huebi 05:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment by Reptil Nuts! If you were right, most pictures here woiuld havre to be deleted. Huebi, what' s all this? The image is public domain, because following Italian law (just read the template for italian pictures) all pictures except artistic photographs are PD after 20 years. It was made by an airman of Regia Aeronautica and later published for propaganda purposes. You have not understood copyright policy! Your deletion request is absurd. As scan it is a reproduction and therefore not even covered by copyright law. Almost every older picture here in Wikipedia is a scan or an other kind of mechanical and/or electronic reproduction - what are you thinking? But anyway, it is a picture made under Italian rule in 1941, it is obviously an Italian airplane (marking of Regia Aeronautica, the airforce of fascist Italy, is clearly visible under the wing as well as squadron number on the fuselage) and every copyright is expired according to Italian law. So please be so kind and withdraw your completely unnecessary and unjustified deletion request.
Reptil (♣) 4 June 2006, 14:15 (UTC)
- Oppose, very low quality. --tomf688 (talk - email) 20:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose i dont think the license is right --Huebi 05:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose I do not like war pictures --- gildemax 12:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment by Reptil I noticed that I made a mistake writing created, uploaded and nominated by Reptil. Of course, as said, I did not take the picture in 1941, as surely not one of these or similar pictures have been uploaded here by the original photographers as many are dead and gone today. It was the first time I proposed a candidate for picture of the day and mistook the word "created" for having created this proposal for picture of the day and not the photo itself. In fact in the licensing for the picture itself I did NOT mention myself as author, but unnown, as is for this picture made by an unnown airman of Regia Aeronautica. I have to apologise for this mistake. The deletion request of user Huebi is unjustified in any way. First of all because in the picture license I never claimed to be the author of the photo and second because the picture is clearly PD after expiration of Italian copyright after 20 years. This is accepted worldwide.
Reptil (♣) 10 June 2006, 8:15 (UTC) - Oppose --ßøuñçêY2K 13:48, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Result: 1
[edit] Image:Supramonte view-from-Punta-Sos-Nidos-to-North-East.jpg, not featured
- Info: shot, uploaded and nominated by SehLax 14:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose too touristy for me -Quasipalm 14:37, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
- Contre Colors. El ComandanteHasta ∞ 15:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose colors and tourist in the picture --Luc Viatour 18:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose, less people. --tomf688 (talk - email) 20:43, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose - might have supported but for the tourists - MPF 18:12, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- SupportGérard Janot 12:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --gildemax 13:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I uploaded another version without people and with corrected colours: you may vote here
- Oppose --ßøuñçêY2K 13:46, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Get_It (Talk) 14:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Result: 1
[edit] Image:Supramonte view-from-Punta-Sos-Nidos-to-North-East 2.jpg, not featured
- Info: shot, uploaded and nominated by SehLax 23:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC) (alternative version of other nomination below)
- Support - MPF 16:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --Ggonnell 09:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose -- no bad shot. but no good one either. sorry. -- Boereck 16:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --ßøuñçêY2K 13:55, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Get_It (Talk) 14:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Result: 1
[edit] Image:Hausrotschwanz Brutpflege - Contactsheet.jpg, not featured
- Info: created by User:Stefan-Xp uploaded by User:Stefan-Xp and nominated by Gnangarra
- Support -- This presentation is wonderful in that it details the early stages of these chicks lives Gnangarra 15:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose -- might very well be. but I still don't like it. somehow I cannot even find words for why... -- Boereck 16:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Informative, but too restless for my taste as a picture. --Joonasl 06:55, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose lacks description... and without it, it has no value. Ss181292 08:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Contre You could chose some of these pictures, and propose it, if you change the centring. El ComandanteHasta ∞ 15:38, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --Luc Viatour 18:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose, too busy, not very visually appealing. --tomf688 (talk - email) 20:45, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support Gérard Janot 12:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --- gildemax 12:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Rüdiger Wölk 16:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --ßøuñçêY2K 13:46, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Result: 2
[edit] Image:Golden Gate Bridge Yang Ming Line.jpg, featured
- Info: Made, uploaded and nominated by User Bastique. I've taken a lot of photographs during my vacation, but this one stands out particularly. The juxtaposition of the fog partially obstructing the rear bridge tower and the freighter passing beneath really provided a way for me to demonstrate the magnitude of size. Cary "Bastique" Bass parler voir 06:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- A favor--Orgullomoore 07:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support Luke1ace 08:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose I agree with you, Bastique, the composition is really good. It's a pity that the technical quality is not that good. Noisy, blurry and getting darker from left side to the right norro 10:08, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Neutral it is really too bad that this photo is noisy and blur. The composition is great. --AngMoKio 10:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support -- I like the fog -- YolanC 12:15, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support --snty-tact (Talk) 13:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- A favor --Alhen .::··¨ 14:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support Great depth, great mood, very evocative Gordo 15:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support freaking awesome.pfctdayelise (translate?) 15:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support I like it a lot. --Golbez 17:23, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Luc Viatour 18:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Neutral, really neat picture of the fog, but kind of grainy. --tomf688 (talk - email) 20:38, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Terrible image quality. None too interesting subject. --Fir0002 www 06:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose agree norro, plus some barrel distortion as well? Good atmosphere, but not PP quality --Rodge 14:34, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose - ditto to Norro, should have been saved at a higher quality level. The cable stays are very grainy at full size. - MPF 18:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Gérard Janot 20:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Tarawneh 21:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- Contre A good picture, but not enough to be featured (technical quality and esthetical emotion). El ComandanteHasta ∞ 10:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support because of the very nice subject, although the quality problem is there. --Ggonnell 13:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support I agree with Ggonnell. The quality problems are minor as compared to the composition and the athmosphere captured in this image. --wg 22:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --ßøuñçêY2K 13:48, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support I like it--Eirissa 20:34, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
- Neutral -- Get_It (Talk) 14:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support I guess I never voted! Cary "Bastique" Bass parler voir 00:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support cool TZM de:T/T C 12:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
DATE LIMIT : 18 June 2006
RESULT : 15 Support, 7 Oppose, 3 Neutral => featured (El Comandante
[edit] Image:BuddhisticStatuesHKe1.jpg, featured
[edit] Votes for the edited version (the photo on the right)
Photo got edited by Olegivvit. The green wastebin has been removed. The new version is hereby nominated by --AngMoKio 20:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support--AngMoKio 11:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support for edited picture -- Gorgo 19:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - please, mark such pictures with Template:RetouchedPicture. Thanks.
- Support weak support on Commons, would oppose on Wikipedia. --Wikimol 22:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support as per my previous comment. Nice bit of wastebin disposal. - MPF 00:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Klemen Kocjančič (Pogovor - Quick response) 07:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment in hi-res the green color of a removed trash-can is still visible --Ziga 13:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support -- the pic itself evoked NO emotion whatsoever in me (sorry to say that so bluntly) but the photoshop job is great! -- Boereck 16:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support a nice, sharp picture with good composition; a nice illustration for buddhistic religion--Eirissa 20:18, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support new version. --tomf688 (talk - email) 23:57, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support -- Lerdsuwa 13:17, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support -- although I see no reason why you felt you needed to remove the wastebin. Cary "Bastique" Bass parler voir 22:56, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Neutral -- Get_It (Talk) 14:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Neutre, for the edited version. El ComandanteHasta ∞ 16:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose the edited version, support the original version. 24.124.77.172 19:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support --ajvol 20:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 2 neutral => featured --AngMoKio 21:56, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Original version withdrawn (no votes here please)
- Info: created by AngMoKio - uploaded by AngMoKio - nominated by AngMoKio 19:36, 2 June 2006 (UTC)]]
- Support --AngMoKio 19:36, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support -- YolanC 11:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support —FoeNyx 14:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support - I agree that the lower right damages it, but the rest is so sharp and nice that I think it overweighs it. If another pic could be taken without that lower right, I would gladly support replacing this with that. --Golbez 17:25, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Neutre too much sharp --Luc Viatour 18:40, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support -- Anatol 22:04, 3 June 2006
- Support just a nice photo Slovik 07:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support Cary "Bastique" Bass parler voir 17:08, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- Contre - would support but for that hideous green wastebin in the corner - MPF 18:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support --- gildemax 13:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support Gordo 20:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Tarawneh 22:02, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment -Olegivvit has done a great edit of my photo (Thanks a lot!). Can we agree on counting the votes for the new version or how is the correct process for such a case? Do we need a new seperate voting?--AngMoKio 11:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --ßøuñçêY2K 13:46, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Image:black headed gulls.jpg, not featured
- Info: created, uploaded and nominated by Plumper 22:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)]]
- Support --Plumper 22:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support -a nice shot; first i was not sure abt the composition - now i like it:) --AngMoKio 10:08, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose - isn't the right gull blurred ? YolanC 11:43, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support colors, nice environment --Luc Viatour 18:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Neutral - right bird is blurry. --tomf688 (talk - email) 20:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose - right bird blurred. Not a difficult species to get better pics of. - MPF 18:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- Neutral +colors, compositon, shallow DOF -right bird out of focus --Wikimol 18:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Gérard Janot 12:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support --- gildemax 13:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Urban 15:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --Ggonnell 00:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --ßøuñçêY2K 13:50, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Result: 4
[edit] Image:Solsort.jpg, featured
- Info: created, uploaded and nominated by Malene Thyssen 22:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Malene Thyssen 22:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support It's sharp, the environment is typical, so kinda natural and the expression of the birds face is great norro 23:48, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Huebi 07:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support -- I like the pictures of Malene, but the resolution is constantly limited (see my opinion on the page discution) --Luc Viatour 08:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- What discussion page do you mean? norro 10:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
- I have not been able to find it? Malene Thyssen 18:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
- Is here talk:Featured pictures candidates --Luc Viatour 04:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
- What discussion page do you mean? norro 10:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose -- quality-wise it is a great shot. yet for my taste it is too bland and too boring of a motive. sorry. -- Boereck 13:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose the chimney looks shabby Slovik 13:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Sussie 16:04, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support - MPF 18:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Plumper 18:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Tarawneh 21:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Joonasl 09:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support --- gildemax 13:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Urban 15:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Gérard Janot 19:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support--AngMoKio 21:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support----Tomascastelazo 02:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --Ggonnell 00:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support -- It's a blackbird par excellence and the quality of the photograph is perfect. -- wg 22:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support, definitely a blackbird --che 23:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support -- Lycaon 19:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --ßøuñçêY2K 13:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support -- Lerdsuwa 13:10, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Neutral -- Get_It (Talk) 14:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support --ajvol 20:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Result: 16
[edit] Image:Pink sunset over hills.jpg, not featured
- Self Nom. Yes another sunset. --Fir0002 www 06:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose nice, but just another sunset, not excellent, not encyclopedic --Huebi 07:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- Ok for the first point, but this is the commons FPC, and being encyclopedic is not necessary --Fir0002 www 08:08, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- for me, it is. this is not a place for every picture, this is a place for other wiki-projects to --Eirissa 20:09, 11 June 2006 (UTC)deliver (good) pictures for articles. for me, this is an criteria. --Huebi 08:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose boring norro 09:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- Strongly oppose Ss181292 16:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC) Arrrrghhhh, another sunset! Absolutely no value, exept aesthetic one, but Commons is NOT a collection of art!
- Oppose sunset. Sunsets are nice. However, featured sunsets should IMO be either outstanding among all sunsets or have other strong theme than sunset. --Wikimol 20:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support a very nice cumulonimbus for article of meteorology --Luc Viatour 11:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support --- gildemax 13:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose sunset. Sunsets are nice. However, featured sunsets should IMO be either outstanding among all sunsets or have other strong theme than sunset. El ComandanteHasta ∞ 14:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- The hell is with that? You have a template to oppose all sunsets? --Fir0002 www 22:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, looks like it was specially made for this! - MPF 15:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
- Well, in fact the purpose isn't to oppose all sunsets. The purpose is to explain which sunsets I will support - 1. those really outstanding above Category:Sunset 2. those, where the sunset is just a nice lighting of the main subject
- Sunsets are nice. Sunsets are easy to shoot. Very simple photographs of sunsets are also nice. => There is great abundandance of nice sunset photographs, and I'm lazy to explain repeatedly why I vote oppose. --Wikimol 22:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC) (note: credit for idea of a template goes to joke by che)
- The hell is with that? You have a template to oppose all sunsets? --Fir0002 www 22:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Urban 15:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support as per Luc Viatour - MPF 15:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Rüdiger Wölk 16:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support though Wikimol's template is excellent and useful. Let's all not be überly serious here. This picture is beautiful to my eyes, though I find myself wondering whether or not it has been enhanced colour-wise. To wrap up my commentary: "Sunsets are nice." --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 02:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --ßøuñçêY2K 13:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support a nice picture of the sunset, capturing a peaceful atmosphere in the mountains--Eirissa 20:09, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Result: 5
[edit] Image:Papilio machaon caterpillar.jpg, featured
- Info: uploaded and nominated by Slovik 07:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Slovik 07:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Huebi 07:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Too low depth of field. Otherwise it's fantastic norro 09:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Tbc 13:02, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose -- fun picture, but way too fuzzy! -- Boereck 13:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- Contra focus --Artefacto 19:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Good picture, low depth of field brings out the attention of subject, otherwise, it would be a confusing pic. User:Tomascastelazo 15:00 PST, June 4, 2006
- Comment great picture, except for focus. (Low DOF alone wouldn't be such problem if the focus was on head, and not "somewhere".) Maybe... the head is not so unsharp, wouldn't it be possible to make it sharper by seective application of unsharp mask? --Wikimol 21:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support FML hi 02:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Joonasl 09:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- Neutral a perfect picture if only the focus would be on the head of this thing. Angle and colours are very good--AngMoKio 09:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support I agree with Wikimol --Luc Viatour 11:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Gérard Janot 12:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support I like the tunnel effect pfctdayelise (translate?) 12:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support --- gildemax 13:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Urban 15:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support Excellent photo thanks to focus. El ComandanteHasta ∞ 17:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support. I like it. Ziga 22:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support Beautiful colors! (that's nature for you :) ) FiP 10:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Ggonnell 00:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support and thanks to Mother Nature for not making these creatures man-sized. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 02:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Klemen Kocjančič (Pogovor - Quick response) 07:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support; alhough focus is not that great, the subject compensates it --che 23:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support Nice colors. --romanm (talk) 10:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support --ßøuñçêY2K 13:54, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support--Konstable 08:43, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Agree with norro. Very, very nice, but depth of field...--Jodelet 10:14, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
- Neutral -- Get_It (Talk) 14:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support Cary "Bastique" Bass parler voir 00:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
results 19 It's over when it's over. Nominators can only withdraw their nomination before the end of voting. Do you want to withdraw it? --Mglanznig 09:48, 17 June 2006 (UTC) Support, 2 Neutral, 7 Oppose Slovik 10:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC).
Result: 19
[edit] Polyommatus icarus Belgium,featured
- Info: created by Luc Viatour - uploaded by Luc Viatour - nominated by Luc Viatour 19:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)]]
- Support --Luc Viatour 19:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Wikimol 19:59, 4 June 2006 (UTC) not revolutionary or artsy, but well done and useful for wikimedia projects. (proper focus separates subject from background, natural background, centered composition is suitable for macro)
- Oppose Nothing special, bad background Gérard Janot 20:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support I can never resist such images--Tarawneh 21:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support although I'd like it more if it was rotated a little bit so the butterfly is horizontal and if it was cropped somewhat. Tbc 22:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support I agree with Tbc a bit of a rotation and croping would be nice. I like the pic bcs this butterfly's colour is in such a contrast to the nature surounding it.--AngMoKio 23:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support - MPF 23:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- Neutral
not identified species, no support. "Butterfly" ...Darkone 00:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)- it is in the description "Butterfly Polyommatus icarus Belgium (natural reserve Furfooz)" --Luc Viatour 06:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support Agree with Wikimol's comments. Very nice! --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 04:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Nice picture, but not exceptional --Joonasl 09:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --- gildemax 13:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Jodelet 14:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Urban 15:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support very nice resolution ;-) --Malene Thyssen 20:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Tomascastelazo 17:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose ACK Gérard Janot and Joonasl. Usability for wikipedia is not enough for beeing featured in my opinion norro 19:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Lelote 16:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Ggonnell 00:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Klemen Kocjančič (Pogovor - Quick response) 07:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support --World Trekker 16:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --ßøuñçêY2K 13:53, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose nice, but too ordinary. --Konstable 08:44, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Lerdsuwa 13:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support -- Though one of the commonest Lycaenids, there are few or none pictures of this quality (and resolution) to be found on the internet. Lycaon 10:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Neutral -- Get_It (Talk) 14:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Result: 15
[edit] Image:Mac junk.jpg, not featured, image was deleted
- Info: created by Tomas Castelazo - uploaded by Tomas Castelazo - nominated by Tomascastelazo 00:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Tomascastelazo 00:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- A favor --Artefacto 02:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- Contra edited image --Artefacto 02:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- Strongly oppose Ss181292 06:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC) -- this photo is: 1. not informative i any way; 2. probably this is trick photo; 3. upload it on http://www.allfunnypictures.com, not on http://commons.wikimedia.org.
- Strongly oppose - First time I've ever used this but it fits. The image seems fake, perhaps if the angle were higher it could prove it's real. --Golbez 08:49, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- Neutre Bat Colors, but an unpleasant example of our company of consomation --Luc Viatour 11:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --Huebi 12:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support --- gildemax 13:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Urban 15:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose a bad fake, POV. --Dschwen 14:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Gordo 15:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose
I can see nothing to indicate this is a trick photochange vote - at full size it is clearly faked (signpost is too sharply focussed compared to rest of pic) - MPF 16:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC) - Comment Trick or not, that is not really the question. An image is an image. The paintings depicted in some of the nominees here are they not tricks? They are interpretations not only of reality, but even of fantasies. Or what is depicted in Eugène Delacroix´s "La liberté guidant le peuple" really happened just like that? Are we judging the symbol or a picture of a painting? An image is a conveyor of an idea, symbol or message. An image does not exist in a vacum, it has (or should) have a purpose. I doubt that Michaelangelo´s paintings are a literal interpretaion of what he saw. Did he really see Adam like that? No, he tricked him!!! He used nature and its forms to piece together his vision. Painters have often “flattered” their subjects… and in many cases improved the work of nature, or the message. Are women (or men) who use make up not tricked? Photography is a medium. And yes, it is a photo composition. And yes, you have the right to not like it. And yes, the trash was there. Please hate this image, but hate it not because it is a "tricked" image, but as the reflection of who we are.--Tomascastelazo 17:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment the relevance of the trick issue is that if it weren't a trick image it would have some informative value. --Artefacto 21:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose--Rodge 19:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose--Lelote 16:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Being a trick photo, it has no informative value. I don't see anything special about the rest. Jastrow 18:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --ßøuñçêY2K 13:54, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose only good for an environmentalistic poster —Slovik 08:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Strongly oppose — look carefully at the image, yes its constructed but of greater concern is that a corporation is clearly identifiable in the image. The formatting and title sufficiently suggest that the corporation is responsible for the rubbish(trash, garbage). Yet look through the rubbish I could not find anything that appears to be from this corporation. I wonder if by keeping and thus publishing this image Wikimedia and the creator are exposed to potential deformation actions this image should be in the Commons:Deletion requests nomination page not here Gnangarra 14:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Get_It (Talk) 14:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support --ajvol 20:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Result: 3
[edit] Image:FL 5767388.jpg, not featured
- Info: created by Brian Boulos (from Flickr) - uploaded by FlickrLickr - nominated by Fabien1309 11:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support -- Fabien1309 11:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose What is the objective of this photo? And it seems to be manipulated. --Huebi 12:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --- gildemax 13:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Gérard Janot 19:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- Pour -- Flo888 15:50, 6 June 2006(UTC)
- Neutral - crop off the entire left half (or better, 60%) to give a vertical format pic of the boy skateboard-jumping over the bin, and then I'll support - MPF 16:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Composition's all wrong, and an unappealing/instrusive background. --Rodge 18:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose bad composition, bad lighting (esp. skateboarder) -- Gorgo 19:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Agree with MPF that it would be better just the right part but it seems to be manipulated and/or the light of the skateboarder is bad --Ggonnell 02:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Bad composition, skateboarder skating "out" of pic --World Trekker 17:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --ßøuñçêY2K 13:54, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Get_It (Talk) 14:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose -Go West 22:50, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Result: 2
[edit] Image:Wine grapes baja.jpg, not featured
- Info: created by Tomas Castelazo - uploaded by Tomas Castelazo - nominated by Tomascastelazo 18:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Tomascastelazo 18:03, 5 June 2006
- Support --Malene Thyssen 20:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Golbez 23:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose -- can't see the whole grape -- YolanC 00:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Luc Viatour 07:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
- Neutral Seems to be cropped a little too tightly. pfctdayelise (translate?) 14:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Rüdiger Wölk 16:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support--Sigmanexus6 19:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Ggonnell 00:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Cropped Object --Tarawneh 01:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Klemen Kocjančič (Pogovor - Quick response) 07:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Olegivvit 09:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Never mind you cannot see the whole grape - it's the colourful berries which make it a joyful picture! You might have cropped it even more at the left edge to cut the leaf away altogether. --wg 21:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support --ßøuñçêY2K 13:54, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Lmbuga gl, pt, es: fala comigo 15:13, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --Rodge500 17:11, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support -- Lerdsuwa 13:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose norro 08:37, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Lycaon 17:24, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support --World Trekker 20:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support --ajvol 20:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Result: 13
[edit] Image:Zenkoji-Nagano.JPG, featured
- Info: created by Ziga - uploaded by Ziga - nominated by Ziga 22:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Ziga 22:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose nothing special Gérard Janot 22:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support because it's just everyday life at it's best. --SehLax 22:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support -- I'm almost neutral but I agree with SehLax -- YolanC 00:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support - also agree with SehLax--AngMoKio 07:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Luc Viatour 07:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support won me over. the pigeons are a nice touch. pfctdayelise (translate?) 10:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support very nice -- Gorgo 19:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
- A favor the right foot of the kid is in a strange position though --Artefacto 21:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
- Ah nice ! I didn't see it, maybe he is going to fall, when will we able to know ? :-) YolanC 10:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support -- Rüdiger Wölk 13:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support Will he fall or will he not fall? I can't stand this excitement. Seriously - we have too few featured pictures of people. This is a good capture. I guess we have their permission and all...! --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 02:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Klemen Kocjančič (Pogovor - Quick response) 07:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Olegivvit 09:11, 8 June 20
- Oppose Neither a photo of people or place...--World Trekker 16:44, 8 June 2006 (UTC)06 (UTC)
- Support --Janeznovak 03:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --ßøuñçêY2K 13:55, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
- Neutral doesn't seem to indicate people have given consent --Rodge 22:49, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support -- Lerdsuwa 13:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support — did the subject consent to the photograph? Gnangarra 14:37, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Neutral -- Get_It (Talk) 14:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose I think so,too.>Rodge --Tomomarusan 11:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Result: 14
[edit] Image:Supramonte view-from-Punta-Sos-Nidos-to-North-East 2.jpg, not featured
- Info: shot, uploaded and nominated by SehLax 23:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC) (alternative version of other nomination below)
- Support - MPF 16:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --Ggonnell 09:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose -- no bad shot. but no good one either. sorry. -- Boereck 16:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --ßøuñçêY2K 13:55, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Get_It (Talk) 14:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Result: 1
[edit] Image:NeuseelandSeagulls.jpg, featured
- Info: created by Danga - uploaded by Überraschungsbilder - nominated by pfctdayelise (translate?) 13:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support --pfctdayelise (translate?) 13:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support - MPF 16:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support Good subject. Has rythm, depth (not to be confused with depth of filed). Good technique.--Tomascastelazo 18:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Luc Viatour 18:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support nice one -- Gorgo 18:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose: needed a dark background as a contrast to the subjects --Rodge 19:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support- nice view --AngMoKio 20:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support- --Plumper 21:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Ss181292 05:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC) -- don't like the composition, last seagull completly out of focus
- Neutral. I like it, but it lacks contrast. A little bit of Photoshop Curves would be nice. Jastrow 08:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- No offense meant, but why would reality not be good enough? MartinD 18:56, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support -- Rüdiger Wölk 13:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Ggonnell 00:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- * Support--Tarawneh 01:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support--Ziga 07:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Klemen Kocjančič (Pogovor - Quick response) 07:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Contre Ack with Rodge and Ss181292. El ComandanteHasta ∞ 15:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --ßøuñçêY2K 13:55, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose--Lmbuga gl, pt, es: fala comigo 15:12, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
- Contra --Artefacto 15:31, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Fastfood 23:12, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Darz Mol 21:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC) Should have more deep of field, but it's a good picture.
- Support -- Lerdsuwa 13:04, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support -- Lycaon 17:26, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support -- MartinD 18:56, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Neutral -- Get_It (Talk) 14:24, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support neat! Cary "Bastique" Bass parler voir 00:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support --ajvol 20:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose too grey, needs direct light -Quasipalm 21:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
vote ended 13:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Result: 19
[edit] Image:Baja coast.jpg, not featured
- Info: created by Tomas Castelazo - uploaded by Tomas Castelazo - nominated by Tomascastelazo 18:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Tomascastelazo 18:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose low res, is this supposed to be a picture of these flowers? Then they should be identified and put in an appropriate category. If it's supposed to be a picture of the coast (they should be identified as well ;)) but then the flowers use too much space on the picture. -- Gorgo 18:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose "Permission: Larger version available upon request for a fee" --Rodge 19:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support very nice. Resolution could be higher norro 19:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
- Neutral ++colors, +DOF; -same as Rodge! Plumper 21:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose - resolution - YolanC 21:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
- Contra low resolution --Artefacto 22:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose too low resolution, strange composition Ss181292 05:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Neutral I agree with norro --Luc Viatour 11:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --Huebi 20:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --ßøuñçêY2K 13:56, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Get_It (Talk) 14:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support but for the artistic value of the image. There's a certain irony. The mountains are supposed to be blurry... Cary "Bastique" Bass parler voir 00:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose awful resolution -Quasipalm 21:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Result: 3
[edit] Image:Kiji2.JPG, not featured
- Info: created, uploaded, nominated by Gérard Janot
- Support Gérard Janot 15:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support--AngMoKio 16:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
- Neutral I agree. Crop it, give it a tiny rotation so it's perfectly symmetrical, and resubmit! I will definitely support then. pfctdayelise (translate?) 08:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support now pfctdayelise (translate?) 07:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Contre
Cut on the left side, and not exact symmetry (bad perspective). El ComandanteHasta ∞ 11:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- New version : Too much cut of the building's base. El ComandanteHasta ∞ 20:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- New version : Too much cut of the building's base. El Comandante
- Neutral I agree with AngMoKio --Luc Viatour 11:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support -- I think the picture not being centered is wanted and no disadvantage for me. what I find somewhat distracting is the fact that the tower is leaning a little to the left and the left lower part of the roof is cut. yet its still a good shot. :-) -- Boereck 19:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --Huebi 20:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- I cropped the picture - as for exact symetry, I think it doesn't necessarily mean "perfection" ... simply look at gothic cathedrals. If you look with attention at the roofs, you will see that the crosses are not in perfect alignment. A slight side perspective seemed more impressive to me because the central part is not vertical Gérard Janot 20:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --ßøuñçêY2K 13:57, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support New cropped version much better. Reuvenk 05:14, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support--Konstable 08:40, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support --ajvol 20:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose makes me miss the bottom part --che 23:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support --New Painter 15:50, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose not FP --City Slicker 16:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose -Go West 22:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Result: 8
[edit] Image:guanajuato mummy 03.jpg, not featured
- Info: created by Tomas Castelazo - uploaded by Tomas Castelazo - nominated by Tomascastelazo 23:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Tomascastelazo 23:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Ss181292 05:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC) as above
- Oppose - I support one, not two - YolanC 10:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose - I support one, not two - --Luc Viatour 11:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Rüdiger Wölk 13:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose vide supra Slovik 17:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --Huebi 19:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --Rodge500 20:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support - Very interesting study of human hands. The texture is interesting. The different versions indicate/reflect different deaths... strong symbolic meaning, although a little morbid?? -
- Oppose --ßøuñçêY2K 13:57, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
- Neutral -- Get_It (Talk) 14:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support, first time I see a close picture of these mummies, good work Dake 07:22, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Result: 3
[edit] Image:guanajuato mummy 01.jpg, not featured
- Info: created by Tomas Castelazo - uploaded by Tomas Castelazo - nominated by Tomascastelazo 23:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Tomascastelazo 23:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Ss181292 04:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC) too tight field of view. We can see the details, but... well this picture has definitely high aestethic value, but I'd prefer for example head, arms and torso all on one pictue.
- Support - YolanC 10:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Luc Viatour 11:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose I agree with Ss181292 —Slovik 17:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --Huebi 19:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Not enough illustrative. As an aesthetic picture, I would prefer an artistic creation. El ComandanteHasta ∞ 20:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --Rodge500 20:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Strongly oppose Choose the one you feel is best and nominate that - don't nominate four pictures of the same subject, thank you. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 02:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --ßøuñçêY2K 13:57, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Tbc 15:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC) - strongly agree with Lumijaguaari
Result: 3
[edit] Cathedral St Michel Brussel, featured
- Info: created by Luc Viatour - uploaded by Luc Viatour - nominated by Luc Viatour 10:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)]]
- Support --Luc Viatour 10:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Neutre Good photo... but I don't feel a really strong esthetical emotion when I see this picture. El ComandanteHasta ∞ 11:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --Huebi 14:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Neutral I could be wrong, but it looks slightly tilted towards the left? --Golbez 18:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- yes indeed, very slightly! It is visually accentuated by the ground which is strongly inclined towards the line! --Luc Viatour 18:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- It is corrected! --Luc Viatour 19:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --ßøuñçêY2K 13:58, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support--Lmbuga gl, pt, es: fala comigo 15:08, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support nice colour and tone Snowwayout 23:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support — good night shot Gnangarra 06:12, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support -- Lerdsuwa 13:04, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose -- not well enough lit for a outstanding photograph --Rodge 17:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support -Quasipalm 21:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Overlord 14:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Result: 7
[edit] Image:Tijuana-san diego border deaths.jpg, not featured
- Info: created by Tomas Castelazo - uploaded by Tomas Castelazo - nominated by Tomascastelazo 17:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose first of all, what is it? what is the subject? and wherein is the artistic value? Slovik 17:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support It looks like it's a memorial to everyone who died trying to cross in to San Diego County from Mexico, one per year. I like the angle, though it COULD be lower, giving us less sky. --Golbez 18:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --Huebi 19:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support Very strong subject, good picture. El ComandanteHasta ∞ 20:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --Rodge500 20:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Ggonnell 00:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Neutral Not great composition, not outstanding. pfctdayelise (translate?) 03:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose -- licence missing -- YolanC 09:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose - Interesting, but not to be featured Gérard Janot 15:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Neutral - I´ve seen that border wall in Tijuana and it does not capture the dramatism it depicts. --World Trekker 20:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --ßøuñçêY2K 13:59, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Urban 06:00, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support - License is there now -- Lerdsuwa 13:06, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Neutral -- Get_It (Talk) 14:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
vote ended 17:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Result: 4
[edit] Image:the value of opinions.jpg, not featured
File:The value of opinions.jpg
- Info: created by Tomas Castelazo - uploaded by Tomas Castelazo
- Comment DESCRIPTION – A man expressing through body language the impact of opinions of opinionators (remember, art can be controvertial, even though some may opine that this is not art... no problem... just lighten up!!! ;o) )
- nominated by Tomascastelazo 18:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose :-( --Luc Viatour 19:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose - too much ... controversial Gérard Janot 19:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --Huebi 19:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Do you think seriously that this poor image is artistic? El ComandanteHasta ∞ 20:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose not very discerning, or amusing --Rodge500 20:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose bad joke --Ggonnell 23:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Subject aside, I don't like photographs with captions. The photograph should speak for itself. In this case, uh, I'm not sure what it would say... pfctdayelise (translate?) 03:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose MGo 09:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Strongly oppose Ss181292 10:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC) -- worthless, stupid and vulgar.
- Oppose -- while not being worthless, vulgar OR stupid for that matter, it just lacks the potential for a featured pic. -- Boereck 15:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support ja ja ja!!! this guy sure unified agreement against him!!! but it sure caught attention!--World Trekker 16:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --ßøuñçêY2K 13:59, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose--Lmbuga gl, pt, es: fala comigo 15:06, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
- Strongly oppose--Darz Mol 21:24, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
- Strongly oppose--Miguel303xm 10:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose — only the caption says it has an opinion, without the caption its nothing Gnangarra 14:28, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Get_It (Talk) 14:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Strongly oppose FiP 10:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Strongly oppose art or not...LadyofHats 22:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose haha, this is indeed an awesome pic (although I would have left the wording off) ... but it's just not what FP is for. -Quasipalm 21:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --City Slicker 18:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
vote ended 18:56, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Result: 1
[edit] Image:Berlin World of Football Ticketing.JPG, featured
- Info: created by Times - uploaded by Times - nominated by 87.123.10.119 19:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Contre Only good for news illustration. El ComandanteHasta ∞ 23:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- ??? How do you mean? And we run wikinews:, don't we? pfctdayelise (translate?) 03:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- I mean that when the World Cup will be over, this picture will lose its interest, because as an esthetic picture, I don't feel it's exceptionnal. El ComandanteHasta ∞ 15:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- I mean that when the World Cup will be over, this picture will lose its interest, because as an esthetic picture, I don't feel it's exceptionnal. El Comandante
- ??? How do you mean? And we run wikinews:, don't we? pfctdayelise (translate?) 03:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Tarawneh 01:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support Looks like the Second Coming is taking place right in this stadium! (Or else, an alien abduction) pfctdayelise (translate?) 03:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support--AngMoKio 06:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Klemen Kocjančič (Pogovor - Quick response) 07:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support -- YolanC 09:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --ßøuñçêY2K 13:59, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --Teme 22:25, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support extraordinary --Fastfood 00:22, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Urban 06:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose - gotta agree with El Comandante - MPF 21:36, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
- A favor - difficult snapshot; well done! we also support wikinews, do you remember? --Glasnost 23:14, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support — today's news photos, tomorrows historical photos Gnangarra 14:26, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Neutral -- Get_It (Talk) 14:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support Good composition Cary "Bastique" Bass parler voir 00:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support ...wow... --DiTaeg 11:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Lycaon 17:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose there just isn't much to look at. -Quasipalm 21:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Overlord 14:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support --New Painter 15:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
- A favor --DTA 16:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Artist 16:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support nice! --City Slicker 18:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support -Quickstep 19:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support Go West 22:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
vote ended 19:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Result: 17
[edit] Image:Dandelion seed thingy.jpg (renamed), featured
- Info: created, uploaded and nominated by che, because he likes how it looks and also because in focal plane, there are some good details visible. 23:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Info: re-uploaded as Dandelion clock detail.jpg (thanks to Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason) --che 00:40, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support --che 23:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Ggonnell 00:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Tarawneh 01:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support (I like your permissions line, too ;)) pfctdayelise (translate?) 03:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support it's just wonderful Slovik 04:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support--AngMoKio 06:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Golbez 07:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Ziga 07:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Klemen Kocjančič (Pogovor - Quick response) 07:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose -- nice but not my taste -- YolanC 09:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- A favor --Artefacto 13:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support norro 15:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Neutral Would support if the title was changed into something more specific and informative. Freedom to share 07:56, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support --ßøuñçêY2K 13:59, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support--Lmbuga gl, pt, es: fala comigo 15:04, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
- SupportRudraksha 23:35, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
- Neutral - until the species identity is known (I am not convinced it is a Taraxacum on these views). Can you re-find the plant and get some photos of its leaves and flowers? - MPF 00:46, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
- These plants grow all around here, they look preety like Taraxacum officinale to my amateur eye. I'll try to take other pictures of them. --che 22:51, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support -- Fastfood 11:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support — we dont have any dandelion seed thingies featured, we need lots of featured thingies. it's an interesting image, I like the detail Gnangarra 14:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support -- Lycaon 17:23, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support Nice. Cary "Bastique" Bass parler voir 00:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support --DiTaeg 11:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose First of all, the proper name for this is a Dandelion clock. I'm opposing this nomination because most of the image is out of focus and we currently have better images of this subject (see accompanying images). --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 20:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support --New Painter 15:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support City Slicker 16:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
vote ended 23:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Result: 21
[edit] Image:Genova - Cimitero di Staglieno - Pantheon-2.JPG, not featured
- Info: created by User:Twice25 and User:Rinina25 - uploaded by User:Twice25 - nominated by Ggonnell because the subject of the photo is astonishing beautiful in a great sunlight 23:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Ggonnell 23:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Neutral - nice pic, but slightly tilted - needs rotating about half a degree or a degree anticlockwise - MPF 01:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: I think you were actually right about the rotation, so I rotated it 1 degree --Ggonnell 02:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Contre I don't like the composition (too much dark trees, especially in the left part). El ComandanteHasta ∞ 08:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose -- dark -- YolanC 09:44, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --ßøuñçêY2K 14:00, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Urban 06:02, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --Glasnost 23:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Get_It (Talk) 14:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support Cary "Bastique" Bass parler voir 00:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --City Slicker 18:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Result: 2
[edit] Image:GDANSK, Falowiec na Obroncow Wybrzeza.JPG, not featured
- Info:
created by rossny - uploaded by rosny- nominated by rossny 06:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)- what? Who is rosny? The picture was taken by Johan von Nameh.
- Support, though it could use less sky. --Golbez 07:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- I've searched through the commons looking for pictures of communist housing projects, and this is the most impressive one i've found. There are some others that are interesting (search "plattenbau" or "rostock") but this one is the longest i've seen, and the photo is of good quality. So i nominated it. i think the plattenbau deserves its day in the sun.24.86.215.144 06:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC) by the way, i've never encountered anything on wikimedia/etc more complicated than this process. Someone should really rewrite the instructions on how to nominate an image, because I really had no idea what was going on. NO CLUE.
- Oppose Instructive and good snapshot but, for me, no esthetical nor historical emotion. El ComandanteHasta ∞ 08:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Ggonnell 09:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support good vantage point pfctdayelise (translate?) 09:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support -- amazing -- YolanC 09:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support very illustrative --che 10:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support Ss181292 10:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC) -- It is maybe not most common communist housing project, but I like it.
- Support Gérard Janot 15:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose -- it might be illustrative but it is no good angle. the parking space (or park?) to the right is as unnecessary as is the big portion of (partially overexposed) sky. sorry. :-) -- Boereck 15:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose due to lighting. Partly overexposed (sky and white buildings in the middleground) and facades in the shadow. Composition not to interesting norro 12:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose agree with Boereck --Rodge500 21:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
- Contra --Artefacto 02:02, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --ßøuñçê