Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/March 2008
From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
This is an archive for Commons:Featured picture candidates page debates and voting.
The debates are closed and should not be edited.
[edit] Media:Arthur Sullivan - Festival Te Deum.pdf, not featured
Arthur Sullivan's Festival Te Deum (PDF)
Info: created by Arthur Sullivan - uploaded and nominated by Adam Cuerden --Adam Cuerden 11:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)- Info: We don't have "Featured Vocal Score candidates" or "Featured PDF candidates", so I'm presuming that here is the right place, as it is a lot of images, anyway, just stuck together. Adam Cuerden 11:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Support --Adam Cuerden 11:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)- Support Cool idea. Durova 11:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Oppose why should this be featured? Quality is not great and it's tilted. I also don't think this is one of the finest images/books ever scanned. -- Gorgo 14:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment The composition doesn't convince me ;-) --AngMoKio 14:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)- Comment I am wondering about the value when it comes to practical implications. The fact that it is a PDF seems to detract from the value imo as it is more difficult to access. I am a big fan of PDFs, but somehow loading up Adobe Reader (or whatever else you use) or the plug-in is slow, clunky - almost like a QuickTime video (whatever you do, don't do QT video or audio on your webpage :-) ). What I am trying to say is that browsers are adapted to view images (yes, SVGs are included) rather than PDFs and that imo hugely detracts from the value. I know that there are non-web versions of wikimedia projects, but how many of those were obtained/purchased as a ratio to the hits we get per day? Insignificantly few users look at it the non-browser way. I just cannot image the value to a Wikimedia project of something that does not live in the browser world but as a download (PDFs are meant to be downloaded). We now have an internal sound player to play OGG files to add to the value as they are part of the article rather than having to be downloaded. If we could use flash, I would recommend creating a FlashPaper [1] copy for easy viewing and navigating, but supporting it in its current form would be like having a 'featured ogg file' previous to the embedded Java player. It would be valuable, but the value would be crippled for the average user. Freedom to share 21:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- I agree that PDFs kinda suck, but what other format would we use for things like this? Calibas 06:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Noone is going to sit at their computer using music - this is something to be printed out and taken to a piano, or for singing. Ah, well. I have the full score too - I'll scan in that. Adam Cuerden 09:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose The book is an good idea, but the pages should be better aligned (rotation, etc.). --Niabot 21:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry, not special enough for me, and novelty value does not override that. --MichaelMaggs 07:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Poor scan, no wow, inappropriate forum. Lycaon 14:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - I'm agree with them...--Sabri76 19:23, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose As far as I know, PDF is not an appropriate format for the Commons. -- Ram-Man 22:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- pdf is an allowable format (see upload page) --MichaelMaggs 07:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 08:52, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Viandox.jpg, delete as Copyright violation
- Info: Ad for Viandox from the sixties revealed by the workings in the parisian subway. created by Romanceor - uploaded by Romanceor - nominated by B.navez --B.navez 16:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support --B.navez 16:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Neutral In general an interesting photo. Is there also a photo with a bit more of the surroundings? Where do you have that info about the ad from? It is not in the pictures description...it should get added there. --AngMoKio 19:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- Info: The info is available on the "Viandox" entry of the French Wikipedia. I've just added it to the description. Romanceor 23:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support Charlessauer 06:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support - amazing...--Sabri76 19:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Interesting but not very valuable. Sorry, you should try Commons:Quality images candidates first! --Beyond silence
13:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- In what sense is this photo not valuable? --AngMoKio 09:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Pour Romary 17:02, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Question: Is this copyright infringment, since it is from the 60's? -- Ram-Man 22:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)- Oppose
as per Beyond Silence.Also, a tad unsharp, even scaled down. -- Ram-Man 04:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)- In what sense is this photo not valuable? --AngMoKio 09:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Arguing over value takes a lot of effort and upon a second closer look at this, the picture is of a wall and should be spectacularly sharp, but is nowhere near FP quality. The fact that it came from an SLR implies that the error is the photographer alone, likely because of the too slow shutter speed blurring the image. For reproductions of artwork, this comes nowhere close to the acceptable standard. -- Ram-Man 22:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- I agree on the technical quality. But still I think it is a well spotted scene...not everyone has an eye for such shots. --AngMoKio 07:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- I completely disagree with these technical arguments which I think are not valuable because this is a poster, in a tunnel, without flash and furthermore matter is printed with low resolution (how should it be sharper?). So, this is a very good picture technically, artistically and historically. But Guillom is right, there is violation copyright. Sorry --B.navez 18:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Arguing over value takes a lot of effort and upon a second closer look at this, the picture is of a wall and should be spectacularly sharp, but is nowhere near FP quality. The fact that it came from an SLR implies that the error is the photographer alone, likely because of the too slow shutter speed blurring the image. For reproductions of artwork, this comes nowhere close to the acceptable standard. -- Ram-Man 22:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- In what sense is this photo not valuable? --AngMoKio 09:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose and delete as Copyright violation, see Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Viandox.jpg. guillom 08:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Bicolor Domestic Longhair.jpg, not featured
- Info: created, uploaded and nominated by Halved sandwich --Halved sandwich 23:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Halved sandwich 23:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support Mrrrow? Durova 10:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral the background is slightly distracting, and I spot several quality issues. Neutral. - Anonymous DissidentTalk 12:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose No wow for me --norro 20:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Nothing special. --Karelj 22:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support - I don't think so...--Sabri76 19:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose no wow. Lycaon 10:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Background isn't good enough for a common subject. -- Ram-Man 22:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Mywood 08:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:VHHH baggage claim area.jpg, featured
- Info: An indoor panorama of baggage claim area at Hong Kong International Airport, there isn't much indoor panorama of airport in Commons. created by Base64 - uploaded by Base64 - nominated by Base64 --Base64 13:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Base64 13:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support what an amusing photo--Dbslkc 03:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Charlessauer 06:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support It's not easy to catch that kind of subjects in a good picture. This one is not perfect, but well done anyhow. I like it. -- MJJR 20:05, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support and Question: . Impressive image, amazing DOF. Good image of a valuable and unusual subject on Commons. I guess it must be a stitch? Could you provide some details about the camera and software you have used to generate the panorama in the image page? -- Slaunger 09:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- Info: The camera is a Canon EOS 400D/Digital Rebel XTi, the lens used is a 17-50mm F/2.8. The software used to stitch is PTgui with Smartblend. The image editing(Noise removal as I took with ISO400) is Adobe Photoshop CS3. I also used DxO Optics for barrel distortion correction before stitching. I did not increase the brightness because that place is really that dark. --Base64 15:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you. Now, all this nice information should be added to the image page, such that it is an integral part of your image. -- Slaunger 16:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- May I ask whether there is a template for posting those details? --Base64 16:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- No, not that I am aware of. I normally add it into the Description parameter in the {{Information}} template. See here for an example. -- Slaunger 19:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- Details about the camera used, and setting on the camera is normally automatically there in the EXIF information, but for stitched panoramas this information is normally thrown away when generating the final output as some settings may have been different for the individual images, like focal distance. Thus, it is a little more tedious to retrieve and add all relevant technical information about the image to the image page. Nevertheless, I find it very valuable as it gives hints to panorama-wannabees for how to make such cool panoramas ;-) -- Slaunger 19:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- May I ask whether there is a template for posting those details? --Base64 16:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you. Now, all this nice information should be added to the image page, such that it is an integral part of your image. -- Slaunger 16:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support Only a couple of very minor glitches from the stitching that I can see. It forms a beautiful image and the pattern of the curves really looks nice! --WikiWookie 08:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support It almost seems like every panorama gets featured just because it's a panorama. Alas, I seem to be contributing to this some more. -- Ram-Man 22:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support very nice ! (and hard subject for a panorama I believe). Benh 21:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
result: 8 support, 0oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Mywood 08:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Cat by Laziale93.JPG, not featured
- Info: created by Andrea Buratti - uploaded by Andrea Buratti - nominated by Andrea Buratti
- Support --Laziale93 14:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose It is an amazing image, with just one mistake that brings it down. The tail is cut off, major composition flaw. Sorry, Freedom to share 17:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Ack Freedom to share, also the lighting is too hard, the cat is partly overexposed. --norro 19:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Terrible quality. --Karelj 22:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose per norro. Lycaon 14:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Nice colors, but bad crop and a not so appealing composition. -- Slaunger 09:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 08:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Junior Nationwide 2008.jpg, not featured
- Info: created by National Guard - uploaded by Dany3000 - nominated by Dany3000 --Dany3000 16:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Dany3000 16:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Why? --Karelj 22:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Charlessauer 07:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose snapshot, no wow. Lycaon 14:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose poor composition, tilted, not very interesting. Cacophony 01:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Composition not well thouhgt through, point-and-shoot, what's the idea? -- Slaunger 09:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose You dont see the driver well nor the car. The focus seems to be on the arm of the driver. --Simonizer 13:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 08:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Stinkhorn Springbrook.jpg, featured
- Info: created and uploaded by WikiWookie - nominated by Adam Cuerden --Adam Cuerden 21:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Info: Species name is Aseroë rubra. Other good images of this include Image:Stinkhorn_Auckland_2005-10-14.jpg, the unfortunately too small Image:Aseroe_rubra_Bomaderry_email.jpg, and the Lovecraftian horror of Image:Aseroe_rubra.jpg. This one has been washed by rain, revealing the unnderlying structure of the stinkhorn body.
- Support --Adam Cuerden 21:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Charlessauer 07:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support - nice picture...--Sabri76 19:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support I didn't fancy aliens have landed in NZ --B.navez 03:51, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support Strange. --Calibas 05:01, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support Unusual, but good and valuable. Freedom to share 20:30, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support Good composition, valuable illustration of interesting subject. Must have been a smelly experience from reading the species article on en. A pity that the wood chops are not natural ones. I suggest to Geocode it. Adds value. -- Slaunger 21:30, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- Info: Location info added as suggested. --WikiWookie 11:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you, I already zoomed in to see where it was. Nice. -- Slaunger 12:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support All of the above, plus gooey and disgusting. Good job! Durova 22:47, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Wlodzimierz 05:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- MJJR 09:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support--Mbz1 02:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support --MichaelMaggs 07:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Richard Bartz 16:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose I'm sure I'm missing something here, but according to the Wikipedia article, this is a fairly common fungus, so a resulting image should be extra special. The composition here is not exceptional (though not bad). The angle is too wide, resulting in the typical wide-angle distorted perspective that does not add to the image. The top-left fungus is not in clear focus. It may look unusual to commons reviewers, but I expect more. -- Ram-Man 22:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Having the secondary subject smaller and slightly out of focus stops it distracting from the main subject - otherwise they compete for attention. While it may be a fairly common fungus, good examples do seem to be rare. The wood chips are not natural but I like the concept of something natural making use of material man uses to try to prevent growth. --WikiWookie 00:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Good examples are rare for many different subjects, but that is no reason for it to be a featured picture. A large number of my own subjects fall in that category, but they still do not easily become featured pictures. This image has the flaws I've listed, yet it is wildly popular. I think perhaps the subject is just so interesting to people that it overrides any other objections. -- Ram-Man 00:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not quite sure you understand what "fairly common fungus" means - fungi, even the most common, are only visible above ground for a few weeks out of a year, and are only at the mature stage of development for a week or two - much less in some cases, like inkcaps - before they begin to degrade. Adam Cuerden 01:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Just referencing here. In any case it isn't rare or especially difficult enough to compensate for its weaknesses. That's my main point. An underwater Antarctica shot is rare and difficult. -- Ram-Man 03:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- I've gone through about most of Category:Fungi and its subcats today. I've found... exactly one other which MIGHT work as FPC, if people are willing to ignore that it's very slightly cropped. So, you know, "extra-special" doesn't seem the right criterion, at least until we get some more photographers willing to go mushrooming. Then we can consider Featured picture removal for any that no longer make the new bar, but, you know, FP serves to appreciate our photographers and gets more of similar categories - look at insects and flowers - so fungi is something we should be actively looking to promote just now. Adam Cuerden 03:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- The guidelines do not list appreciation of photographers as a guideline, but it is a nice side effect. Also, no where in the guidelines does it imply that a lack of a certain subject is reason to treat an image with less technical strictness (although rareness can increase value). There could be no pictures or dozens of fungi and it wouldn't change my vote. It is commonly understood that FPs are intended to be the best-of-the-best. It's also much harder to remove a borderline FP than you imply. -- Ram-Man 04:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- I've gone through about most of Category:Fungi and its subcats today. I've found... exactly one other which MIGHT work as FPC, if people are willing to ignore that it's very slightly cropped. So, you know, "extra-special" doesn't seem the right criterion, at least until we get some more photographers willing to go mushrooming. Then we can consider Featured picture removal for any that no longer make the new bar, but, you know, FP serves to appreciate our photographers and gets more of similar categories - look at insects and flowers - so fungi is something we should be actively looking to promote just now. Adam Cuerden 03:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Just referencing here. In any case it isn't rare or especially difficult enough to compensate for its weaknesses. That's my main point. An underwater Antarctica shot is rare and difficult. -- Ram-Man 03:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not quite sure you understand what "fairly common fungus" means - fungi, even the most common, are only visible above ground for a few weeks out of a year, and are only at the mature stage of development for a week or two - much less in some cases, like inkcaps - before they begin to degrade. Adam Cuerden 01:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Good examples are rare for many different subjects, but that is no reason for it to be a featured picture. A large number of my own subjects fall in that category, but they still do not easily become featured pictures. This image has the flaws I've listed, yet it is wildly popular. I think perhaps the subject is just so interesting to people that it overrides any other objections. -- Ram-Man 00:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Having the secondary subject smaller and slightly out of focus stops it distracting from the main subject - otherwise they compete for attention. While it may be a fairly common fungus, good examples do seem to be rare. The wood chips are not natural but I like the concept of something natural making use of material man uses to try to prevent growth. --WikiWookie 00:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
result: 13 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Mywood 08:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Pale Grass Blue (For the new life).jpg, not featured
.jpg)
- Info: created, uploaded and nominated by Laitche -- Laitche 16:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Laitche 16:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment DOF could be a bit wider, too bad that's so hard to do in macro. "For the new life" (title) - is that some deep symbolism. If yes, explain please. Thanks, Freedom to share 17:23, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- That title is not deep meaning. It's just what it looked :) -- Laitche 17:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support--Sabri76 19:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral - It is so beautiful that I can't oppose despite the wrong exposure choice, causing a poor dof -- Alvesgaspar 21:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Info: The new version has been uploaded. -- Laitche 22:23, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support --B.navez 03:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral Still seems a little underexposed to me, a little work on the Curves could make a great deal of difference. Calibas 05:07, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- Info: I uploaded the new version again. -- Laitche 06:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose --DOF and a lot of posterization in the transition with the dark area. Sting 13:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- I corrected the posterization. --Laitche 19:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral Nice and valuable shot of a species in action and not just posing. The wings are really quite unsharp. So much that I really can't support it whole-heartedly, sorry. -- Slaunger 21:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Very nice, but with dof not featured from other simillar shots. Sorry --Beyond silence 13:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Nature did it's job here perfectly in a beautiful shot, but the technical aspects are not FP quality. There is reason why a shot like this shouldn't have better exposure and/or DoF. The posterization is just too much. Also, if you are going to change versions in the middle of voting, use a different upload and/or nomination. -- Ram-Man 22:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support I actually like it, and think it is not everyday you can take such a picture-LadyofHats 17:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 3 neutral => not featured. Mywood 08:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Samarkand-Madressa.jpg, not featured
- Info: created by Gilad rom - uploaded by Gilad.rom - nominated by Gilad.rom --Gilad.rom 23:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Gilad.rom 23:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support Interesting composition and wonderful patterns. Calibas 05:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Charlessauer 08:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose very confusing composition. Lycaon 10:38, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - As Lycaon -- Alvesgaspar 13:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support - Such complex architecture is difficult to show well, this does a good job at giving an impression of it, which is probably the best that can be done. A more traditional composition would be misleading in this case, as it would conceal the 3D nature of the architecture. Adam Cuerden 17:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - per Lycaon --Herby talk thyme 17:20, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose No clear idea with the image, confusing composition, sorry. -- Slaunger 20:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose composition, detail. --Beyond silence 13:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Tragic composition. --Karelj 21:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support I like the composition. It's a little bit noisy, but not too bad. /Daniel78 22:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support well it is clearly looking up and it is clearly looking the ceiling on top of a door, so i dont find it confusing. still would have liked a bit better light-LadyofHats 17:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
result: 6 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 08:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:QWERTY keyboard.jpg, not featured
- Info: created and uploaded by MichaelMaggs - nominated by Ikiwaner 08:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support Very straightforward implementation of the QWERTY theme. DOF exploited to the limit of physics. --Ikiwaner 08:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Not sure about depth of field being exploited to the limit of physics, but I don't mind the blur at the corners. It serves to direct attention to the middle, and that's fine. Fg2 11:31, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral A QI for sure. But a FP? I am not sure... --AngMoKio 12:31, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose It is a good and valuable photo of clinical technical quality. However, for me, some improvements should be done to make it FP-worthy with respect to visual appearance. The composition is a little boring for me and well as the ligthning. I think using a more slanted angle and deliberately use DOF to only get the focus on the QWERTY key would be better. Also I think you could use some specular light sources to better grasp the slightly bowllike depressions in each key. Something like this with respect to angle and light. It is very good Valued Image Candidate. There are also some aspects of your crop which distracts me, like the partially visible button, and the disproportionate cuts of the "Q" and "Y" keys. I consider it the most valued illustration of QWERTY on Commons. -- Slaunger 20:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Interesting but not informative composition. --Beyond silence 13:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Why? --Karelj 21:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose As a keyboard, the crop is too tight. As a macro shot the angle does not help the DoF (which is not incidentally at a physical limit). The main redeeming quality is its artistry, but artistry alone is insufficient. -- Ram-Man 22:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 16:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC) (Rule of the 5th day)
[edit] Image:ZM1210-operating.jpg
- Info: created by Georg-Johann Lay - uploaded by User:Georg-Johann - nominated by User:Georg-Johann --Georg-Johann 12:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support If you ever try to take such a picture you will note it's hard. No flash, no bright light because you want to see the glowing cathode... --Georg-Johann 12:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- Question: I like it. Did you have to crop the photo quite a bit? The resolution is on the low side (<2MPix). Do you have it in better resolution (or could you make a mew photo in better resolution)? The picture would perhaps be more complete if the connector/socket was not cropped. -- Slaunger 14:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- Info: Yes, I cropped the original image. I had to take the image from some distance (more than 1.5 meters) and zoom, because macro does not give this depth of focus. Better resolution is beyond my equipment. The ZM1210 is intended to be soldered directly into the PCB. The connector is self made of cast resin, so I cropped it... --Georg-Johann 15:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose left: Obviously too small and too noisy. I tried an edit to address those problems. Lycaon 21:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support Only supporting the image at the right. It is nice, informative, valuable and has a reasonal technical quality level. Freedom to share 22:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I like Lycaons edit. Perhaps the cropped connector could be cloned out? -- Slaunger 05:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose But I prefer the last edit with the empty socket cloned out. -- Slaunger 21:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I like Lycaons edit (right version) more. It is better in quality and composition. The small bulb in the middle of the tube holder is an LED of 5mm diam to enlight holder and tube. The picture shows a detail of my nixie tube clock, so there are some tube holders alongside. --Georg-Johann 08:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support for the right version. --Niabot 14:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose As I prefer edit3 /Daniel78 22:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination in the favor of Richard's edit below
[edit] Image:ZM1210-operating edit2.jpg, featured
- Info: created by Georg-Johann Lay - uploaded by User:Richard Bartz - nominated by User:Richard Bartz
- Info: I added a 3rd! edit ;-) with perspective correction and a slight change of the composition --Richard Bartz 21:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Info: To prevent confusion i separated this edit- --Richard Bartz 12:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support I prefere the third image, but all nominated are nice. --Karelj 22:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support I prefer the third edit (and would oppose the original nomination because of its crop). (Additionally, I can't think of how to light such picture better.) --che 00:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support The images on the right (version 3 is slightly better I think). Removing the extra connector would be good, but it doesn't bother me too much. The main subject is nice and sharp and shows the internal detail well. --WikiWookie 08:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC) - updated support after third edit added --WikiWookie 00:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support Third. Adam Cuerden 02:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support Third.--Mbz1 03:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support Third. --Richard Bartz 12:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Question: What is the usual procedure if there are more versions of the same picture like in this case? Withdraw the nomination and rerun the process? Or just wait until the voting is over and then replace the first version with the one that got most votes? I would prefer the second way. It is straigt forward and does not clutter up this page. Sorry for my OT question, but I could not find a hint and the experts are present :-) --Georg-Johann 12:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Let it and c what happens :-) The version with the most votes will be featured in the end --Richard Bartz 12:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose As I prefer edit3 /Daniel78 22:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose unsharp --Beyond silence 13:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support Good, nice, valuable. Freedom to share 18:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support Mir gefällt diese Variante am besten. --Georg-Johann 19:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support Of the remaining versions I prefer this edit. It is very nice. -- Slaunger 21:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
result: 9 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Mywood 20:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:ZM1210-operating edit3.jpg
- Info: photo by Georg-Johann Lay - perspective corrected by Richard Bartz - cropped socked cloned out by Slaunger - uploaded and nominated by Slaunger -- Slaunger 21:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Info: I could not resist adding a 4th edit ;-) based on Richards edit above and attempted to clone out the cropped unused socket, which I find distracting. It is only the second time I attempt to do extensive cloning, and it can certainly be done better. However, I think it improves the composition. Feel free to improve the cloning in this edit by uploading another version of the image. -- Slaunger 21:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Slaunger 21:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support I like this one best, it's very good. /Daniel78 22:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Imho, cloning out complete parts of a picture -- perceived as unaesthetic or not -- goes too far. --Georg-Johann 22:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I agree cloning should not be done carelessly and it is much a matter of taste. I am normally concerned about altering an image by cloning too. There are ezxceptions however, and I think this is one of them. Here the subject is clearly the tube and nothing else. So to illustrate that well you need to see the tube and preferably how this interacts with its surroundings. In this case its own socket and by the very delicate lightning. We see that in the image. Now, the tube is actually a subcomponent in a device of yours consisting of several tubes and some electronics. However, this is not the subject and not what you intend to show. It is just a convenient holder of the subject. Therefore, I see the cropped, empty socket next to the tube as a distracting element which has nothing to do with the subject. I guess you have actually removed a tube from you device to make this photo already? If that is the case you have already manipulated reality to make the subject stand out - a kind of real world retouching which i have no problem with. Given these circumstances I find cloning is in order, provided the manipulation is clearly specified in the image page (which it is) with proper reference to the original. It is not like altering history by retouching away a person or so from a historic photo. Sorry for such a long comment, just wanted to explain why I did it. -- Slaunger 08:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- Comment IMHO: This is not a matter of taste but a matter of priciples. Adjusting the orientation is all right, it is the analogon of rotating a real photo. Yes, I removed one of the six tubes because it would have been right in the background of the tube shown. But I did not clone it out, I just removed it before making the photo. And this is no "retouching" or cloning out because the removed nixie was never on the photo. If the socket is a reason not no tag one of the photos as FP it's a pity, but that's not a justification for the manipulation in question. (Note: The perspective was given by the cathodes, a direct shot from the front would have aligned all 10 cathodes behind each other. And as it is a still life, I could not ait until the socket was gone...) --Georg-Johann 19:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- Info: Edit 2 also used cloning to complete the the image after rotating. You can see it at the left bottom. But as long only the background is cloned - a part that is out of interest - cloning should be ok.
- Support Looks good to me. --Niabot 09:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose The clone job is not done very well --Richard Bartz 21:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Question: Do you think it is a good idea to clone it out, if it is done right? -- Slaunger 07:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- I dont know. The tendency is no. --Richard Bartz 13:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Clone area looks like a dirty smudge in the corner. Not bad for a first try, but not FP. --WikiWookie 01:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination I acknowledge that most users thinks this clone thing is a bad idea and that it is not done very well. I'd like to see a version promoted, and I withdraw this one to set the scene more straight in coutesy of the original creator. -- Slaunger 21:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Crepuscular rays in ggp 2.jpg, featured
- Info:Crepuscular Rays.In the middle left of the image one could also see a different set of the rays coming upward from the lake. The light source for these rays is the Sun's reflection.
created,uploaded and nominated by Mbz1 --Mbz1 19:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC) - Support Not bad. Valuable, informative and to me it also has a high WOW. It would be a real pity if this nomination lost out due to people nitpicking on the flare and technical quality. How many people have equipment that can avoid those pitfalls? Should images of this topic only be published by them? Freedom to share 20:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support Ahh, finally! One of the best contributors on Commons is back! Could you add the location to the image page, Mila? -- Slaunger 20:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- Done. Thank you for pointing this out to me.--Mbz1 21:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support It has wow and the technical quality is quite good for this kind of difficult lighting conditions. Lycaon 21:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support !!! -- MJJR 21:58, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Charlessauer 22:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support Very nice. --Calibas 01:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support Durova 04:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support --AngMoKio 08:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support Wonderful --norro 09:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support nice mood and composition --Simonizer 13:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support Muy bonito / Very beatufil --Dtarazona 15:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support MBZ1 style --Richard Bartz 16:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support Great picture. Also great to see you back. Muhammad Mahdi Karim 18:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support wow and (as usual) what a nice subject -- Benh 19:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support one of the best even in category full of crepuscular rays --che 00:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Luc Viatour 07:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support Very nice. --Bergwolf 12:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support RBID 16:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support As per comments above --Booksworm 20:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Böhringer 21:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support Cacophony 07:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support Perfect. - Rocket000 16:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support - A record of support votes? -- Alvesgaspar 11:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Digon3 talk 21:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
result: 24 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 16:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Oxalis triangularis Stereoscopy Richard Bartz.jpg, featured
- Info: created & uploaded + nominated by --Richard Bartz 16:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Info: You need a
Anaglyph (3-D glasses) to view this image
- Ill support if you ship me some over... Freedom to share 17:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- lol, same here... I got one going to watch Nightmare on Elm Street 6, but that was in 1991. Jaakobou 10:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support The Makro Freak never sleeps :-) --Richard Bartz 16:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Then what do you do at night? Look up prices of anaglyph glasses on eBay or Amazon? Freedom to share 17:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- I meant there is a whole Batailon of amazing 3d pictures waiting for being uploaded :-) --Richard Bartz 17:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- How do you make them? Freedom to share 19:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC) (btw I was in Munich briefly. Nice airport and good trains)
- Have you eaten white sausages ?`--Richard Bartz 15:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Maybe. What are they called in German? Freedom to share 19:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Nee. Vielleicht naechsten mal. Ist es gut? Freedom to share 16:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Einfach Super! --Richard Bartz 23:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Weisswurst --Richard Bartz 00:45, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Nee. Vielleicht naechsten mal. Ist es gut? Freedom to share 16:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Make one for every eye --Richard Bartz 19:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Maybe. What are they called in German? Freedom to share 19:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- I meant there is a whole Batailon of amazing 3d pictures waiting for being uploaded :-) --Richard Bartz 17:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Then what do you do at night? Look up prices of anaglyph glasses on eBay or Amazon? Freedom to share 17:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Question: How did you manage to keep the plant and camera still at such magnification? Freedom to share 17:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Like always .. using a tripod ;-) --Richard Bartz 17:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Must be a very good tripod. How do you keep it still and how do you prevent the flower from moving? Freedom to share 19:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Mikado stick --Richard Bartz 19:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Standard mikado or the Manfroto €200 carbon fiber special 'plant reinforcement' edition? Freedom to share 20:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- I prefer "Standard" because i often loose them --Richard Bartz 20:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Standard mikado or the Manfroto €200 carbon fiber special 'plant reinforcement' edition? Freedom to share 20:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Mikado stick --Richard Bartz 19:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Must be a very good tripod. How do you keep it still and how do you prevent the flower from moving? Freedom to share 19:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support Awesome. Gotta love anaglyphs! - Keta 20:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support I love stereo photography... -- MJJR 20:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support--Mbz1 01:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Charlessauer 04:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support I've been searching my 3d glasses for an hour to look at this, but it was worth it! --Bergwolf 12:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support Innovative and interesting new idea. Freedom to share 19:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support really superb! --Raminus (talk) 15:50, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 16:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Allium 'Lucy Ball' Pink Flower Head 2236px.jpg, featured
- Info: Created, uploaded, and nominated by Ram-Man 22:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Info: Flower head of Allium 'Lucy Ball' (cross between Allium elatum and Allium aflatunense)
- Support Since the colorful, natural background in my last FP nom was rejected, let's change the background. -- Ram-Man 22:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Charlessauer 04:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support --MichaelMaggs 07:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- MJJR 21:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support Durova 00:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support Peripitus 06:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support -LadyofHats 17:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Digon3 talk 21:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 16:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Amur Tiger Panthera tigris altaica Cub Walking 1500px.jpg, not featured
- Info: Created, uploaded, and nominated by Ram-Man. Edit by Lycaon. 23:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Info: Siberian Tiger (Panthera tigris altaica) cub walking in the snow.
- Support -- Ram-Man 23:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Too bad quality, the head is very noisy, plus zoo image - Keta 00:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- All I ask is that you consider the web quality and usefulness when evaluated at 2MP, rather than the useless 100% that no one is ever going to actually use this at. If it was printed at a higher DPI it would look better. Categorizing this as bad is overly picky, IMO. As for it being a zoo picture, it is quite useful. This image has survived on en:Siberian Tiger while this FP was removed. -- Ram-Man 01:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with the quality argument of Keta because commons is targetting at print media and not only at web quality but I wished that people would finally stay away from this stupid zoo argument. This is actually a Siberien Tiger and zoos are part of the reality as well as nature. There is no reason to declassify a picture because of the location where it was shot. Andreas Tille 05:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- While I approve when images are great for printing, to say that is the Commons target does not sync with the guidelines. If that were the case, we wouldn't have a 2MP limit (we even allow smaller from time to time). Even if I were to ignore that point, on my 100dpi 16"x12" monitor, this image still looks fine. It would look even better printed at that size. I've said this about numerous recent nominations, but this is just overly picky. -- Ram-Man 22:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- What is wrong about a zoo image?! I totally agree with Andreas Tille concerning this. --AngMoKio 09:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- I didn't say, or meant to, that the picture is bad, just that there are some concerns with noise for example, as others also noted. And for being a zoo image, of course it's a personal matter. I have no problem at all with zoo pictures, and I think that their value is great in most cases. However, for FP I'm looking for something else when it's about wildlife pictures, it's not only a good picture what counts, for me the location is also very important, i.e. if it has been taken in the natural habitat. In very rare cases would National Geographic accept a zoo image, and that's the kind of idea I have with all this, I'm looking for the best wildlife pictures. I say again, I'm not arguing about their value or usefulness, definitely they're quite useful, and of course perfect QI candidates, but in general I won't support them for FP, except for some rare cases. This may sound stupid to you, Andreas, but it's a valid argument for me. - Keta 16:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'd only request that if it is a personal preference that isn't in the guidelines, then at worst you vote neutral. -- Ram-Man 22:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- The noise is still an issue for me, sorry. IMO the quality at 100 % is very important. The picture is very nice, though. - Keta 19:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'd only request that if it is a personal preference that isn't in the guidelines, then at worst you vote neutral. -- Ram-Man 22:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- I didn't say, or meant to, that the picture is bad, just that there are some concerns with noise for example, as others also noted. And for being a zoo image, of course it's a personal matter. I have no problem at all with zoo pictures, and I think that their value is great in most cases. However, for FP I'm looking for something else when it's about wildlife pictures, it's not only a good picture what counts, for me the location is also very important, i.e. if it has been taken in the natural habitat. In very rare cases would National Geographic accept a zoo image, and that's the kind of idea I have with all this, I'm looking for the best wildlife pictures. I say again, I'm not arguing about their value or usefulness, definitely they're quite useful, and of course perfect QI candidates, but in general I won't support them for FP, except for some rare cases. This may sound stupid to you, Andreas, but it's a valid argument for me. - Keta 16:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support--Mbz1 01:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Noise and crop. Sorry. --MichaelMaggs 06:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support amore sbalorditivo esso. Jina Lee 04:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Too bad quality, the head is very noisy --Beyond silence 13:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose missing light, low contrast, noisy.. in general low quality -LadyofHats 17:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 16:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Celandine Poppy Stylophorum diphyllum Flower Crop 2220px.jpg, not featured
- Info: Created, uploaded, and nominated by Ram-Man. 23:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Info: Celandine Poppy (Stylophorum diphyllum)
- Support Nice texture and color. Sharper and brighter than this recent FP. -- Ram-Man 23:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose I find that the imperfect flower to the right distracts. --MichaelMaggs 07:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose the composition looks a bit too random to me. But it is for sure a QI photo. --AngMoKio 16:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Beyond silence 07:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support i dont think that comparing it with recent featured pictures help.-LadyofHats 17:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 16:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Seascape_after_sunset.jpg
[edit] Original (left), not featured
- Info: created by - uploaded by (moved to commons by Freedom to share) - nominated by Freedom to share --Freedom to share 22:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support I feel that this image is a great landscape photograph, with a great mood, tone and composition. --Freedom to share 22:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Not convinced by the choices : long exposure smoothes the sea surface making it not real, moment shooting seems too late : rocks are completely black --B.navez 03:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Charlessauer 08:33, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Technically insufficient. Very noisy. Lycaon 10:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support I am a big fan of such long exposure photos...and I really like this one. The problem with the noise is difficult to avoid with such photos. --AngMoKio 12:33, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Very nice and good mood but the framing is too tight for my taste : the two subjects, the rocks, are at the edges. Also, the noise in the whole LR quarter should be post-processed and I would have liked an indication of the location where this picture was taken. Sting 13:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support Very beutiful --Laziale93 17:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose For sure a very lovely, and visually appealing seascape with a great mood, but I fail to see its real value for existing or future Wikimedia projects. What is the informational and educational content? Not even the location is specified in the image page. I recommend geocoding it. -- Slaunger 21:01, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose may support after noise reduction. --Beyond silence 13:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral - I too, like images with long exposure times - I will only change to support if the noise is reduced and the location specified --Booksworm 16:02, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support, the noise is hardly visible. --Aqwis 20:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support So moody picture, and "out of this world" like. I like the exposure and the composition. Very inspiring to me (hope I'll come up with something similar one day). A bit noisy, but it doesn't kill it for me. Wouldn't opening a bit more had been a better choise (could have allowed to set ISO down) ? -- Benh 19:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support Very impressive. Good.--Karelj 21:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Value, noise, dark rock. -- Ram-Man 22:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry I have to ask again. What is it about the value? --AngMoKio 09:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- It is quite obvious in this case and well stated by Slaunger. It is possible for every picture to have some value, but this to me is clearly lacking in the basics. -- Ram-Man 22:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry I have to ask again. What is it about the value? --AngMoKio 09:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Is it possible to add a bit more information to the picture. For example where has that photo been taken?--AngMoKio 09:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
result: 7 support, 6 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Mywood 08:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Edit (right), featured
- Info: I added an edit with noise reduction (right version). /Daniel78 23:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support The right version. /Daniel78 08:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support the noise-reduced version (right) - much better --WikiWookie 03:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Quality is now good, and it has value for me, even if not Encyclopedic value... --WikiWookie 13:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support --AngMoKio 09:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support Even better than the previous one. Freedom to share 21:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support - Without a doubt. We need more artistic interpretations of nature, like this one. -- Alvesgaspar 09:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I just don't get it. How can we seriously promote a photo of a landscape not knowing anything about the location - artistic or not? I am seriously worried about the gradual FP drift away from from usefullness/value towards artistic beauty which I have seen happening the last couple of months. -- Slaunger 09:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- why should this photo not be useful or shouldn't have value? What is wrong about an artistic landscape shot? I agree, to know where this place is would be better...but still the photo is valuable for me. How do you know what wikimedia projects there will be in the future? And this is a technically good shot with imho a very nice composition. --AngMoKio 10:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- The photo has a strong visual wow for me as well, I do not argue with that. I think it is very beautiful and no, I cannot know what future wikimedia projects this might be usefull in. I am not arguing that the image is useless, I am just contemplating that for an image to become the top-of-the cream 1/2000 images on Commons which are featured we can expect that certain minimum requirements about the informative value of the associated image page has to be fulfilled. The links on the image page does not tell anything. It is OK that a landscape shot is artistic, but there is more to FP IMO. --
- why should this photo not be useful or shouldn't have value? What is wrong about an artistic landscape shot? I agree, to know where this place is would be better...but still the photo is valuable for me. How do you know what wikimedia projects there will be in the future? And this is a technically good shot with imho a very nice composition. --AngMoKio 10:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Slaunger 10:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- Slaunger, I fully agree with you. This image as a landscape has little value. I did not intend it to show value as a landscape and I knew that the nomination is going to be hit by value problems. Just defending my decision, look at the categorisation of that image. The main category is "Blue hour". I looked up the article of that name in the Wikipedia once and saw that the image greatly added to it and was a great graphic representation of what the article meant. It also demonstrates landscape photography in dimmer conditions imo and also long exposure photography, but mostly the concept of blue hour. Hence, I feel that it has great value as it clearly enlightened me and presented an aspect of photography I did not know about. If you disagree with that, voice your opinion with an oppose please. Thanks for the comments you put in, --Freedom to share 19:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Freedom to share, these are valid points, and I see it can have value for Wikimedia projects. Hoowever, my biggest reservation with the image is really that there is no information available about the photo. No location. I think this is a prerequisite for going FP. (I have already stated my vote above previously, if location info is added I will change my vote to support). -- Slaunger 21:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- I'll try to contact the original author on en:wp and ask him about the details. Freedom to share 08:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Great, thank you. -- Slaunger 11:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- I'll try to contact the original author on en:wp and ask him about the details. Freedom to share 08:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Slaunger, I fully agree with you. This image as a landscape has little value. I did not intend it to show value as a landscape and I knew that the nomination is going to be hit by value problems. Just defending my decision, look at the categorisation of that image. The main category is "Blue hour". I looked up the article of that name in the Wikipedia once and saw that the image greatly added to it and was a great graphic representation of what the article meant. It also demonstrates landscape photography in dimmer conditions imo and also long exposure photography, but mostly the concept of blue hour. Hence, I feel that it has great value as it clearly enlightened me and presented an aspect of photography I did not know about. If you disagree with that, voice your opinion with an oppose please. Thanks for the comments you put in, --Freedom to share 19:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- Oppose value, as above. -- Ram-Man 12:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I'd hate to oppose based on lack of background, and hate to support based on that same reason. Any chance in contacting the original poster and getting some detail on this image? Jaakobou 19:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support background added, -- Jaakobou 17:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support So beautiful ! -- Benh 21:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose You've managed to keep some of the noise while removing some of the details. Lycaon 19:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Update Added location data after contacting original author. Freedom to share 07:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose it was taken a bit too late, there is very low light and much detail is lost. i tend to agree with those that argue about noise and quality of this image-LadyofHats 17:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support--Simonizer 20:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Wisnia6522 16:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
result: 9 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Mywood 10:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Weiße Baumnymphe Idea leuconoe 4 Richard Bartz.jpg, featured
- Info: created & nominated by --Richard Bartz 00:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Info: For a close up on the beautiful head have a look @ this
- Support --Richard Bartz 00:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support I'd be inconsistent if I didn't support this. My nom doesn't look perfect at 100%, but neither does this butterfly. At the 2MP web viewing guideline, however, the slightly shallow DoF is not bad enough. -- Ram-Man 01:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support--Mbz1 01:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support --MichaelMaggs 07:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support Amazing. --norro 09:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Luc Viatour 10:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Bergwolf 12:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support great composition --AngMoKio 20:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support Durova 23:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support Da hauts dia ja den Vugel raus --Simonizer 21:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support ditto --Böhringer 21:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support one more on the row-LadyofHats 17:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Digon3 talk 21:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Mywood 10:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Lohengrin - Illustrated Sporting and Dramatic News.png, featured
- Info: created by Arthur Thiele (1841-1916) - uploaded and nominated by Adam Cuerden --Adam Cuerden 00:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Info: Original is an approximately A3-sized engraving. Adam Cuerden 00:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Adam Cuerden 00:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support One of the highest quality scans on Commons. --Calibas 01:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support--Mbz1 01:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support --MichaelMaggs 07:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support /Daniel78 22:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support Durova 23:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support -LadyofHats 17:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Mywood 10:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Inachis io top detail MichaD.jpg, featured
- Info: Created and uploaded by Michael Apel. Nominated by Ram-Man. 01:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support this FP is already one of our best shots top-view butterfly shots, but I think this version should also be a FP. I'm tired of standard closed-wing butterfly shots on this or that. This is interesting and good. -- Ram-Man 01:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Charlessauer 04:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support Brilliant. --Calibas 05:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose because of distracting background which is rather intrusive; my first thought when looking at this image is 'what is it sitting on'? --MichaelMaggs 07:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support Good colors and sharpness. /Daniel78 22:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support A good picture of iridescence. And it appears to be a typical granite stone Adam Cuerden 04:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support A good addition to the picture of the whole butterfly, letting you see the individual scales better. --WikiWookie 11:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support -LadyofHats 17:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - Poor composition -- Alvesgaspar 17:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
result: 7 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Mywood 10:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Weiße Baumnymphe Idea leuconoe 5 Richard Bartz.jpg, not featured
- Info: Created by Richard Bartz - Nominated by Ram-Man. 01:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support Very sharp, detailed, and valuable. -- Ram-Man 01:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support--Mbz1 01:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support-- Charlessauer 04:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose quite bad RBID 15:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Question: Shall we take into account a vote from a newly created user with no contribution but votes on FPC and such poor justifications ? Benh 22:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Yes. Any registered user can vote for FPC. --norro 09:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Yes but it takes seconds to register... it's almost like allowing anonymous votes. There should be a few days between registration and first vote on FPC. Benh 07:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Info: Moved to Commons_talk:Featured_picture_candidates#Votes_from_newly_created_users --norro 10:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Yes but it takes seconds to register... it's almost like allowing anonymous votes. There should be a few days between registration and first vote on FPC. Benh 07:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Yes. Any registered user can vote for FPC. --norro 09:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 12:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Weiße Baumnymphe Idea leuconoe 5 Richard Bartz edit.jpg, featured
- Support I removed the dust spots, sharpened the head, and some other minor adjustments. Great shot. --Calibas 06:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support --MichaelMaggs 07:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Ram-Man 12:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support I think its my premiere when someone did a edit of one of my pictures. Thanks for taking the time Calibas --Richard Bartz 12:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support Trés jolie! --Bergwolf 12:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support--Mbz1 15:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose still bad RBID 15:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support Great detail - Keta 16:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support Durova 23:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Charlessauer 01:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support -LadyofHats 17:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
result: 10 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Mywood 12:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:SvartifossDetail.jpg, not featured
- Info: Detailed view on basalt columns at Svartifoss, Skaftafell national park, Iceland; Created and uploaded by Andreas Tille 05:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose It doesn't seem terribly sharp. --MichaelMaggs 07:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support It looks like there's some ice on them, so the unsharpness is probably realistic. Adam Cuerden 00:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- There is definitely ice on it. Look here for a larger view on the scene. Andreas Tille 09:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose I don't like the cropping. --norro 09:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Unconvinced by the composition. Freedom to share 11:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose uninteresting composition, not really that sharp, and the water area is noisy-LadyofHats 17:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 12:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Kosovo map-en.svg, not featured
- Info: created by Sémhur - uploaded by Sémhur - nominated by Sémhur --Sémhur 11:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment This place is about the quality of this picture. This is not the place for a debate between pro- and anti- independence of Kosovo. Sémhur 12:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Sémhur 11:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support, in before the "Kosovo isn't independent"! opposers. --Aqwis 12:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- That's right ; I have added a comment. Sémhur 12:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support great. DocteurCosmos 14:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support RBID 15:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose The names on the map are neither in English (as the name implies) nor in Albanian (reality on the ground). --Dori - Talk 16:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- This map should be in english (I don't speak Albanian). As it's said on the picture's description page, my sources were this map from UN, and Demis map, both in english ; and Wikipédia-EN of course. But if you see bad translation names, or if you know better sources, please tell me and I will correct it. Sémhur 17:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- There should be an albanian language version as there is a french version and I'm sure that if Dori provide us the translation of the name it will be made--Kimdime69 19:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Yes of course, if someone give me albanian translations, I'll be able to do a map in this language. Sémhur 08:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- There should be an albanian language version as there is a french version and I'm sure that if Dori provide us the translation of the name it will be made--Kimdime69 19:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- This map should be in english (I don't speak Albanian). As it's said on the picture's description page, my sources were this map from UN, and Demis map, both in english ; and Wikipédia-EN of course. But if you see bad translation names, or if you know better sources, please tell me and I will correct it. Sémhur 17:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- SupportI hope that one day wee will have this kind of maps for all countries--Kimdime69 19:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Question: Ce que toi et user:Sting faites est impressionnant (je ne vote pas seulement car je suis trop fainéant pour vérifier l'exactitude des dessins), et je trouve que la carte ressemble à celles de Sting. Vous vous connaissez ? Benh 22:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Réponse donnée sur la page de discussion. Sémhur 19:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support Impressive. Durova 01:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment There's two minor... oddities: The last e in Podujeve (Podujevë?) is greyed out - I think features that are within the country should be black, and the text should (ideally) be moved so as to allow this. Likewise, the first half of the word "Kortinik" in "Kortinik Mountains" and the p of Kopaonik. This is opinion. Adam Cuerden 19:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Also, part of the "a" of "Klina" is simply not there. In any case, these are minor, easily fixed issues that don't affect that you've done a great job in the main. Adam Cuerden 19:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Well seen ! I don't know why "Klina" was smaller than other labels, and with a truncated "a". But I corrected it. And I moved a bit "Podujevo" (it's this orthograph in the English Wikipedia, not Podujevë, so I changed this). About the colors of the labels, there all blacks. But I have added a translucent layer outside of Kosovo, to bring out the country, so they looks grey. May be it can seems odd ; I hope its still readable. Sémhur 19:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Clear and clean map like Sémhur knows how to draw. The half-tone layer which highlights the subject is a good idea but may be all the names should have been put above it. It's just a matter of taste. Sting 13:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support - Nickel comme d'habitude ! Ayack 17:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support good image
- Support Very high standard of work. Freedom to share 21:36, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support Now that the oddities are fixed. --WikiWookie 09:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose First of all, author should decide if he wants to use English, Albanian or Serbian names. A bit of Albanian, a bit of Serbian and a bit of English is not acceptable (for usage in articles, not to mention featured picture... they ought to be perfect). Next, by having just a glance at the map, I saw town Dakovica which simply does not exist (both in Albanian, Serbian or English).. there might be more inaccuracies. Further more, subject is very controversial (ATM probably the most controversial there is), and having this map elected right now (and in this version) is a political statement (yes, it is, no matter what you say), and will have political dimension which I think that we should avoid on Commons. If this map was some awesome and unseen masterpiece of art and whatnot, maybe, but it's not.. it's just a vector map with dimmed portions, and not-very-carefully entered locations (made in a hurry.. so there might be even wrongly placed towns). -- Obradovic Goran 12:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- I want this map to be in English, but there is not English names for all the towns of Kosovo. So, for the english map of Kosovo, I have took the titles of the WP-en articles (see en:Wikipedia:Naming_conflict#Proper_nouns). But if you know sources with sure English names, please provide it to me, I will update this map. And as I said, if you give me Serbians or Albanians labels, in cyrillic or roman alphabet, I can do maps in this languages.
- Yes Typhoonchaser, it is en:Dakovica. But, as it's only a redirect, I've modified the "D" in "Đ"
- there might be more inaccuracies, there might be even wrongly placed towns : thanks for your deep scrutiny, as I see, not "made in a hurry"...
- At least, you can conceive the Kosovo as a province of Serbia, or as an independent state, in fact its still a map ok Kosovo.
-
- Oppose --SasaStefanovic • 13:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Could you give your reasons for this opposite vote, please ? Sémhur 14:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose --Dzordzm 15:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC) This is a political statement masquerading as a featured image candidate, if for no other reason then for using the international boundary symbol to demarcate the border to Serbia/the rest of Serbia (depending on how you see it). Wikimedia strives to have a worldwide view which at this point is far from settled. In a year or two things might be clearer (or not), or at least one could say that you can't wait forever to draw maps, but right now this map is simply a personal cause celebre. --Dzordzm 15:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support -LadyofHats 17:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - Per User:Dzordzm. --Pokrajac 22:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose, per most of the opposes above. The technical details aside, this image simply doesn't display reality. --Filip (§) 22:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose M!cki talk 22:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose as others, my opose vote is becouse that problem with borders --Jovanvb 08:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment by the author : I understand the PoV of the Serbians people ; so I have removed the Kosovo boundaries to neutralize this map. Now, there are only the internationally uncontested borders. I have also put the labels more readable. Sémhur 09:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- You should correct only Kosovo-Serbia border, not borders with Albania, Montenegro and Macedonia. They are recognized state borders. --BokicaK 12:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yes. The boundaries are to be shown, but Kosovo isn't to be separated from Serbia with more than one dash-dash line that is less noticeable than the other border dash-dot-dash lines. Just slight background color difference and stronger boundaries of Serbia and other countries without Kosovo would be as well good. No need of notifying me on my user page. I'm observing this one. Michael { talk } 18:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- I have to say, this is completely neutral. But I still don't like it - now it appears that Kosovo is a joint territory of Serbia and Albania or whatever - I believe that a better version, equally neutral, could be made. Nikola 22:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I have added Kosovo borders again, with keys "Recognized borders", and "Disputed border". I hope it's the good one ! Sémhur 09:18, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Beyond silence 10:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Enough has been already said. Michael { talk } 17:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose----László (talk) 22:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support No reason to oppose anymore. Thanks --Filip (§) 14:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support Now I don't see a reason not to change my vote. Michael { talk } 14:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Ordinary Serg!o 22:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
result: 14 support, 8 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 12:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Museo Man - Parque Balboa en California.jpg, not featured
- Info: Balboa Park museum, California. Created by Michael Seljos - uploaded and nominated by Serg!o 23:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Serg!o 23:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Unnatural colors, very noisy, bad composition, no way. --Niabot 01:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose I like the composition but the colors hurt my eyes. What's up with the reds? --Calibas 02:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose heavy CAs and oversaturated colours --Simonizer 08:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 |
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because has very unnatural colours and colour artefacts | Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed. |
. --MichaelMaggs 17:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Paperbark Maple Acer griseum Bark Closeup 3008px.jpg, not featured
- Info: Created, uploaded, and nominated by Ram-Man -- Ram-Man 23:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Info: Closeup of the peeling bark of the Paperbark Maple (Acer griseum)
- Support From the department of leaves, bark, and branches, something not a flower. The contrast brings out the texture and adds depth to what would otherwise be a flat macro shot. This is a renomination. The old nomination failed to reach a quorum. -- Ram-Man 23:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Charlessauer 04:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose The light is nice but it's the composition that spoils it for me. The central positioning of the raised bark splits the image into two disconnected halves. --MichaelMaggs 07:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)--MichaelMaggs 07:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose As above - mainly composition. --Karelj 20:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Frankly, I prefer Image:Paperbark_Maple_Acer_griseum_Bark_3008px.jpg, which gives a sense of scale, shows more of the variety of effects the peeling bark causes on the trunk, and has better composition. Adam Cuerden 03:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 16:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Alternative, not featured
- Support I think this image, of the same tree (also by RamMan) is better in almost every way. Adam Cuerden 03:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support Yes, this one is lovely too. I prefer both actually, for their different purposes. The last time I nominated both at the same time (I was going to wait) the votes really got split, which is most annoying since both images could theoretically be featured at the same time (they are different enough). -- Ram-Man 04:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support better than the other one -LadyofHats 17:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry - I thought about this one for a long time, but the composition doesn't work for me. --MichaelMaggs 18:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 09:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:StrasbourgSiege.png, featured
- Info: created by William Simpson (1823-1899) and Arthur Hopkins (1848-1930). - uploaded by ADuran and Adam Cuerden (original unstitched version) - nominated by Adam Cuerden 00:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC) --Adam Cuerden 00:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Info: A slightly over A4 engraving, just big enough to have to be scanned in two parts as I hadn't discovered the A3 scanner at the time. The minor printing error in the lower left is in the original, it could probably be fixed if so desired.
- Support --Adam Cuerden 00:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support Of historical and Encyclopædic value: fascinating image! --Booksworm 20:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Jaakobou 15:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support --MichaelMaggs 07:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support High quality and valuable. Freedom to share 21:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support -LadyofHats 17:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Mywood 09:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:FirePhotography.jpg, featured
- Info: created by Sylvain Pedneault - uploaded by Sylvain Pedneault - nominated by Sylvain Pedneault --Sypecom 01:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Sypecom 01:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support Impressive! And thank you for offering this to us =) Only thing that might make it even better would be if geocoding - giving the approximate location you were at when the photo was taken - was possible. Adam Cuerden 03:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC) Done, thank you for pointing that out! :) Sypecom 13:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Richard Bartz 09:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Luc Viatour 11:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support Superb composition. Nicholas Perkins (T•C) 12:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support Fantastic! A bit blurry at full resolution, but still acceptable. --startaq 14:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support--Mbz1 15:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support Excellent! --Booksworm 20:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Question: Has any (unfortunate) postprocessing been done on this photo? I see lots of noise and posterization and a generally bad technical condition. Or is it just me? Surprising, as the camera is a decent one. Good timing, btw. -- Slaunger 20:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- SupportSlaunger, I perfectly understand your worries, but I don't think noise is the first thing you think about when taking a short of a burning building. It is ISO 400 and it is not landscape photography, where you can contemplate all day about the exposure and ISO choices. :) Freedom to share 22:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I am very much aware that at these conditions you cannot expect a technical quality, which is on par with, e.g., landscapes. But even under fire fighting conditions I think the technical quality is substandard (see FP fire fighting example). The fire fighting example has much more visual appeal for me, whereas this nomination is of a more informational and educational character (which is excellent). In this nomination you can see how the individual fire fighters are positioned, and the actions they are engaged in. The question is whether this valuable content outweighs the technical flaws. I am not sure... -- Slaunger 07:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- True, but I think during post processing this image could have been improved. It's still an excellent image though, but it is a bit blurry and noisy. /Daniel78 22:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- That draws the line between FPC and POTY. It should succeed in one, but not the other. Freedom to share 07:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Isn't that just the smoke, steam, mist, and so on? Adam Cuerden 03:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support Not something you see every day. Calibas 05:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose agree with slaunger, too noisy -- Gorgo 14:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Info: About the noise: it is not photographic noise, it is a very large quantity of water droplets coming from the numerous high-arc streams protecting the church and attacking the involved building. It was raining all over, and keeping the lens dry was quite a challenge. But although the image at top resolution is a bit blurry, the noise you see is definitely heavy rain coming from the water lines, and thus that is part of the scene as well. Sypecom 15:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Thank you for explaining that. It now seems like there is a reasonable explanation for the technical condition of the image. It is not due to some unfortunate postprocessing but waterspray. I am, however, not entirely convinced, but I think I'll just abstain from voting as I find it borderline. -- Slaunger 15:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Karelj 18:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support --MichaelMaggs 07:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support The timing is particularly good, with the balcony collapsing. Durova 02:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support Mønobi 16:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Nice composition, great capture, but how can we feature such a bad quality and still ask to be taken serious? Lycaon 19:50, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support -LadyofHats 17:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - If it was a historic or unique building I could accept the poor quality --Ianare 18:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
result: 15 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Mywood 09:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:San Benito de Palermo en Bobure.JPG, not featured
1:
2:
- Info: created by Wilfredor - uploaded by Wilfredor - nominated by Username --libertad0 ॐ 14:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
1:
- Support --libertad0 ॐ 14:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose I think it is refreshing to see photos of new topics from countries we seldomly see at FPC. We certainly need that. However, this particular photo is not very good in my opinion. I think the composition is cluttered, and that there is not a clear idea with the photo and it has a point and shoot character. I think it could have been more interesting at another angle of view, like kneeling in front of the procession or so. That would have made the photo more interesting. I think the image page can be improved with respect to the description and categorization. It is not clear (for me) from the description what the photo is about. It seems to be from a specific event? Sorry. -- Slaunger 20:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for expanding the description on the image page. -- Slaunger 07:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry, but the image quality is far away from FP. --Niabot 21:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Yes the quality is very bad, and the composition is not very good either. /Daniel78 22:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Charlessauer 23:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose quality --Beyond silence 07:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose quality problems -LadyofHats 02:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 09:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
2:
- Support --libertad0 ॐ 14:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry, but the image quality is far away from FP. --Niabot 21:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Yes the quality is very bad, and the composition is not very good either. /Daniel78 22:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Charlessauer 23:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Composition. Hint: When adding a new nomination, which is a different image (and not just an edit) it is more consistent to add that at the top on its own subpage. -- Slaunger 07:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose color aberrations, and composition is quite bad- LadyofHats 02:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 09:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Clone war of sea anemones 2-17-08-2.jpg
- Info:Sea Anemones,Anthopleura elegantissima are engaged in a clone war for the w:territory. The white tentacles are fighting tentacles. They are called acrorhagi. The acrorhagi contain concentration of stinging cells. After war ends one of Sea Anemone should move. Sea Anemones might look as plants, but they are animals and they are predators. The image was taken in Northern California w:Tide pools
- Info:If I may, I'd like to provide some information about tide pools photography. The pools are often too shallow to put the camera in the water. On the other hand, if the camera is out of the water, it is hard to avoid the reflection.
- Info: created, uploaded and nominated by Mbz1 --Mbz1 15:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I love the composition and the photograph as a whole, but the focus seems just a little soft at full resolution. This may well be unavoidable. Adam Cuerden 17:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- The picture you are looking at is a rather rare shot of tide pool action. The camera was placed underwater to avoid the reflection. The distance between the camera and sea anemones was only few centimeters (too close to take a really sharp image). Probably much sharper picture could have been taken, if sea anemones were deeper in the water, or I had a much better camera, or I were a much better photographer. I go to tide pools very often, but I hardly see clone war of sea anemones more than 2-3 times per year. To me it is always fascinating to see sea anemones moving and hitting each other. That's why I wanted to share the image with you.Thank you for your comment,Adam. The most important part you like the image.May I please ask everybody to feel absolutely free to oppose the image. As a matter of fact I came back to show everybody how well I handle "oppose" votes now ;) I just nominated it because IMO it is an interesting and not well known behavior of the common tide pools animals. May I please also ask you, if you believe that downsampling could make the difference? Thank you.--Mbz1 17:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'm more knowledgable about engravings than photography - a little downsampling might help, but you probably shouldn't go with my word alone =). Certainly, an image that deserves wide use throughout Wikimedia projects, even if the minor flaws mean it doesn't pass FP. By the way, why "clone" war? Adam Cuerden 18:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for your very good question, Adam. Sea anemones could clone, as you could see from this even more rare image of mine.I send the nominated image to UC Devis professor Rick Grosberg.Here's his response:
Dear Mila,
Yes, these are certainly clone wars between individuals that belong to different clones of Anthopleura elegantissima.
The photos are terrific -- who took them?
P.S. I do have some photos of interclonal boindaries at the level of the entire clone.
Rick.--Mbz1 19:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for your very good question, Adam. Sea anemones could clone, as you could see from this even more rare image of mine.I send the nominated image to UC Devis professor Rick Grosberg.Here's his response:
- I'm more knowledgable about engravings than photography - a little downsampling might help, but you probably shouldn't go with my word alone =). Certainly, an image that deserves wide use throughout Wikimedia projects, even if the minor flaws mean it doesn't pass FP. By the way, why "clone" war? Adam Cuerden 18:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral Very high value and interesting subject. As you said you had certain technical boundary conditions, which has led to an IMO sub-optimal technical quality. This means I cannot support it whole-heartedly. The image is, however, a good Valued Images Candidate. You could try to test nominate it there, if you like. -- Slaunger 20:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Karelj 21:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination in the favor of Richard's edit
[edit] Image:Clone war of sea anemones 2-17-08-2 edit.jpg, featured
- Info: A edit with permission of MBZ1. I did some slight Make-up --Richard Bartz 21:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Richard Bartz 21:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support--Mbz1 22:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support Very interesting image. I prefer this edit. /Daniel78 22:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Charlessauer 00:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support Passed my bar now. -- Slaunger 06:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support Good and solid. Interesting. Freedom to share 16:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Karelj 17:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- MJJR 19:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support --MichaelMaggs 07:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral The edit helps in some ways but adds a bit of noise, probably due to sharpening. Also blows some of the whites as well. Just not enough here for me to support. -- Relic38 01:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Raminus (talk) 15:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support -LadyofHats 17:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Mywood 09:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Cementerio de Conchas Marínas (3).jpg, not featured
.jpg)
- Info: created by Username - uploaded by Username - nominated by Username --libertad0 ॐ 21:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support --libertad0 ॐ 21:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Charlessauer 23:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose very noisy and no sharp details. Tried to repair the artefacts, but its mostly impossible to make a good picture out of it. --Niabot 23:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose just too much noise/grain and some white spots (you could fix the white spots, but I don't think it is going to be easy to deal with the speckling. Scan of a negative? --WikiWookie 01:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Very low quality. --Karelj 17:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - This is a shame really, and it has value and a real good composition and exposure, but way too much noise to even attempt to clean. - Relic38 01:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose quality --Beyond silence 07:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose agree quality is quite low -LadyofHats 17:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 09:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Fernsehturm berlin.jpg, not featured
- Info: created by Dontpanic - uploaded by Dontpanic - nominated by Niabot
Detail shot of the Berlin television tower as seen from the roof of Berlin Cathedral. --Niabot 21:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC) - Support --Niabot 21:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support Very good quality. /Daniel78 22:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support --startaq 23:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Charlessauer 00:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral quality is pretty much in check, but the subject matter and the way it is captured makes me wonder whether this is truly FP material. --- Anonymous DissidentTalk 05:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- MJJR 19:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support Is there some irony in looking up from a cathedral at the spire of a television tower? Durova 01:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- Indeed – but the persistent cross-shaped sun reflection on that spherical "Sputnik"-structure became famous as the "Pope's revenge". --Dontpanic 09:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - Technical quality is very good, but I can't see this as an FP. Definately QI for technical and value points though. -- Relic38 01:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose The quality is good, but the cropping is odd, only showing the top part of the building. Mønobi 15:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support Wonderful quality --Raminus (talk) 15:52, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose As Relic38. --Karelj 20:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Beyond silence 10:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose As stated from the image page, it's composed of six image of each 10 MPixel each, I wonder why the image has been downscaled from that, as this version is less than 10 Mpx. →AzaToth 14:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- ... For the same obvious reason that virtually all stitched images are shrunk: maximum sharpness. The present size is reduced by half from the original shots, resulting in a resolution equal to a 20 megapixel shot. The resultion exceeds 300 dpi at A3 size, which is the maximum resolution used in common lithography even for huge Posters. So it's big. --Dontpanic 20:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Mbdortmund 21:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose don't like the crop. Lycaon 12:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- Looking on 200 m of solid concrete would not make a better image. --Niabot 12:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- Don't get me wrong, quality of pic is good enough, and crop is sufficient for an illustration of the tip of this tower, but not for FP, IMO. Lycaon 12:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose i think this has really a top quality, but i dont see how such an image can be FP. it misses that "wow" factor. -LadyofHats 02:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
result: 9 support, 6 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Mywood 09:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Aker brygge.jpg, not featured
- Info: created, uploaded and nominated by --Daniel78 22:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- This is the harbor area in Oslo, Norway.
- Support /Daniel78 22:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support The quality of the image is very good and the place is rather interesting.--Mbz1 01:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Thank you for that photo. I am going there next week and now I can see the hotel I am staying at ;-) Kidding aside, it is good panarama, if we ignore the sky. The sky has some clear jumps in the color balance with vertical bands, and there are some strange things going on at the upper right edge of the photo, like some nudges/singularitites. I suggest you add a description of how you have done the stitch, the camera settings used etc. (I can recommend using Hugin for the stitching, its freeware). -- Slaunger 07:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- I almost forgot: Please geocode it, adds value. -- Slaunger 07:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- And remember to include the heading parameter. -- Slaunger 08:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the comments, the image is now geocoded and I added a short description on the stiching. Not sure where to add the Heading paramter (currently I just added it as text) ? /Daniel78 13:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Unfortunately the crop can't include more in the top. /Daniel78 13:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support, I hate the fact that a photo of Oslo will (probably) become the first FP from Norway, but the quality and composition is great so I'll have to support. --Aqwis 16:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Unclear composition. Sorry --Beyond silence 07:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Quality is rather good (proper stitching), but every building is leaning CCW and the crop is to tight at the top. Lycaon 20:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose agree with above it is tilted-LadyofHats 17:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 09:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:17th century Central Tibeten thanka of Guhyasamaja Akshobhyavajra, Rubin Museum of Art.jpg, not featured
- Info: created by anonymous 17th-century Tibetan (minor typo in the file name, that) artist - uploaded by Wmpearl - nominated by Adam Cuerden --Adam Cuerden 03:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Adam Cuerden 03:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I think a couple minutes with Curves would do this proper justice. Seems a little dark to me. Calibas 05:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support Good and valueable. Black background need to be removed! --Beyond silence 07:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support -LadyofHats 17:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Tilted, bad crop --Ianare 05:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 09:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Spider web Luc Viatour.jpg, featured
- Info: created by Luc Viatour 07:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC) - uploaded by Luc Viatour 07:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC) - nominated by --Luc Viatour 07:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Luc Viatour 07:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support Good technique. I've seen that Lviatour has uploaded another delightful spider webs. --Herrick 07:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Pour Joli ! -- Benh 07:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- Question: une question (car j'aimerai apprendre et faire pareil) : Aurait-il été possible d'avoir plus de bulles nettes en diminuant l'ouverture (quitte à monter un peu les ISOs ou à utiliser un trépied, ce qui était peut être le cas) ? -- Benh 07:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- Je suis déjà sur pied, monter les iso c'est réduire la qualité, l'ouverture plus petite permet d'avoir plus de profondeur de champs, mais réduit la résolution à cause de l'effet de diffraction lumineuse. Mais peut-être que F9 au lieu de F6,7 aurait donné mieux... --Luc Viatour 07:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support--Mbz1 14:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support Good! --Karelj 17:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Pour Comme d'hab, s'est excellent! Booksworm 21:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support The water drops add contrast and interest to a difficult subject to photograph. Durova
- Support Jina Lee 04:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support --MichaelMaggs 07:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support Love it! --Simonizer 14:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support Well executed, love the reflection in the droplets. Freedom to share 16:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Böhringer 23:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Calibas 00:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Ram-Man 02:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support -LadyofHats 17:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Laitche 11:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Mywood 09:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Cicada molting animated-2.gif, featured
- Info: created by T. Nathan Mundhenk - uploaded by T. Nathan Mundhenk - nominated by MichaelMaggs --MichaelMaggs 07:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Info: A re-nom of the improved version of this image. The original failed to gain enough support, but as this edit was not nominated separately last time it didn't get the full 10 days. See Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Cicada molting animated.gif.
- Support, though it would be better if the pause were to be on the last image rather than the first --MichaelMaggs 07:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- The pause is on both ends now. -- carol 08:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support Glad this was renominated, it was closed to early the first time and the final edits had not been seen by all. -- Slaunger 08:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral
- Support Nice. Leaves me wanting more, but I still support it as is. Ben Aveling 10:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support I like it. Much improved on the original. Illustrates well. --WikiWookie 10:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support great work! --AngMoKio 12:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - The pause at the end (the pic just before the last frame) should be much longer. I recoment 3000 ms -- Alvesgaspar 12:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support Amazing!--Mbz1 13:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support I agree, ideally we'd see the cicada's wings strengthen enough and watch it fly away. Still wonderful. Durova 16:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Karelj 17:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- MJJR 19:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support Improved version of an already excellent animation. Freedom to share 22:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support Problems solved. -- Ram-Man 03:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose
-
- 1. It has improved, but why the shaking has not completely been eliminated is beyond me.
- 2. There is no proper identification yet.
- Lycaon 13:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC).
- I believe it's more-or-less impossible to accurately identify a newly-hatched Tibicen down to the species level, as many of the colouration details only appear after sufficient time has passed for everything to harden. It's Tibicen sp., I think that's enough. Adam Cuerden 07:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Calibas 00:51, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Aqwis 14:36, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Beyond silence 10:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
result: 14 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Mywood 09:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Wrocław-Jan Chrzciciel.jpg, not featured
- Info: created by Pudelek - uploaded by Pudelek - nominated by Pudelek --Pudelek 09:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Pudelek 09:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Doesn't do it for me. Sorry. Ben Aveling 10:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose The photograph is good, but, sadly, that yellow... Maybe if you cropped it a bit more? Adam Cuerden 16:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Good picture, but not enough for FP. --Karelj 17:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC) - Comment why not enough? -Pudelek 19:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support A bit soft, but I like the composition. --Dori - Talk 18:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose IMHO, the subject isn't special enough to be chosen as a FP. --Raminus (talk) 14:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 09:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Silver Whisper Split.JPG, not featured
- Info: Silver whisper at Split Harbour, Croatia (photo is put togeher from 2 photos)
created by Pinky sl - uploaded by Pinky sl - nominated by Pinky sl --Pinky sl 11:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Pinky sl 11:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support, I don't know - the technical quality isn't perfect and neither is the composition, but I love the perspective. --Aqwis 18:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 09:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Silver Whisper Split edit.jpg
- Info: White balance, levels, curves, noise reduction. --Aqwis 18:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Aqwis 18:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support Looks good to me --Niabot 02:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support -LadyofHats 02:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Oversharpened and too much compressed (see name of the boat for example) --norro 20:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 09:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Panorámica de Jerusalén desde el Monte de los Olivos.jpg, not featured
- Info: A composition of the city of Jerusalem today, a view from Mount of Olives, created by Bienchido - uploaded by Bienchido - nominated by Bienchido --bienchido [Mexico City] 11:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support --bienchido [Mexico City] 11:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)--
- Support --Jaakobou 14:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose, sorry, I missed the stitches issue... can't endorse without it being fixed. Jaakobou 18:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment The stiches are quite visible. The second one from left is not properly aligned. /Daniel78 20:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose The stiches are quite visible like mentioned above and the image isn't very clear either, check the top left hand corner. For the future sight of the "Third Temple" this image is a disappointment and I cannot see how this could be supportedAdam.J.W.C. 13:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose, poor light, sharpness. --Aqwis 16:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment If you look closely at the Mosque you will see the it is tilted, is this how it is in reality or is it and error Adam.J.W.C. 02:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment--You probably have the stitch marks because the camera wasn't level for each photo, as I mentioned before the mosque looks tilted and there is stitch marks on either side of it, in certain placesAdam.J.W.C. 02:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I have added this image to the article, 'Dome of the Rock' under the caption sight of the third temple, or something along those linesAdam.J.W.C. 04:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry, you should try Commons:Quality images candidates first! --Beyond silence 16:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 16:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC) (Rule of the 5th day)
[edit] Image:Three chiefs Piegan p.39 horizontal.png, featured
- Info: Blackfeet Indians, Photograph created by Edward S. Curtis - cropped, cleaned, meshed, leveled and uploaded by Jaakobou. Versions used to compile final output [2], [3], [4] - nominated by Jaakobou
- Support --Jaakobou 14:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support great! --Luc Viatour 14:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support Good restoration. Durova 15:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support --AngMoKio 18:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support Ack Durova. Freedom to share 21:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support Valuabale and interesting image.--Mbz1 21:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support As per above --Booksworm 21:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support --startaq 22:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support Nice work. --Calibas 07:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose very poor quality BW picture, by far not mitigating historical value. Lycaon 13:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support, to Lycaon - look at the picture at 2 mp resolution. It's not that bad. --Aqwis 18:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose I think this picture should be downsampled to match the quality/resolution of the original image, simply scanning an image with extremely high resolution doesn't make the quality any better. This image is extremely noisy and blurry at full res. -- Gorgo 21:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Really bad at full res! Doodle-doo Ħ 21:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment -- there's been a lot of work on enhancing minute details and getting the most out of the original. What would be the upside of down-sampling? all it will do is diminish the details of the original. It's not like anyone is planning on getting a perfect per-intch result on this with a 12 feet x 3 feet print... but if they want to print it in that size, I made sure that it would be the best quality possible. Jaakobou 22:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - Agree with Gorgo, it is not important to be able to see the silver salts on the original emultion... -- Alvesgaspar 01:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- I thought the idea of posting here in larger than 'for screen' format, was for use of other formats, such as print and media. If I scale it down, other formats (that don't use 72 pixel/inch) will get a lesser result. I have experience in print format and it's nothing like web format. Jaakobou 10:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support I don't see how losing detail would help it any. Adam Cuerden 07:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support Mønobi 16:56, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support--Dtarazona 00:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- Note: A down-sampling would create a big loss of retouch detail on the faces of the Indians. Jaakobou 21:51, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support--Beyond silence 16:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Personally I'm sorry that water has gone. The picture was IMO a better composition with it. --MichaelMaggs 20:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support--LadyofHats 02:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
result: 15 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Mywood 11:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Indian pigmentsa.png, not featured
- Info: As Image:Indian pigments.jpg with cropping, levels and curves, adjusted, and depth of field modified. Edits by Jaakobou. Nominated by Username -- Durova 23:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Durova 23:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Jaakobou 23:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose in retrospect, I think I messed up a little on this one and missed a few things that could have been done better. Will re-work it better in a day or two. Jaakobou 20:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Noise introduced. Why? Lycaon 20:36, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 16:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC) (Rule of the 5th day)
[edit] Image:Indian pigments.jpg, not featured
- Info: Pigments for sale on market stall, Goa, India. Created by Dan Brady - uploaded by Luigi Chiesa - nominated by Durova. --Durova 16:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Durova 16:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Copmosition is not enough good for FP. --Karelj 18:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support What's wrong with the composition? Adam Cuerden 23:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support I've shown this to a few people and they all love it. I think this is one of those pictures that is liked by virtually everyone except those who can't see the forest through the trees. Only a tripod could have made this shot sharper with this camera, but if this doesn't have a proper manual mode, even that wouldn't be possible. -- Ram-Man 22:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support Jina Lee 04:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose I like it but it's not sharp enough and low DoF. - Rocket000 16:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose The colours are attractive, of course, but the composition - with so many heaps cropped - is not so good. It's also not too sharp and the DoF could be greater. --MichaelMaggs 16:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Aqwis 18:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose per Rocket000. -- Lycaon 20:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support It may not be perfect, but I like it. --ErgoSum88 11:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Detail Sorry, you should try Commons:Quality images candidates first! --Beyond silence 16:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support Awesome colours Serg!o 22:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support Wonderful detail of Indian life! --Raminus (talk) 14:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - Low DOF. Central focal pile yet the square intersections do not form a vertical line. Perhaps a little too top-down also. --Cpl Syx 03:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Lerdsuwa 18:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
result: 9 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 11:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Le Grand Palais depuis le pont Alexandre III à Paris.jpg, featured
- Info: created and uploaded by Eric Pouhier - nominated by --Adam Cuerden 05:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment This was obviously intended to be nominated, (this page was transcluded onto C:FPC but wasn't actually created. I'm too lazy to see who had intended to nominate this, so... =)
- Support --Adam Cuerden 05:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Pour this is a place I love and this picture shows very well the atmosphere. Romary 09:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Aqwis 16:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - Pudelek 20:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC) - Composition - too tightly...
-
- Comment please state reason for opposition as a courtesy to the author/uploader. Lycaon 19:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Pour Mikani 18:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Beyond silence 18:26, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support I want to go back there. :) Durova 00:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Simonizer 06:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose ac Pudelek --Lestat 10:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Don't like the crop. Lycaon 10:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support-LadyofHats 02:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral - At first viewing I really liked this image but I come back to it and I can't help but think the angle is a little too acute? I'll have to come back and look at it again. --Cpl Syx 03:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Bad composition - top of first lamp missing and other... --Karelj 21:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
result: 8 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Mywood 11:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Knautia Knautia macedonica Flower Insect 1626px.jpg
- Info: Created, uploaded, and nominated by Ram-Man. 03:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Info: Knautia flowers (Knautia macedonica)
- Support An insect, an opened flower, and an unopened flower. Plus it has a semi-blurred background that is full of the same plant. -- Ram-Man 03:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support amore sbalorditivo esso bello stupefacente voi roccia. Jina Lee 04:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support Though one might wish a little more of the stem was in focus. Adam Cuerden 05:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support Well caught --WikiWookie 06:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose it is a nice photo and it deserves to be QI...but for FP I need a bit more. Btw why is the resolution so low? Is it a crop? --AngMoKio 08:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Yes unfortunately. However, it is saved by being taken by a very sharp macro lens which compensates and puts it on par with many other FPs. (It is a center crop) -- Ram-Man 12:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - As AngMokio -- Alvesgaspar 09:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose idem. Lycaon 13:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Background is 2 confusing/disturbing 4 my taste --Richard Bartz 17:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Its a very nice photo, I just don't think its eye-catching. --ErgoSum88 09:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Nice, but not suitable for FPI. --Raminus (talk) 15:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination
-- Ram-Man 02:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Spirit's West Valley Panorama (PIA10216).jpg, featured
.jpg)
- Info: created by Mars Spirit Rover - uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by Adam Cuerden --Adam Cuerden 05:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Mars, of course. Some technical flaws, but I think that we can overlook that a bit for interplanetary photography.
- Support --Adam Cuerden 05:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Take me to your leader. I mean Support. Durova 06:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Please crop the photo to remove the black parts away. --Donarreiskoffer 08:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- That would also remove valuable parts of the picture. --Aqwis 09:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support--Mbz1 16:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Aqwis 16:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose crop/framing, can be easily fixed -- Gorgo 21:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Did you even read my comment? If you're talking about perspective correction, there's in reality no way to correct complex distortion like this. --Aqwis 21:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- yes I did, thank you and I don't agree with you. It's not that hard to fix the distortion and the crop. (see thumbnail)
fixed distortion
- There are also all (raw) images of that mission available [5] e.g. [6] so it should be possible to restitch them.
- right now the technical flaws are way to noticable. -- Gorgo 04:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- The crop causes the loss of some interesting rock formations on the left, and other such things. I'm just not sure it's worth it, though if someone fixed the stitching errors while keeping the information, I'd gladly support their version. Adam Cuerden 07:26, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- yes I did, thank you and I don't agree with you. It's not that hard to fix the distortion and the crop. (see thumbnail)
_copy.jpg){kind=small}
- Support Value is amazing. An almost true-colour pano of Mars... amazing. Yes, there are noticeable and embarassing stitching issues, but restitching here is not an option and I'd like to see you go to Mars within the next 6 months and take a comparable photo if you are complaining about that. :-) I wish we could restitch it though, Hugin would probably do the job. Yes, there are noticeable technical quirks, but it is not your average stitch of your local capital city done with a Manfrotto or Velbon pano tripod and I really think that those technical deviations can be ignored to promote that valuable and difficult image. As the FP guidelines state, "A bad picture of a very difficult subject is a better picture than a good picture of an ordinary subject. A good picture of a difficult subject is an extraordinary photograph." Freedom to share 21:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support It's surreal. Astonishing. Doodle-doo Ħ 21:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Beyond silence 08:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Mywood 11:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Bauernhaus Entlebuch 01.JPG, not featured
- Info: created, uploaded and nominated by --Simonizer 12:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Simonizer 12:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I personally find the front grass too focused and thus a bit distracting. I also don't like that gray thing in front of the cabinet on the left. The angle and rest of the image is very lovely though... I was certainly considering a Support... I'm thinking that either softening the front flowers or perhaps cropping them out will put the hut & background in the center of attention any might improve the image. I'd also try and see how it looks with that gray thing out. Jaakobou 13:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I like the flowers there because of the Rule of thirds. And I also wanted to show the whole farm and its surroundings and not just the building. That is why the picture is like it is. Maybe I can soften the flowers in the forground artifical but I guess thats a matter of taste. Lets wait what others say about it --Simonizer 13:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- It's a lovely image... I just thought I'll leave suggestions on this one instead of a support. It's a good shot, otherwise I wouldn't have bothered. Good luck. Jaakobou 14:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- If your looking for an opinion, I'd have given it a try with a bigger aperture too :) But I also like the picture as it is. Benh 21:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support--Mbz1 16:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support, wonderful composition, great technical quality. --Aqwis 16:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support - Looks easy to do but it is not. Beautiful composition, high quality -- Alvesgaspar 20:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support Nice use of such an aperture. Freedom to share 21:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support Reminds me my last vacation in the Alps, aah now I want to take a break. Benh 21:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose I don't like the composition. Too much fore- and background for me. --norro 20:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose As Norro. --Karelj 20:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Composition. - Rocket000 04:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support - as per supports above Booksworm 16:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose As Norro, sorry. --MichaelMaggs 07:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support - Pudelek 11:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose I quote Norro. --Raminus (talk) 14:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support -LadyofHats 02:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Cpl Syx 03:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose per Norro. Lycaon 08:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
result: 10 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 11:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Seebruecke Prerow 002.jpg, featured
- Info: created, uploaded and nominated by --Simonizer 12:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Simonizer 12:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support (mini-comment) I wouldn't mind some soft sharpening of the tree and mild softening on the skies... maybe also some very soft curve action on the colors of the image. Jaakobou 13:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support--Mbz1 15:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Richard Bartz 17:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- MJJR 19:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral for now. Simplicity and beauty. Will support after the tilted post at left is cloned out (or, even better, the geometric distortion is corrected) -- Alvesgaspar 20:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support I tend to agree with the suggested edits, but not a major issue for me. Excellent image page, which can be improved even further by adding geodata. -- Slaunger 21:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Done --Simonizer 22:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- I took the liberty of adding an approximate heading. Close to my country;-) Is that Lolland or Falster I vaguely see in the horizon to the left? -- Slaunger 23:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- I dont think you can see denmark from there. The vague land on the left are the sandbanks north of Darßer Ort in my opinion --Simonizer 09:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Ahh, OK. Thanks. -- Slaunger 21:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Done --Simonizer 22:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Böhringer 22:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support thought-out composition! --AngMoKio 14:48, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support Lycaon 20:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- --Ancar 09:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry - Like Alvesgaspar, I would like to see the tilted post at left cloned out. I see that has been done on the alternative version; couldn't you nominate that instead? --MichaelMaggs 07:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Booksworm 07:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose As Alvesgaspar. --Karelj 16:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
result: 10 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Mywood 11:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:The sun, street light and Parallax.jpg
- Info:I've noticed that the reflection of the sun is seen at the reflection of the street light while the sun itself is much higher than the street light is. I've asked atmospheric optics expert Andy Young to explain my image. Here's what he says:
"the answer is Parallax . The reflection in the water shows the view as seen from a point that is the camera's reflection in the water -- i.e., as far below the surface as the camera is above it.
The street light is much closer than the Sun; so parallax mainly affects the position of the light's reflected image.
These perspective effects are *always* present in pictures of reflections in water -- but not often as obvious as in your picture, which is a "textbook example" of the effect."
- Info: created, uploaded and nominated by Mbz1 15:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support Amazing, truly. Huge wow factor. Preplanned or just a lucky shot? Freedom to share 16:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- Thank you for your question, Freedom to share. I took this image because I noticed the effect. At first I just was taking images of the fog, the sun and the reflection
. Then I decided that it would have been nice to "put" the Sun at the street light, so I started to move around, but as you know I was not able to find the position, from which the sun at the sky and the sun in the water was seen atop the stree light. It was either one of two ;)--Mbz1 17:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for your question, Freedom to share. I took this image because I noticed the effect. At first I just was taking images of the fog, the sun and the reflection
- Support Adam Cuerden 18:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination I was asked why I did not support my oroginal nomination. The answer is because I was waiting for Richard to upload his edit ;)
[edit] Image:The sun, street light and Parallax edit.jpg, featured
- Info: Some slight make up by --Richard Bartz 18:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Info:I've noticed that the reflection of the sun is seen at the reflection of the street light while the sun itself is much higher than the street light is. I've asked atmospheric optics expert Andy Young to explain my image. Here's what he says:
"the answer is Parallax . The reflection in the water shows the view as seen from a point that is the camera's reflection in the water -- i.e., as far below the surface as the camera is above it.
The street light is much closer than the Sun; so parallax mainly affects the position of the light's reflected image.
These perspective effects are *always* present in pictures of reflections in water -- but not often as obvious as in your picture, which is a "textbook example" of the effect." --Mbz1 02:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC) - Support --Richard Bartz 18:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support Adam Cuerden 18:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support Durova 19:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- MJJR 19:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support Edit improves on original and fixes small issues. --Freedom to share 21:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support Better. Richard, could you specify what you have done and reference the original image in the image page? -- Slaunger 21:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support--Mbz1 23:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support OOooo... artsy! --Calibas 00:57, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - Maybe so, but I don't think it is special enough. Sorry not to join the bandwagon -- Alvesgaspar 01:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support - Clean and crisp. Mønobi 16:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support Very nice illustration of the effect. And as mentioned the old edit should have a link to the new edit (and vice verca) otherwise people might find the other version and start using it instead. I see it quite often here at FP that alternate edits are not linked together in any way and that the edits made are not described. /Daniel78 11:07, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- I linked the original and edit versions. Thank you.--Mbz1 01:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support Illustrates the point well and looks nice - a good combination --WikiWookie 09:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support Especially the composition. It would be nice to have more artistic shots here. --MichaelMaggs 18:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support Good! --Karelj 20:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- A favor Alex Pereiradisc 14:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- A favor manuel22 —the preceding unsigned comment was added by manuel22 (talk • contribs) Vote fixed --MichaelMaggs 07:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - A very good illustration of the parallax effect, however the mist just destroys the image and makes it quite difficult for me to look at. —the preceding unsigned comment was added by Cpl Syx (talk • contribs)
- Support Agree with the wow. Digitaldreamer 01:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
result: 16 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Mywood 11:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Tagus River Panorama - Toledo, Spain - Dec 2006.jpg, featured
- Info: created and uploaded by Diliff - Nominated by Benh 22:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support I think it's a very nice panorama of a beautiful place, with very well controlled tone mapping. -- Benh 22:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support agree --Simonizer 22:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support, "perfect" is almost inadequate. --Aqwis 22:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support, Very good technical condition, delicate lightning and composition. It looks a little bit oversaturated. That blue grafitti on the stone almost looks too blue, or is it really like that? -- Slaunger 23:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support Excellent pano, great exposure and sharpness. -- Relic38 00:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support--Mbz1 01:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support very nice -- Gorgo 04:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support Excellent and well executed. Freedom to share 11:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support impressive --AngMoKio 12:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Laziale93 20:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support Splendid! -- MJJR 21:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support I like the bird on the water --Richard Bartz 20:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support --MichaelMaggs 18:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Karelj 20:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support Very nice. --Digon3 talk 21:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support Nice. （＾＾）／ -- Laitche 05:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Mywood 11:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Vanessa February 2008-1.jpg, featured
- Info: Portrait of a Red-admiral (Vanessa atalanta) (not a rear-admiral, those are much uglier...). Created, uploaded and nominated by Alvesgaspar -- Alvesgaspar 00:56, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Alvesgaspar 00:56, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support--Mbz1 01:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment EXIF info would be nice --Richard Bartz 19:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- I can't put the EXIF file back, some info included. These strong, and somehow dark, colours are real. -- Alvesgaspar 20:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support Solid. Good photo for this magnification. Freedom to share 20:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support-LadyofHats 02:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support D kuba 22:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
result: 5 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Mywood 21:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit]
.png)
- Info: created by unknown Japanese artist - uploaded by Adam Cuerden - nominated by Adam Cuerden Re-nom, as I forgot to say what it was until half-way through the first nom, and it ended up one vote short. I think it still has potential, so I'm re-nomming. Adam Cuerden 06:46, 21 March 2008 (UTC) -- Adam Cuerden 06:46, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- Info: Rare woodblock print of Matthew Perry, and other Americans involved witht he opening of Japan to the West.
- Comment It would be nice if we could get a full translation of the Japanese, though we may get one at PotD if not right now. Adam Cuerden 06:46, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Adam Cuerden 06:46, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support FRZ 18:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
2 support, 0 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 07:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
N.B. This nomination was run on a previous version of this file. Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:31, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Da Vinci Studies of Embryos Luc Viatour.jpg, featured
- Info: created by Leonardo da Vinci - uploaded by Luc Viatour - nominated by Durova -- Durova 07:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Durova 07:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support I've loved this image for a while =) Adam Cuerden 09:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support Definitely valuable. Freedom to share 11:36, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support--Mbz1 15:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support Thanks for the nomination --Luc Viatour 07:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the upload! Very important work, well photographed. I wonder what you went through to get this. Durova 23:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support ----Ancar 09:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support Wonderful! Calibas 03:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support --WikiWookie 09:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support --MichaelMaggs 18:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support L'excellence! --Booksworm 07:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support Lycaon 08:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support. James F. (talk) 12:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support RedWine 20:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support D kuba 22:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Mywood 21:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Periclimenes magnificus.JPG, not featured
- Info: Under water manicure courtesy of cleaner shrimp Periclimenes magnificus. Lembeh straits, North Sulawesi, Indonesia. Created, uploaded and nominated by Jnpet -- Jnpet 08:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Jnpet 08:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose --Teme 14:08, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- Comment please state reason for opposition as a courtesy to the author/uploader. Lycaon 19:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support underwater image of a very small subjrcts.--Mbz1 15:23, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Nothing in focus, not even the hand. Lycaon 20:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Well I think the hand is in focus, I just think the out-of-focus little fishes in the foreground are distracting. --ErgoSum88 09:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose --Raminus (talk) 15:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- Comment please state reason for opposition as a courtesy to the author/uploader. Lycaon 19:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Part of the hand is in focus, but unfortunately the shrimp are not quite in the focussed area - and they are the interesting bit. Nice concept though. --WikiWookie 09:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - The out of focus fish in the foreground spoil the picture. --Cpl Syx 03:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 21:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Eagle Canyon.JPG
- Info: created by ErgoSum88 - uploaded by ErgoSum88 - nominated by ErgoSum88 -- ErgoSum88 10:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- ErgoSum88 10:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination in favor of Aqwis's edit
[edit] Image:Eagle Canyon edit.jpg, not featured
- Info: Fixed overexposure, etc. --Aqwis 11:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Aqwis 11:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
*conditional Oppose until copyright status is clarified. Freedom to share 11:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- Thanks for the clarification. Freedom to share 20:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Kjetil_r 14:28, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support Uh, I guess I should vote again? Thank you for fixing and cropping the photo for me, Aqwis! And what copyright status? I made the photo, it is released into the public domain just like the tag says. --ErgoSum88 19:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support Could be a bit bigger, but a very nice shot, with nice composition and colours. Possibly a teensy bit over-saturated, but it looks better this way. Adam Cuerden 12:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose It looks oversaturated and also a bit overexposed on the right part. I find composition boring, with lighting not so appropriate (coming from above, and not slightly from aside) and don't realise at a first glance it's a deep canyon. -- Benh 08:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Detail, expose. Sorry, you should try Commons:Quality images candidates first! --Beyond silence 16:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Contra over exposed. -LadyofHats 02:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 21:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Suikoden edit.jpg, featured
- Info: created by Utagawa Kuniyoshi - uploaded by Calliopejen - nominated and slightly level ajusted by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden 12:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Adam Cuerden 12:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment It's always hard to decide exactly how to adjust something - the original version seemed very faded, with the colours rather dulled, but I didn't want to remove all the signs of age, so I tried to keep the level adjustments fairly subtle. Adam Cuerden 12:07, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support Great details!--Mbz1 15:23, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support Unbelivable! :) --Beyond silence 18:23, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support Excellent. -- MJJR 21:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Alvesgaspar 21:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support Durova 23:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support --MichaelMaggs 17:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support WinSocket 17:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Mywood 21:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Bhagvati thirra kerala.JPG, not featured
- Info: created by rahuldb - uploaded by rahuldb - nominated by rahuldb -- Rahuldb 11:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Rahuldb 11:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
|
|
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because too small | Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed. |
Lycaon 12:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:COA Russian SFSR.svg, not featured
- Info: created by - uploaded by - nominated by Pianist --Pianist 07:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support--Pianist 07:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Unsure. On the one hand, this is a valuable, useful work, and quite well done, and I don't think anyone wants to say that your work isn't appreciated. On the other hand, the original logo isn't particularly interesting, from an artistic point of view. We obviously need things like this, but I'm not sure if Featured Picture is quite the right category for it - Valued images (when they get off the ground) might be better. In short - great work by you, not so great work by the logo designer =) Adam Cuerden 12:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral Support As Adam Cuerden said, the COA itself isn't quite FP material, but the way it was done definitely is FP-quality vector work. Very well done - better than some FP CoAs I've seen. - Rocket000 03:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC) Edit: On second thought, I don't know how it could be better either. The more I look at it the more I like it. - Rocket000 17:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support I don't know how it can be better. --Beyond silence 11:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Против Скучная фотография, хорошая для статьи, но не интересная как избранные изображения.--Mbz1
- Question: Could you repeat in English? Normally it doesn't make a difference to me, but in this case your insight might be valuable to others. -- Ianare 06:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- I just said that while the image is good for the article it is used for, I do not find it to be interesting enough to get FP status.--Mbz1 16:18, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- She thinks this is photo. («фотография» is translated as photo) --Pianist 06:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose low quality of the black borders, top red star with asymmetric borders. But I'm expecting improvements, F l a n k e r 12:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support I've made some corrections. --F l a n k e r 15:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- I am not sure you could overwrite the original version as you did. All the votes before your correction are kind of invalid now because people voted for a different image.--Mbz1 17:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- Reverted to my version. --Pianist 07:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- If the image is here is editable. Anyone can change his vote after looking at the corrections. So what's the problem? --F l a n k e r 09:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- There are two problems. First problem is that the image's creator might like his/her version better than your edit. The second problem is that people, who have voted for the image already, voted for the original version and might never return to the nomination and never notice that the image was changed.--Mbz1 15:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- Understood, thanks for explanation. F l a n k e r 12:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- Support Clean and well built Serg!o 23:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose per Mbz1. Lycaon 12:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Opposeit is a well made SVG. but i am not really sure that is enough to be FP. i wouldnt doubht making it QI on the other hand.-LadyofHats 03:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose as per LadyofHats --Cpl Syx 03:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- This account has no contributions and created especially for voting.--Pianist 07:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Quote Mbz1. WinSocket 17:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
result: 4 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 08:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Blue flowers01.JPG, not featured
- Info: created by ErgoSum88 - uploaded by ErgoSum88 - nominated by ErgoSum88 -- ErgoSum88 10:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support A nice little photo of Plumbago auriculata I took while visiting the Honolulu Zoo. -- ErgoSum88 10:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose While the composition is good, I'm afraid there's an awful lot of noise at full resolution, and with current FPC standards, that's going to be a problem =/. Adam Cuerden 12:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment This photo meets the minimum standards exactly, "Resolution - Photographs of lower resolution than 2 million pixels (e.g. 1600 x 1200 = 1.92 million) are typically rejected..." and this photo is exactly 1600 x 1200. How is this too small?
- It means that images of 1600 x 1200 are typically rejected. 1600 x 1200 = 1.92Mpx. I agree the wording is misleading. I will rephrase it.--MichaelMaggs 17:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- That is a guideline not a cutoff/limit/threshold etc, I have reverted the guideline to the original sense which was anything less than 1600x1200 is typically rejected (This was rounded up to 2MP by someone who didn't like 1.92MP about a year ago, I think my rewording clarifies the intent. --Tony Wills 12:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose The noise is too high relative to the expected standard of resolution. The image is also too unsharp. -- Ram-Man 00:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment And this is coming from the same person who just went on a long rant about how P&S (or should I say POS) cameras should be held to a lower standard? I totally agreed with the defense of your photo, but it seems my photo is held to a higher standard. In all seriousness, I understand the focus issues, especially on the left, isn't as sharp as it could be. The criteria state that a photo should be sharp and large enough for printing... but I seriously doubt many people see much more than the thumbnail of these photos when they are used in their respective articles over on Wikipedia. If you really wanted to print some high quality photos of a certain subject, you'd be better off paying for them, instead of being cheap and using public domain images. But.... thats just my opinion. --ErgoSum88 01:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- I often give short answers, and you deserve a more detailed response. The problem with this image is not that it comes from a point-and-shoot. I rarely support images with low resolution. To put things in perspective, this nomination was borderline for me. What I meant by my comment was that this looks like it was cropped (which would only magnifies the apparent noise). The real problem, however, is the exposure. It is so strained that the dark spots (with high noise) take up way too large a percentage of the image. Noise is always going to be worse in the darkest areas, and this is just riddled with dark areas. With a different lighting conditions and a better focus, this exact same image would probably have received a support because I find the flowers quite pretty. -- Ram-Man 04:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Comment I see your point. The image was not cropped, just taken at a lower resolution. This was just a vacation photo which I had no intention of using for anything other than saving on my hard drive and looking at occasionally. If I had known better I would've taken it at full resolution and maybed used a tripod... but of course I didn't, I was on vacation! I'm pretty new to this place, so next time I will take my photos over to Picture Peer Review first before bringing them here and wasting people's time. :) --ErgoSum88 14:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
-
-
result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 08:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Trial by Jury - Chaos in the Courtroom.png, featured
- Info: created by D.H.Friston - uploaded and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden 12:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Info: Scene from the original production of W. S. Gilbert and Arthur Sullivan's Trial by Jury.
- Support -- Adam Cuerden 12:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Aqwis 12:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support--Mbz1 15:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support --WikiWookie 08:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support --MichaelMaggs 17:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Only copy of some old illustration. No value as a photo. --Karelj 20:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose see Karelj --Herrick 15:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment, not valuable as a PHOTO? This is not Featured photo candidates for christ's sake, it doesn't have to be "valuable as a photo". --Aqwis 15:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Please tell me the reason for featuring a good done scan? Brief work? Creativity? --Herrick 15:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Spending hours in libraries tracking down images on a subject? Adam Cuerden 15:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- We aren't featuring the scan, we are featuring the drawing. This is nothing different from featuring a photography by a non-Commons user. Remember, FPC is a showcase of the best images on Commons, not a reward for long and hard work by our users. --Aqwis 16:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Actually we are featuring the image upoaded to Commons that you see on screen. The end result is a combination of an excellent and interesting engraving and some excellent research and scanning/restoration work carried out by Adam Cuerden. If either the engraving or the restoration work were less than excellent we would not feature this, but the fact is that both are.--MichaelMaggs 18:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Lacks wow. Seen one, seen all (IMO). Lycaon 13:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support- i dont want to be disrespectfull but the ignorance some people show when qualifying this images is rather amazing and sad. Engraving was for many years the only way one had to relate images in printing media, and is as valuable as painting or drawing, or map tracing or sculpture or, or, or. If "this is only a scan" was reason enough to not feature it, i think we should delist 80% of the featured images we have. Please,never reject a image only becouse you dont know about a subject -LadyofHats 03:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Beyond silence 23:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
result: 7 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Mywood 08:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Wasp March 2008-1.jpg, featured
- Info: A Paper Wasp (Polistes dominulus) warming up a bubble of regurgitated nectar at the sun to help digestion. This is a practise common to many other insects. Created, uploaded and nominated by Alvesgaspar 14:50, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Alvesgaspar 14:50, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support Great image!--Mbz1 15:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support Agree with Mbz1.
Finally you took a macro picture that convinces me.Great job --Simonizer 19:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)- Got you! What about this one and this one? -- Alvesgaspar 20:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oops! ;-) --Simonizer 07:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Got you! What about this one and this one? -- Alvesgaspar 20:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support--Lissen 20:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral I'am wondering why there was that huge ammount of flashlight used at 1/60s. The formerly overexposed reflection of the flashlight in the bubble should be retouched more gently. Otherwise a nice composition --Richard Bartz 20:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support Good illustration of a natural process. I try not to think of a human analogy... Durova 23:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support very impressive. i love the reflection in the bubble. --norro 23:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support Nice shot. Calibas 03:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support--Luc Viatour 05:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support Great shot, huge wow. --Freedom to share 07:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support !!! -- Benh 07:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support --MichaelMaggs 17:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Böhringer 22:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Relic38 02:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Laitche 11:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support - Overuse of flash plus the DOF could do with being ever so slightly larger, but a great image nonetheless. --Cpl Syx 03:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support RedWine 20:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support Agree (slightly) on the flash, not on the DOF since it focuses on the relevant spot. Very nice. Digitaldreamer 01:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support D kuba 21:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Mywood 08:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Żelechów-road.jpg, not featured
- Info: Minor road leading to Żelechów, Poland.
- Info: created, uploaded and nominated by Sfu 19:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support, love the colours. --Aqwis 20:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Polski Za mało tzw. WOW factor, za normalnie, nie wystarczająco niesamowite zdjęcie. (WOW factor jest jednym z kryterii FPC)
- English: Not enough WOW. --Freedom to share 07:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- I know what wow factor is. But it`s just very POV. If this image has to low wow factor for you I won`t discuss with it. But it has for me (al least comparable with some already featured pictures). Ok? Polski Wiem co to jest wow factor, ale jak go mierzyć? (pytanie retoryczne) Sfu 07:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Subiektywnie. :D Freedom to share 20:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC) (English: subjectively)
- I know what wow factor is. But it`s just very POV. If this image has to low wow factor for you I won`t discuss with it. But it has for me (al least comparable with some already featured pictures). Ok? Polski Wiem co to jest wow factor, ale jak go mierzyć? (pytanie retoryczne) Sfu 07:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- English: Not enough WOW. --Freedom to share 07:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose No reason for nomination. Common image of common trees around common road. --Karelj 20:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose ac Karelj --Lestat 09:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose No wow. WinSocket 17:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Like Karelj. I only add, that everything good in this photo it's weather. D kuba 21:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 08:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:PlanDeCorones.jpg, not featured
- Info: a 180° panorama from a Italian Dolomites peak in winter; length: 29000px; created by RaminusFalcon - nominated by RaminusFalcon --Raminus (talk) 20:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- --Raminus (talk) 20:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment The image “http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d5/PlanDeCorones.jpg” cannot be displayed, because it contains errors. Lycaon 23:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose It's a good picture, but it's not very tall, rather noisy, and kind of washed-out-looking. It's probably due to snow or fog, but FPC standards are very high at the moment. Adam Cuerden 07:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I also got the error message mentioned by Lycaon, perhaps because my PC or browser (Firefox) choked on the 18.84Mb file size... --WikiWookie 12:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I have no problem viewing it using IE6 on Win XP SP2, sorry Firefox users... Anyway, it is a huge photo concerning resolution, when you look at it in 100% (which you probably should not do) it has lots of color noise and it is not very sharp. I suggest you downsample with a bicubic spline to half(!) height and width as it will remove a lot of noise, and I do not think you will loose much information by doing that. My guess is the resulting image will apeear much more crisp at 100% and at a resolution which does not crash the poor users using Firefox (Just kidding, I use FF sometimes too). -- Slaunger 20:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- I've edited the image, so I suggest that you should see the newer version (NEW VERSION) --Raminus (talk) 14:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 08:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Plankton creates sea foam 2.jpg, not featured
- Info: Have you ever wondered, where Sea Foam comes from? Here's the answer:When Plankton crushes ashore, it dies and disintegrates creating Foam like Bubbles, which are left at Tide Pools floor after the Ocean retreats. The bubbles display all the same properties as soap bubbles do, displaying typical interference colors , except they last much longer than soap bubbles do. The organic material of the Plankton , that lowers the surface tension of the water (as soap does) and preserves the film is responsible for these colors. It might be also interesting to note how the appearance of my relfection is chanhing from bubble to bubble. The image was taken at Fitzgerald Marine Reserve.
- Info: created,uploaded and nominated by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 15:18, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support, (I prefer this version) --Aqwis 18:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment May I please ask you, everybody, while looking at the image take a look at other versions as well and tell me, if you like any one of them better than the nominated one. IMO this image has educational value. I myself have never thought about sea foam and where it comes from before I saw this colored one. I hope that other people could find it interesting too. Thank you for your time, everybody.--Mbz1 22:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Very original. Support --- Anonymous DissidentTalk 00:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support I like version #1 better. --ErgoSum88 09:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Info: In saltwater aquariums this skimming process is used to remove organic compounds from the water. Read w:Protein_skimmer if you are interested in the topic. Maybe this image would fit in that article as well. /Daniel78 10:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- Thank you, Daniel78. It is interesting to know. I'd also like to thank everybody for the looking at the other versions and sharing your opinion with me.--Mbz1 15:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Detail, noise, photographer in the reflection.--Beyond silence 16:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- My reflection is the best part of the image. Just think about this - my reflection in plankton! Where else could you see something like this ;)--Mbz1 16:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose With the reflection, it becomes a art picture, more or less. Not a bad thing at all, but I'm personally I little stricter on the technical side for these types of pictures to balance out the lack of value. That doesn't mean it's not a great shot. - Rocket000 04:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- Thank you for your vote, Rocket000. Probably because of my limited English I could not understand what you meant under the lack of value. The image is used in four articles on English Wikipedia and is the only image of seafoam, which explains, where it comes from. The effect is studied by scientists. I would have never nominated an image, which lacks a value, or maybe you believe that the image lost its value because my reflection made it look as an art? May I please ask you to explain to me one more time what did you mean under the lack of value. Thank you.--Mbz1 04:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- Sure, I think I used the wrong word. It does indeed have encyclopedic use, I just meant that it's more artistic to me than something I would expect to find in a encyclopedia (wikis being an exception). The reflections make me focus on the picture as a piece of artistic work instead of in an educational way. My attention is on the aesthetic side when I look at it, so I hold images like this to a higher technical standard. I think a shot of this foam (either macro or a shoreline with foam) without distracting reflections could illustrate the topic better. I hope that makes sense. :) - Rocket000 05:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Your oppose is not discouraging at all. To me it is good enough that you found the image interesting enough to vote. Thank you.--Mbz1 16:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Comment I'd like to talk about encyclopedic value of the image, please. The image is used in four articles. In reflection article it is the only images, which gives an introduction to Specular reflection at a curved surface. In w:Interference it is the only image which shows how Interference may occure in Nature,in w:Plankton article it is the only image, which shows how dead plankton looks, in w:Foam article it is the only image, which explains in details where seafoam comes from. Yes, IMO this image has lots of encyclopedic and educational values, and no, it is not a bad art image, but a good encyclopedic image, and I Support the image.--Mbz1 05:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I like Image:Tide pools bubbles.jpg and Image:Plankton creates sea foam1 .jpg better --Simonizer 16:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- Thank you very much for you comment and for looking over my pictures, Simonizer. Do you believe I should add one of your choices as alternative?--Mbz1 17:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- I dont know, but I would support it --Simonizer 19:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you. I've nothing to loose, so I'll try.--Mbz1 21:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for you comment and for looking over my pictures, Simonizer. Do you believe I should add one of your choices as alternative?--Mbz1 17:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support As per above --Booksworm 07:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose I'm not so fond of the reflection, though the topic is quite interesting. Lycaon 17:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 21:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Plankton creates sea foam1 .jpg, not featured
- Info: Have you ever wondered, where w:sea w:foam comes from? Here's the answer:When w:Plankton crushes ashore, it dies and disintegrates creating w:foam like bubbles, which are left at w:tide pools floor after the w:ocean retreats. The bubbles display all the same properties as w:soap bubbles do, displaying typical w:interference w:colors , except they last much longer than soap bubbles do.The w:organic material of the w:Plankton , that lowers the surface tension of the water (as soap does) and preserves the film is responsible for these w:colors. It might be also interesting to note how the appearance of my w:reflection is chanhing from bubble to bubble. The image was taken at w:Fitzgerald Marine Reserve.
- Support--Mbz1 21:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support--Simonizer 23:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination
[edit] Image:Plankton creates sea foam 6.jpg, not featured
- Info: Have you ever wondered, where w:sea w:foam comes from? Here's the answer:When w:Plankton crushes ashore, it dies and disintegrates creating w:foam like bubbles, which are left at w:tide pools floor after the w:ocean retreats. The bubbles display all the same properties as w:soap bubbles do, displaying typical w:interference w:colors , except they last much longer than soap bubbles do.The w:organic material of the w:Plankton , that lowers the surface tension of the water (as soap does) and preserves the film is responsible for these w:colors. It might be also interesting to note how the appearance of my w:reflection is chanhing from bubble to bubble. The image was taken at w:Fitzgerald Marine Reserve.
- Support--Mbz1 21:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose i find it really distracting to see the photograph reflection on each bubble -LadyofHats 02:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination
[edit] Image:Michelangelo's Pieta 5450 cropncleaned.jpg, not featured
- Info:The Pietà (1498–1499) by Michelangelo is a marble sculpture in St. Peter's Basilica in Vatican City, the first of a number of works of the same theme by the artist. Created, and uploaded by User:Glimz - nominated by Bewareofdog2 -- Bewareofdog2 17:28, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Bewareofdog2 17:28, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Jaakobou 18:00, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - Poor angle and annoying background. Obvious enc interest but this famous work deserves a better picture -- Alvesgaspar 19:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment You can't really move a sculpture. That said, can we clone out that annoying yellow-grey square near the top? Adam Cuerden 19:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Ack Alves. What about using a shallower dof to blur out the background a bit? ---Freedom to share 20:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - as above. --- Anonymous DissidentTalk 00:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose I agree, the box needs to be cloned out, or the background altered. Then I'd be willing to change my vote. --ErgoSum88 09:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment This is a very famous sculpture in the St. Peter's Basilica. The statue is close to the wall and it is difficult to get a shallower dof and you also can't change the background. And the box...well the box is there and thus the picture shows it too. Is it really a good idea to clone it away and change the original view on this famous place? (Especially concerning the encyclopedic value) If this is a FP i am also not sure. But one thing is for sure...it is difficult to make a better picture of it. --AngMoKio 10:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Maybe a slightly higher angle... Adam Cuerden 12:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- Although a marble texture is visible that doesn't show reality. --AngMoKio 14:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 21:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Michelangelo's Pieta 5450 cropncleaned edit.jpg, featured
- Info: Cloned out the "annoying box" in the background. Created, and uploaded by User:Glimz - nominated by Bewareofdog2 -- Edited by ErgoSum88 03:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support --ErgoSum88 03:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Normally encyclopedic value is not the most important thing for me but in this case I have to oppose because of it. We don't know what this box is so I think we shouldn't just clone it away. It changes the actual view on this statue. --AngMoKio 09:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Info: Check out the original photo. Upon further inspection, it turns out somebody already did a partial cloning job on the reflection of a window. And it turns out we aren't the only ones who hated the background, check out this picture. I also discovered that the box is actually the bottom of a Christian cross, check it out here. Upon further consideration, I still support this edit. --ErgoSum88 09:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok the fact that this window already got removed gives me reason to also oppose the upper version.It is a big difference if I cut out the whole background or if I change things in the background. Btw there exists also a replica that has another background - so I don't know if your example with the other background really is this statue we discuss here. --AngMoKio 09:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support Nice sharpness, light and value. Thanks --Beyond silence 21:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Value? You mean encyclopedic value? This picture shows totally wrong surroundings of this statue. A cross got removed and there is also a new marble texture. This might sound irrelevant to you...but for encyclopedic value it is relevant i think. there might be people who are especially interested in the marble texture. --AngMoKio 14:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - This is a nice clone out, but on this one I prefer the real life situation un-manipulated. Jaakobou 17:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support Adam Cuerden 07:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support Don't care for the background. The object in the foreground is the subject here. --AM 21:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support Serg!o 22:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment In case anyone cares what I think... while I realize the importance of retaining encyclopedic value here, I think if the photo had been taken from a different angle, this same effect could have been achieved. As far as the marble texture goes, it all looks the same anyway, so the texture has no value in my opinion. If I had cloned out the entire cross, this would be unacceptable... of course. Cloning away reflections and distracting elements that could have easily been removed without retouching the photo is... in my opinion... entirely "ethical." --ErgoSum88 01:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- You would have to take it from a very different angle and then the photo would be quite different and wouldn't look like this one here. Well it is still my opinion that such historical places shouldn't get changed by cloning. --AngMoKio 07:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support --wau > 14:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support. James F. (talk) 12:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Agree with AngMoKio on this one. Lycaon 17:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
result: 7 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Mywood 12:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:VillaMelziLago.jpg, not featured
- Info: It's an Italian villa in en:Bellagio on the shores of en:Lake Como. -- RaminusFalcon 15:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- RaminusFalcon 15:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Tilted. Freedom to share 18:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Tilted. Lycaon 19:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Tilted. --Richard Bartz 20:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Tilted. --Aqwis 21:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Tilted. --Laitche 12:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
|
|
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because tilted - Freedom to share | Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed. |
--Freedom to share 07:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Question: Can't it be fixed? Adam Cuerden 17:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination --Raminus (talk) 16:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Please see the new version: With fixed tilting --Raminus (talk) 16:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:VillaMelziLago edit.jpg, not featured
- Info: It should be pretty obvious what I did to it, but I also tried fixing the white balance. --Aqwis 18:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral --Aqwis 18:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry but no amount of tilt-correction is going to fix the very dull lighting. --MichaelMaggs 18:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose As MichaelMaggs --Niabot 01:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
result: 0 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Mywood 12:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:20050827 South Gippsland Hills In Morning Mist.jpg, not featured
- Info: created by Ian Fieggen - uploaded by Ian Fieggen - nominated by Ian Fieggen -- Ian Fieggen 00:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Ian Fieggen 00:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Böhringer 22:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment It's a very nice panorama which reminds me one of my favorite on commons, but resolution is very low, and I'm afraid it might fail because of that. -- Benh 07:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
|
|
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because too small (< 2Mpix) | Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed. |
I withdraw my nomination See new version immediately below...
[edit] Image:20050827 South Gippsland Hills In Morning Mist 2.jpg, not featured
- Info: Here's an un-cropped version, which is greater than 2Mpix. The above had been cropped to what I felt was better proportions and composition, but which unfortunately fell below the minimum requirements. Ian Fieggen 23:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Ian Fieggen Ian Fieggen 23:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Noisy, average detail. Sorry, you should try Commons:Quality images candidates first! Please reneame without random numbers! --Beyond silence 11:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- Random numbers? Do you mean the date at the start of the name? --WikiWookie 12:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- "Sorry, you should try Commons:Quality images candidates first!"? Sorry, I know the quality of my camera probably isn't up to the standard of "Quality Images", but I thought this section was for "Featured Images", which is primarily about the image itself. Ian Fieggen 00:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Then again, having seen how my picture compares to the one mentioned by Benh, I'm humbled by the other's much higher quality, even if mine has similar "wow". Oh well, I thought it was one of my best contributions, but apparently not worthy of featuring. Ian Fieggen 02:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 12:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Sweetbay Magnolia Magnolia virginiana Flower Closeup 2242px.jpg, not featured
- Info: Created, uploaded, and nominated by Ram-Man. 02:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Info: Sweetbay Magnolia (Magnolia virginiana) leaves and flower.
- Support A flower with leaves, providing more educational value than many solitary flowers or from a less important genus. Let's see if it continues to be true that only sexy flowers can be featured. -- Ram-Man 02:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - too noisy and blurred to be featured material. --- Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Distracting background detracts from image. Freedom to share 07:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose This is a sexy flower and the composition is nice. But the image quality is far from acceptable for FP,specially the artifacts in the background and the lack of sharpness -- Alvesgaspar 08:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I must seriously object to the reaction to this nomination. If we have approached a level of technical strictness here that requires images from an SLR, then it is sad the direction that we have come. The guidelines clearly list 2MP as the minimum, and this is well above that level. The obsession with evaluating images on low-dpi displays at high magnifications (i.e. 100%) is causing perfectly good images to be rejected. We are moving past the point where the FP process features anyone who can take a good picture to anyone who can take a good picture with a good camera. I've had a number of perfectly good nominations rejected because of noise or DoF from a P&S, and have seen a good number of other people's nominations fail for the same reason. Specifically: the noise level is more than acceptable for a P&S. Canon images are usually cleaner than any of the other manufacturers, except maybe Nikon. This is about as good as you can get. As for the background, the problem again becomes that a P&S has more depth of field than an SLR, so this is really the best you can get. You can't have a shallow DoF AND a high level of sharpness. It's not physically possible. Had I merely taken this with my SLR + macro lens, as in this, at least two of these oppose votes would be eliminated. -- Ram-Man 12:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral Actually I'm amazed people are complaining about the quality. I could see maybe opposing on composition or wow (which is why I'm neutral instead of support), but I was surprised to see what camera it was. --Dori - Talk 18:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral I agree with Dori. The sharpness of the flower is excellent, certainly for that kind of camera. It's proved again that Canon P&S cameras are very good (I have one too... so I know the possibilities and the limits of it). This image is certainly QI, but perhaps just not FP... -- MJJR 21:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral Ack. Dori. Neutral as an FP, but for sure this is a QI. -- Relic38 02:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral Ack. Dori --MichaelMaggs 18:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support The shriveled petals detract from the beauty, but I agree with Ram-man. --ErgoSum88 01:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral - With a shallower DOF I would support. --Cpl Syx 03:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose as per above. -- RBID 09:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 5 neutral => not featured. Mywood 12:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Respiratory system complete en.svg, featured
- Info: created, uploaded and nominated by LadyofHats -- LadyofHats 04:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Info:i had already tryed to feature it for two weeks but i had computer problems that didnt allow me to make the proper changes so i removed the nomination. now i have made the changes requested and here is the image. Like i said before this image is already featured in the english wikipedia. -- LadyofHats 04:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support Oh, like anyone was going to do anything else with a Lady Of Hats diagram =) Adam Cuerden 07:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support Was good already but the adjustments do help. --WikiWookie 08:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support - Alvesgaspar 08:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support Excellent diagram. --MichaelMaggs 17:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Jaakobou 19:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- MJJR 21:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Böhringer 22:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support Of course. - Rocket000 03:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support--Mbz1 16:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Almost there ;-). You missed one on the right (Superior lobe) and Main Bronchi should be Main bronchi. And then I'll be happy :-)). Lycaon 15:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Done -LadyofHats 14:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Almost there ;-). You missed one on the right (Superior lobe) and Main Bronchi should be Main bronchi. And then I'll be happy :-)). Lycaon 15:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support Thank you. Very well done as usual. Lycaon 17:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support Greatly interesting diagram. RedWine 20:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Mywood 12:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:1863 Meeting of Settlers and Maoris at Hawke's Bay, New Zealand.jpg, not featured
- Info: created by M.Jackson - uploaded, restored, and nominated by Adam Cuerden. -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 06:58, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support I think this is one of the best historical illustrations of New Zealand we have, and I spent literally hours restoring it, to get it as good as I possibly could Adam Cuerden (talk) 07:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Twdragon (talk) 10:49, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Heptagon (talk) 13:55, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose User: Pierregunther
- Support --Beyond silence
16:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
result: 4 supports, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Benh (talk) 22:35, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Ammonite lamp post at dusk, Lyme Regis.JPG, featured
- Info: created, uploaded and nominated by MichaelMaggs -- MichaelMaggs 17:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Info: Dusk on the Marine Parade, Lyme Regis, Dorset, UK. The ammonite-design streetlamps reflect the town's location on the Jurassic Coast, a World Heritage site. The bird is a herring gull, Larus argentatus.
- Support -- MichaelMaggs 17:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support wow -- Benh 18:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support Lovely composition. --Dori - Talk 18:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral, lower right corner. --Aqwis 18:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support lower right corner disturbs a bit....it could get cloned away. Still a very nice composition. --AngMoKio 20:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- It could be, but I left it 'cause I like it. --MichaelMaggs 20:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support Nice atmosphere, wow. --Karelj 20:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- MJJR 21:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support - Artsy works are welcome. I like the cloud patterns in the sky. I like less the LR corner -- Alvesgaspar 21:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Digon3 talk 21:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support--Mbz1 22:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support--Simonizer 23:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support
Extremely useful.Nice composition. - Rocket000 03:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC) - Support good shot. Durova 08:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support Alex Pereiradisc 14:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Lestat 09:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support - Wonderful sharpness to the silhouette, but it really is a shame about the BR corner! --Cpl Syx 03:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Richard Bartz 21:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support Very good photo. D kuba 21:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support Yessssss! and Wow! -- Johann Jaritz 07:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Mywood 12:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:PlanDeCorones edited.jpg, featured
- Info: created, edited, uploaded and nominated by RaminusFalcon -- --Raminus (talk) 19:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- I've reduced the length to 20000px, improved the contrast and fixed the noisy stitching stripes (now the dimension is less than 8MP)--Raminus (talk) 19:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support Quite noisy but impressive. Geotagging would be useful but this is useful and valuable enough and the big stitch certainly brings some wow (not the 'technical wow' though) to me. Freedom to share 21:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Better, but I still think you should downsample further to, say, a pixel height of 1200px. -- Slaunger 19:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Info: Geotagging added. --Raminus (talk) 16:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support As per above Booksworm 07:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support Really wonderful panorama! RedWine 20:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support Amazing!!. I'm sure it can be enhanced, though. Nasosi
- Support WinSocket 17:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Bergwolf 16:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. --Raminus (talk) 21:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Lyon Pont Bonaparte 8 Déc. 2007.JPG, not featured
- Info: created by Spacedreamer - uploaded by Spacedreamer - nominated by Spacedreamer --Spacedreamer 10:36, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Spacedreamer 10:36, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
|
|
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because noisy, dark and blurred. | Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed. |
Lycaon 10:59, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Ortakoey Istanbul Bosporusbruecke Mrz2005.jpg, not featured
- Info: created by Dietmar Giljohann - uploaded by T.h. - nominated by Dsmurat 20:06, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Dsmurat 20:06, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Perspective correction (for example the left minaret and the green light lamp) would be advisable. Also the image is quite dark and gray for me. --Aktron 20:48, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Poor composition, bad time of day for lighting, non straight verticals, soft. Mfield 03:53, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination
Thanks... --Dsmurat 10:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
result: withdrawn => not featured. -- Lycaon 22:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:TerragenLake.jpg, not featured
- Info: created ,uploaded and nominated by Lissen -- Lissen 21:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Lissen 21:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
|
|
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because too small --norro 22:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC) | Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed. |
- I withdraw my nomination
Lissen 12:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
result: withdrawn => not featured. -- Lycaon 22:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:1 1165512253.jpg, not featured
- Info: created by Username - uploaded by Popoff 16:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC) - nominated by Username -- Popoff 16:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Popoff 16:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
|
|
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because too small. Please read the guidelines first :-) --Richard Bartz 16:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC) | Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed. |
[edit] Image:Green Flash in Santa Cruz.jpg, not featured
- Info: created , uploaded and nominated by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 00:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Info:It is not an ordinary sunset. It is a rare w:Green Flash w:sunset.The colors, which the flash took during that sunset make the image even more rare.
- Support -- Mbz1 00:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Richard Bartz 03:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Interesting picture, but it's too blurry. --startaq 11:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support great moment --B.navez 17:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose While this is a really pretty and valuable picture and most likely extremely hard to capture, I don't think the technical quality is up to fp standards. -- Gorgo 19:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- For uncommon topics in uneasy conditions, standard is what you decide to be, not from an absolute point of view, but compared to pictures of the same kind of subject in similar conditions. Show me any better picture of a green flash and your arguments might be acceptable. --B.navez 19:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination and suggest removing the following FP selection criteria, :"A bad picture of a very difficult subject is a better picture than a good picture of an ordinary subject. A good picture of a difficult subject is an extraordinary photograph" from the FP criteria list because IMO there any no use in keeping this critea on the list for nominating and voting on Commons FP. Thank you all for votes and for comments
- I think you have a pretty reasonable chance of success with this very interesting image, and suggest you withdraw your withdrawal. --MichaelMaggs 23:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- As per MichaelMaggs. -- Klaus with K 16:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if it's really FP worthy. But anyway it's a very rare picture of a very rare atmospheric phenomenon. For that reason it's extremely valuable! -- MJJR 21:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- So what is more a definition of "featurable" than "extremely valuable"!! If you think so, so say so : it is a FP !--B.navez 19:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, why withdraw after only two opposes ? /Daniel78 01:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
result: withdrawn => not featured. -- Lycaon 22:46, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Sun-lit raindrops in GGP.jpg, not featured
- Info: created,uploaded and nominated by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 20:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Mbz1 20:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose blurry -- Gorgo 20:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- It was the idea. Otherwise the colors would not have been seen. May I please ask you to take a look at this beautiful image
and notice how it shows the colors only, where the droplets are blurry at the left hand side of the image? Thanks.--Mbz1 20:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- It was the idea. Otherwise the colors would not have been seen. May I please ask you to take a look at this beautiful image
- Oppose Mbdortmund 13:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose It doesn't work for me. I guess it has too many and too tiny droplets. --Lerdsuwa 16:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination
result: withdrawn => not featured. -- Lycaon 22:45, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Tipulid March 2008-1.jpg, not featured
- Info: Back to the critters: detail of a Tipulidae (Nephrotoma sp), ususally known as Crane-flies or Daddy-long-legs flies. Only with a close-up can we appreciate the beauty of these slender and fragile creatures. Yes, I know the DOF is quite small (2mm, at the maximum), but this is the way with macro shots. Please check "other versions" for a view of the whole insect. Created, uploaded and nominated by -- Alvesgaspar 18:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Alvesgaspar 18:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Question: What is that it's standing on? Also, I think I prefer the full view, though this does capture details better. Pity we can't combine them into one image. Adam Cuerden 19:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- The insect was on an external wall -- Alvesgaspar 09:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Only part of creature is on image and only several % of it is in focus. --Karelj 19:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Like Karelj. D kuba 15:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Quote Karelj. WinSocket 17:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose This cant keep up with the time --Richard Bartz 22:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination we are not always the best judges of our own photos - Alvesgaspar 07:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
result: withdrawn => not featured. -- Lycaon 22:45, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Plant Buds clasification.svg, not featured
- Info: created ,uploaded and nominated by LadyofHats -- LadyofHats 02:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose I have a problem with this drawing. It is a mixed bag of morphological and functional terminology and as such not a classification but an illustration of several terms applied to buds. They should not be put in one single drawing IMO. Lycaon 19:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- Could you repair the Types of buds portion of the article in which this image illustrates rather well then? -- carol 19:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- OpposeAgree with Lycaon : good drawings but most of terms are wrong and the whole makes an illogical mixture.--B.navez 06:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- Could you cite a reference for this? Seriously, it illustrates the article that is there and it does so very well. That section of the article is uncited as well -- but it looks like a language argument and no one is telling how they know that those 1)are the words or 2)arent' the words. -- carol 07:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Main problem comes of course from the list in the article. Open any textbook of botany to check the words, some may be discussed but for axillary buds they are in the axil. So just look at the third drawing : there are buds under the petioles. This never occurs (go in your garden and if you find something like the drawing, take a photograph, it would be featurable. So even just for this reason it can't be a FP. --B.navez 10:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Could you cite a reference for this? Seriously, it illustrates the article that is there and it does so very well. That section of the article is uncited as well -- but it looks like a language argument and no one is telling how they know that those 1)are the words or 2)arent' the words. -- carol 07:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Info: here are some of my sources:[7],[8],[9],[10],[11],and ofcourse the list of Types of buds that one can find in the english wikipedia on the article bud. -LadyofHats 14:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- So as you can see on every source, axillary buds are always located above the leaf insertion (1)(2)(4)(5) and never underneath as it seems to be on the 3d drawing.
- Bud scars only occur when the terminal bud die and is replaced by a subterminal (or pseudoterminal bud) (4); otherwise on the stem you can see bud scale scars (2)(4) arranged in a ring (and what is shown on 15th drawing are leaf scars)
- Also flower buds (2)(4) are really buds and not grapes (not like the 5th drawing).
- --B.navez 17:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- changed the image. is this what you meant? -LadyofHats 12:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
ok someone helped me to make the list more acurate so until i am able to redo the illustration i will withdraw
I withdraw my nomination
LadyofHats 17:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
result: withdrawn => not featured. -- Lycaon 22:45, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Fogbow glory spectre bridge edit 1.jpg, not featured
- Info:The picture was taken from Golden Gate Bridge. The picture shows solar glory, Spectre of the Brocken and Fog Bow as well as the North Tower of Golden Gate Bridge.
- Info: created, uploaded and nominated by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 16:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Mbz1 16:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment May I please point out that what are you looking at is a rare image of three rare each by itself atmospheric optics phenomenon. The quality of the image is as good as it gets for pictures of these phenomenon.The image was taken with 8mm fisheye lens. I wanted to get Golden Gate Bridge into the image.Thanks.--Mbz1 16:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Somehow unconvinced by choice of 8mm fisheye as a good image. It seems to distort the meaning and the value and was created to shoot artistic and creative rather than valuable pictures. A standard wide-angle would actually allow me to see how it looks like in reality imo. Freedom to share 22:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- May I please mention that 8mm fisheye lens distored the image in general, but fogbow, glory and the Spectre look exactly as they do in the real life and as I saw them.I have 18 mm lens and 8 mm lens and nothing in between. I always use 8 mm lens to take a fogbow images (I bought it for fogbows) because fogbows do not fit in 18 mm. I'm afraid that, if my fogbow images have no value, it means that all fogbow images uploaded to Wikipedia and to Commons so far have no value because they all were taken by me and by my 8 mm fisheye lens.;)On the other hand it is really great that voters at Commons are thinking more and more about the value of the FP images.You might be interested to check this gallery of fogbow images at a very famous atmospheric optics site.--Mbz1 23:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Actually, a fisheye lens will not have distorted the fogbow in the way that a rectilinear wide angle would have. A fisheye projection will maintain circles as circular which makes it the better choice for photographing a circular object in wide angle. Mfield 15:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- Thank you, Mfield.--Mbz1 16:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination
result: withdrawn => not featured. -- Lycaon 22:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Fogbow glory spectre bridge edit 2.jpg, not featured
- Support--Mbz1 23:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination
result: withdrawn => not featured. -- Lycaon 22:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:CMA CGM - Bizet.jpg, not featured
- Info: The container ship CMA CGM - Bizet at Zeebrugge port, created, uploaded and nominated by Lycaon 10:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Richard Bartz 10:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support --AngMoKio 11:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Wisnia6522 13:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Composition, no wow factor. --Karelj 16:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I think this is pretty good stuff, but there is something to me about the projection. What projection is that? I would probably have chosen a projection where I could make the sea-harbour line completely horizontal. It is quite curved like a smiley right now. An effect I notice immediately and which I find distracting. Also the almost specular reflection of the sun onto the side of the ship is IMO a slightly degrading quality of the photo. The colors and sharpness are very good, and the stitches in the sea surface are very well made. Did you have to do some cloning touch-up to make that work? It is not described in the image page what kind of SW you have used for the stitching and enblending. Could you add that, please? -- Slaunger 16:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Additional Comment Unlike other reviewers I like the position of the ship. The empty space to the right is not empty, there are cranes. If they were not there the composition would be boring IMO. Agree with the cropped buoy though. Seems like the editing was done a little bit to hasty...-- Slaunger 21:07, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Additional
- Neutral - I agree with Slaunger on the projection used, the peer should be straight. Also, why so much almost empty space on the right of the ship? -- Alvesgaspar 17:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Nice and sharp Image, but i have to agree with Slaunger, too. Additional I see at least two stitching errors in the water. I dont like the cropped red buoy. It would be a nicer composition if it were positioned a litte more right --Simonizer 17:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support I like it.--Mbz1 20:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Ack other opposers, stitching errors. Freedom to share 18:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination
Looks like a fix and a renom are in order. Lycaon 19:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
result: withdrawn => not featured. -- Lycaon 22:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Red Poppy Papaver Flower Closeup 2049px.jpg, not featured
- Info: Created, uploaded, and nominated by Ram-Man. 00:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support I think this is a beautiful flower. The saturated red stretched the dynamic range limits of the camera, but I think the result is pretty good. -- Ram-Man 00:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - Harsh lighting, trivial composition and less than optimal image quality. For such a common subject, a much better picture is expected -- Alvesgaspar 17:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose per Alvesgaspar --Ianare 18:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Ack Alves. Freedom to share 18:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose-overexposed. not the best composition -LadyofHats 14:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose as per above. -- RBID 09:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose as above.--Lissen 21:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination
5 day rule. -- Ram-Man 15:47, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. -- Ram-Man 15:47, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Contrail and tsunami warning sign.jpg, not featured
- Info:It was the strangest w:contrail I've ever seen. What was even more strange that it looked kind of similar to w:tsunami warning sign, which you could see at the street lamp. It was almost as w:tsunami warning sign in the sky. I took few fast shots and run up hill to the safety :)
- Info: created, uploaded and nominated by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 15:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Mbz1 15:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose I find this picture quite amusing. Especially when i see the composition of the bird and the man beneath him. But some things are disturbing: The sharpness isn't the best, the light/contrast could be better and the buildings are tilted to much. --Niabot 19:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose lighting -- Gorgo 20:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose As Niabot. --Karelj 21:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment A fun image, would need some cleaning up before it would pass here, but making people smile is always a good thing =) Adam Cuerden 00:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I am really glad everybody likes the image and finds it to be fun. May I please ask you a question, everybody? I am really interested in that contrail. I wonder, if somebody could give an explanation how it came about. I would also like to know, if somebody saw something like this. Thank you.--Mbz1 01:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Pilot hot-dogging? Hmm, English wikipedia has that word specifically for skiing and wiktionary says it is about surfing, skateboarding, skiing 'A show-off or daredevil.' but we always used to use it for anyone defying the norm in such a fashion that this pilot might have been doing. -- carol 14:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC) Oops, a verb hot dog. -- carol 14:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Thank you, Carol. It is a very good explanation, but I tend to believe it was more of a natural reason, something in the atmosphere I guess.--Mbz1 16:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- Have you ever seen the wind do that without taking a few buildings down though? I have been on a airbus where I am quite certain the contrail would have looked like this -- the theory was that pilots were trying to upset the flight attendents. Nature is not just outside, but within people as well. -- carol 19:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- No I have not seen anything like this, but I saw strange contrails before. They were even studied.You also might be interested to check this out w:Crow Instability--Mbz1 20:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I asked here, and it's possibly a missile or rocket launch from Vandenburg AFB. - Keta 16:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination
result: withdrawn => not featured. -- Lycaon 22:43, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:VillaMelziLago2.jpg, not featured
- Info: created by Marcus90 - nominated by RaminusFalcon -- edited by RaminusFalcon --Raminus (talk) 16:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Info: I've fixed the tilting by using Photoshop CS3 Perspective Focus.
- Support -- --Raminus (talk) 16:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose, I hate to say it, but I think my edit is better. Also, why did you "murder" the sky? --Aqwis 16:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry but no amount of tilt-correction is going to fix the very dull lighting. --MichaelMaggs 18:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose...neither the distortion. --AM 21:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination
I'm sorry. --Raminus (talk) 16:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- You don't need to say sorry :) -- Laitche 06:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
result: withdraw => not featured. -- Laitche 06:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Bockwindmühle Trebbus.JPG, not featured
- Info: created by LutzBruno - uploaded by LutzBruno - nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden 08:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Adam Cuerden 08:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose good photo to illustrate, but the colours are quite a bit cold. --Herrick 15:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose I'm afraid that neither the composition nor the lighting are up to FP standards. --MichaelMaggs 18:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Pesonally I'd rather see the front of the windmill. --ErgoSum88 01:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. --Laitche 06:46, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Grevillea 1.JPG, not featured
- Info: created by Adam.J.W.C. - uploaded by Adam.J.W.C. - nominated by Adam.J.W.C. --Adam.J.W.C. 02:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Adam.J.W.C. 02:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support Lovely lighting effect. Adam Cuerden 02:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Interesting angle of view but severely overexposed and bad crop, sorry. -- Slaunger 20:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral I like the lighting choice but the background ruins the composition for me. Calibas 05:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Mainly due to overexposure, but the crop doesn't help any. -- Ram-Man 03:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support amore sbalorditivo esso. Jina Lee 04:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Busy background, crop. --MichaelMaggs 07:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose sorry, I feel the lighting does not give the flower proper exposure. I believe that taking the shot in front of the sun inhabited the ability of the camera to fully take in the colors of the subject. Jaakobou 10:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination
Withdrawn by nominator, see history of this page --Tony Wills 19:40, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
result:withdraw => not featured. -- Laitche 06:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Oxalis triangularis Richard Bartz.jpg, not featured
- Info: created & uploaded + nominated by --Richard Bartz 16:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Info: Oxalis triangularis is called the LOVE PLANT :)
- Support --Richard Bartz 16:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose
This appears manipulated (and undeclared) to the point wherethe background looks unnatural. It might as well be a black background.No background looks like this at f/22.-- Ram-Man 22:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)- ??? --Richard Bartz 23:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Why is the background so flat for such a tiny aperture? Strong manipulations should be declared with the retouched template. Also, even if this were real, this takes bokeh obsession to a whole new level. -- Ram-Man 23:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thats why i'am the Makro Freak ! Generating a homogenuous background is unwieldy but the ultimate perfection IMO. --Richard Bartz 23:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- All of the images that you linked have something in common: an out-of-focus area that adds to perceived depth. This makes them look more natural. This is too much. -- Ram-Man 23:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Anyway, maybe a matter of taste. I think its very special with the angle the background and the deph of field --Richard Bartz 23:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- All of the images that you linked have something in common: an out-of-focus area that adds to perceived depth. This makes them look more natural. This is too much. -- Ram-Man 23:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thats why i'am the Makro Freak ! Generating a homogenuous background is unwieldy but the ultimate perfection IMO. --Richard Bartz 23:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Why is the background so flat for such a tiny aperture? Strong manipulations should be declared with the retouched template. Also, even if this were real, this takes bokeh obsession to a whole new level. -- Ram-Man 23:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- ??? --Richard Bartz 23:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support--Mbz1 02:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose agree with ram-man, looks too unnatural -- Gorgo 13:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I suggest you add it to the existing Oxalis triangularis species gallery instead of having it associated with the non-existent Category:Oxalis triangularis, cf. The Tree Of Life guidelines. -- Slaunger 20:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Info: See, e.g., here for more info about the species. -- Slaunger 20:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral Very high quality photo. Yeah the bg really looks almost too clinical, but it does not really bother me. Only vague readings on my wow-o-meter though. I think it is because the flower in itself looks very ordinary. Perhaps not a fair judgement, as every species is unique, but nevertheless... So, adding it all up I get: neutral. -- Slaunger 20:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support amore sbalorditivo esso. Jina Lee 04:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose agree with ram ram, the image is far too simple and seems unatural.-LadyofHats 17:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 16:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Oxalis triangularis stereoscopic Richard Bartz.jpg, not featured
- Info: Alternative stereoscopic version plus a alternative for the alternative ;-) --Richard Bartz 01:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Info: You need a Anaglyph (3-D glasses) to view this image
- Support --Richard Bartz 01:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support--Mbz1 03:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support While I'm at it. --Bergwolf 12:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Opposeboring RBID 16:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose background -- Gorgo 13:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support amore sbalorditivo esso. Jina Lee 04:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support Innovative. Freedom to share 18:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
result: 5 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 23:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC) (Please renominate this picture, because its not clear which alternative got the support!!)
[edit] Image:Ivan the Terrible and Harsey.jpg, featured
- Info: created by Alexander Litovchenko - uploaded by Poctob - nominated by Adam Cuerden --Adam Cuerden 10:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Adam Cuerden 10:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support--Mbz1 15:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support Of much value. Freedom to share 21:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Charlessauer 23:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support Wonderful picture, wonderful scan. Calibas 05:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Jaakobou 10:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support -LadyofHats 17:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support Alex Pereiradisc 14:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
result: 8 support, 0oppose, 0 neutral => featured. --Laitche 06:45, 16 March 2008 (UTC)===Image:Flagellum base diagram.svg, featured===
- Info: created , uploaded and nominated by LadyofHats -- LadyofHats 11:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support Great and useful work as always.--Mbz1 16:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support as Mbz1. --MichaelMaggs 18:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support Excellent. --Calibas 02:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support --libertad0 ॐ 13:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- this was never an animation. but i did remove it :)-LadyofHats 10:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Wrong translation, I ment graphics --Simonizer 12:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- this was never an animation. but i did remove it :)-LadyofHats 10:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Simonizer 12:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- my reference for names:[12]. even when you were right with the periplasmic space. it is changed now -LadyofHats 02:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support I had noticed that ref too. The Nature one is clearer though IMHO. Lycaon 08:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- my reference for names:[12]. even when you were right with the periplasmic space. it is changed now -LadyofHats 02:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support - Fascinating, looks like a technical drawing of some machine -- Alvesgaspar 12:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Manco Capac 22:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Lijealso 21:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. --Laitche 06:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Sadko.jpg, featured
- Info: created by Илья Ефимович Репин - uploaded by J.M.Domingo/Adam Cuerden - nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden 17:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Checked the source, and discovered that the version there was pretty much free of the JPEG artefacts, unlike ours. I don't know why, but, the main problem being addressed, I'm renominating it. Adam Cuerden 17:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support Adam Cuerden 17:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support --MichaelMaggs 18:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support Ahhhh, much better. Good find! --ErgoSum88 00:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support Beautiful. Durova 07:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support - What is the story behind the scene? These characters are indeed creepy! -- Alvesgaspar 08:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- There's a Wikipedia article, but it kind of sucks, so here's some links =) [13] [14] [15] Adam Cuerden 11:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support What a magic painting! --Calibas 02:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support--Mbz1 05:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Richard Bartz 19:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose I have a problem with featuring photographs of paintings where there is no proof of the authenticity of the colour reproduction (e.g. with a second picture including a standard colour card). Lycaon 07:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. --Laitche 06:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support--Conrado 00:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:William-Adolphe Bouguereau (1825-1905) - Sewing (1898).jpg - not featured
_-_Sewing_(1898).jpg)
- Info: created by William-Adolphe Bouguereau, nominated by Laitche -- Laitche 17:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Laitche 17:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment There's a smudge on her nose that looks like dirt on the scanner. Can it be removed? Also, the saturation levels seem just a smidgen lower than they ought to be - it's meant to be fairly light, but I think this is just a teensy bit too light. Adam Cuerden 08:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Unsharp and noisy. Sorry --Beyond silence 23:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
1 support, 1 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 14:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Edit: Image:William-Adolphe Bouguereau (1825-1905) - Sewing (1898).png - not featured
_-_Sewing_(1898).png)
- Info: Saturation increased slightly, smudge on nose removed. Converted to png as repeatedly saving to jpg can result in loss of info.
- Support Adam Cuerden 08:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Unsharp and noisy. Sorry --Beyond silence 23:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
1 support, 1 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 14:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Edit2: Image:William-Adolphe Bouguereau (1825-1905) - Sewing (1898) Edit.jpg - featured
_-_Sewing_(1898)_Edit.jpg)
- Info: I removed dirts and scratches. -- Laitche 17:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Laitche 17:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Jaakobou 18:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support Durova 09:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support Though I'd still like to up the saturation a smidgen. Adam Cuerden 13:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Unsharp and noisy. Sorry --Beyond silence 23:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support Vanrip 09:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose I have a problem with featuring photographs of paintings where there is no proof of the authenticity of the colour reproduction (e.g. with a second picture including a standard colour card). The comment of Adam Cuerden here above says enough. Lycaon 07:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support Good reproduction by well-known artist. Freedom to share 19:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- How do you know it is a good reproduction? How can you tell? Lycaon 19:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- Well, it's good from a technical standpoint imo. Sharp, detailed etc. Freedom to share 13:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
5 support, 2 oppose >> featured -- Alvesgaspar 14:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Edit3:Image:William-Adolphe Bouguereau (1825-1905) - Sewing (1898) Edit 2.jpg - not featured
_-_Sewing_(1898)_Edit_2.jpg)
- Info: The original seemed a bit greyish, I upped the saturation a little bit to bring out the flesh tones. Adam Cuerden 15:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support Adam Cuerden 15:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Better but unsharp and noisy. Sorry --Beyond silence 23:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support Good edit. Vanrip 09:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
1 support, 1 oppose >> not feaured -- Alvesgaspar 13:59, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:SteamboatBenCampbellb.jpg - not featured
- Info: A paddle steamer riverboat, daguerrotype taken 1852-1860. Restored version of Image:SteamboatBenCampbell.jpg. Created by unknown - uploaded by Durova - nominated by Durova. -- Durova 04:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Durova 04:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Very low quality. --Karelj 17:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose I guess the original allready suffers from bad state. --Niabot 01:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Actually it's in unusually good condition for a 160-year-old daguerrotype. Durova 02:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
1 support, 2 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 14:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Moscou 1812.jpg - not featured
- Info: created by anonymous - uploaded by Benwik- nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden 04:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment A particularly fine example of etching. Arguably, the whitepoint ould be tweaked, but this would conceal the paper texture.
- Support -- Adam Cuerden 04:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Question: Could those annoying black specks please be cloned out? Thanks, Freedom to share 19:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- I'll have a go. Adam Cuerden 06:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- It is done Benwik
1 support, 0 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 14:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)===Image:Eudocimus albus molt.jpg - not featured ===
- Info: created, uploaded, and nominated by Ianare 05:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Ianare 05:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Aqwis 21:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Unfortunatly bad lighting. Bird in background isn't sharp and ruins the otherwise good composition. --Niabot 01:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose per Niabot. --MichaelMaggs 17:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support The important elements, such as the white feathres, are fine. The DoF is fine, although I can see how others might not enjoy the effect. -- Ram-Man 00:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Bad lighting --Lestat 09:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
3 support, 3 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 14:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:MOSQUE-ON-WATER.jpg - not featured
- Info: created, uploaded, and nominated by --Ilmarry 15:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Ilmarry 15:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Please add more info to the pictures summary. Especially the name of the mosque and the place where the mosque is should be found in the summary. --AngMoKio 15:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Karelj 17:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support--Umnik 17:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support Nice picture. Can you add a geocoding please? -- MJJR 19:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Noisy, oversaturated, lightspots blured out, distorted. No way that this can be a FP. --Niabot 01:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support Very nice. Above critics are not appropriate. --B.navez 02:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose noise -- Gorgo 11:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry, it is very noisy and the light sources are significantly overexposed. --MichaelMaggs 17:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support This is a very good composition with a for me very delicate lightning and colors. Refreshing to see contributions of new topics from regions we seldomly see material from. Sure, the lights are operexposed. But is it a problem? I don't think so. Sure, there is a little bit of noise, but this is hard to avoid at the time of day this photo was taken. Sure, it appears oversaturated. In this case I do not see it as problem. I think it is both beautiful, eyecatching and valuable. -- Slaunger 19:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry, but it's noisy. -- Laitche 08:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Poor quality. Lycaon 08:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose No wow for me. --Beyond silence 20:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support. Vanrip 09:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support Stunning colors, gorgeous motif. --Johann Jaritz 05:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
7 support, 6 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 14:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:MOSQUE-ON-WATER edit.jpg - not featured
- Info: noise reduced. -- Laitche 04:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support nice -- Gorgo 11:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry, the light sources are significantly overexposed. --MichaelMaggs 17:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support This is a good edit too. -- Slaunger 19:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose oversaturated, lightspots blured out, distorted. --Niabot 19:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support /Daniel78 00:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
3 support, 2 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 14:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Mosque on Water V2.jpg - not featured
- Info: taken 3 minutes later without the "overexposed light sources". -- Ilmarry 19:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support ..and it is also good without the light sources, although I prefer the editions with lights on. -- Slaunger 19:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose oversaturated, distorted. --Niabot 19:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support Wonderful! --Calibas 08:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - A beautiful composition and colouring, I agree. But the photographic quality is not good enough. Alvesgaspar 09:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support - Much better without the numerous light sources. For me, the image colouring and subject overcome and quality issues. --Cpl Syx 03:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Karelj 21:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support A bit hesitant on the colors (do they really look like that?), but I like it. --Dori - Talk 22:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- I used a cooling filter to emphasize the blue cast to create the intended "mood". The picture seems to be over-saturated because it was shot during the "GOLDEN HOUR". -- Ilmarry
- Oppose No wow for me. Sorry, you should try Commons:Quality images candidates first! --Beyond silence 23:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Quality still poor, sadly can't be saved. Lycaon 08:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support Beautiful colors and good composition (needs more sharpening maybe?). Nasosi
- Oppose as Alvesgaspar, sorry. --MichaelMaggs 07:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support. Vanrip 09:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I have removed the votes of two users who I consider to have connections with the uploader/proposer. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 13:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support very nice colors --Manco Capac 13:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
6 support, 5 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 14:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Fernão Vaz Dourado 1571-1.jpg - featured
- Info: A pre-Mercator nautical chart of 1571, from Portuguese cartographer Fernão Vaz Dourado (c. 1520-c.1580), one the best cartographers of his time. It belongs to the so-called plane chart model, where observed latitudes and magnetic directions were plotted directly into the plane, with a constant scale, as if the Earth were plane. The text in the border reads: in this sheet it is drawn all the coast of Africa and Guinea up to S. Tomé Island (Portuguse National Archives of Torre do Tombo, Lisbon). This is the very first time that I bring my present work here... Created, uploaded and nominated by Alvesgaspar 10:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Alvesgaspar 10:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Weak Support I know this is a funny thing to say about such a large image, but a bit higher resolution would make the text a lot easier to read. Otherwise, excellent. Adam Cuerden 12:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Info: - Fair enough, I have uploaded a slightly better version on top of the original. But nothing can be done about the resolution: this is a photo, not a scanning -- Alvesgaspar 14:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- That'll do =) Adam Cuerden 14:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support--Mbz1 15:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment geocode and an additional category once you determine 'where' it is? -- carol 15:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Question: Geocode? Sorry, I'm not following you - Alvesgaspar 16:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- I would like to compare the location this hand drawn map (a compositon of navigation notes and while at sea scrawling?) to a satellite view of the same area from a more recent mapping of it. Eratosthenes determined the circumference of the earth and was accurate to 1% some 1400 years before this. I suspect that this map should be very good compared to a photograph. -- carol 03:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- I suspect you'll need to adjust the photo to map from sphere to flat plane - this map covers a substantial chunk of Africa. --WikiWookie 03:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Eratosthenes was only lucky, that is the accepted explanation among geographers... We cannot compare this kind of nautical chart (or any kind of nautical chart, for that matter) with a satelite image because they have different methods of representation. In all charts of this period (until the middle of the 18th century) the latitudes, magnetic courses and distances observed at sea (and also on land) were plotted directly on the chart plane, ignoring the roundness of the Earth. Not because they were ignorant of that fact but due to the constraints imposed by the navigational methods of the time. Only when accurate time could be obtained on board (after Harrison's invention of the maritime chronometer, about 1750) and the spatial distribution of magnetic declination was known with adequate accuracy could the pilots abandon the use of the so-called "plane chart" and fully adopt the Mercator projection (which was presented in 1569, almost two centuries before). The reason? Accurate time was necessary to determine longitude on board and the knowledge of the magnetic declination was necessary to correct compass directions and use "true" geographic directions. Alvesgaspar 09:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Lucky? -- carol 19:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, because the accuracy of the estimate strongly depends on the accuracy of the distance measured (by camel or foot, according to the legend) between Alexandria and Syena. Also, there is some uncertainty about the value of this measurement as we don't know exactly the correspondance to the units used... -- Alvesgaspar 20:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- I would like to compare the location this hand drawn map (a compositon of navigation notes and while at sea scrawling?) to a satellite view of the same area from a more recent mapping of it. Eratosthenes determined the circumference of the earth and was accurate to 1% some 1400 years before this. I suspect that this map should be very good compared to a photograph. -- carol 03:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support Fascinating. --MichaelMaggs 17:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support --WikiWookie 03:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support as per above --Booksworm 07:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support great detail for a photo --Ianare 18:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Nice, rare and valuable reproduction. Thanks Alves ! Sting 14:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
8 support, 0 oppose >> featured -- Alvesgaspar 14:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Apollo 15 flag, rover, LM, Irwin.jpg - featured
- Info: created by David R. Scott - uploaded by Evil Monkey - nominated by Adam Cuerden 12:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC) -- Adam Cuerden 12:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Adam Cuerden 12:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Aqwis 14:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Raminus (talk) 14:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support Sure!--Mbz1 15:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support quality is not that great, should be denoised. But iconic image, so support. Since it's a big hoax and was filmed in a studio anyways it shouldn't be too hard to retake these pictures ;-). -- Gorgo 20:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support OK. --Karelj 21:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support What camera was this that can even take photos on other planets? I want one! (is it compatible with the Canon EF mount?) :-) --Freedom to share 14:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- A Hasselblad, actually, so probably.... Adam Cuerden 17:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support --MichaelMaggs 17:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Cpl Syx 03:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)--77.102.144.218 03:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support WinSocket 17:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support as per above. -- RBID 09:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
11 support, 0 oppose >> featured -- Alvesgaspar 14:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Pink Nymphaea Hybrid Flower 2816px.jpg - not featured
- Info: Created, uploaded, nominated by Ram-Man. 01:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Ram-Man 01:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support Lycaon 10:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support - Saved by the composition and despite less than optimal image quality. You really want to prove that a point-and-shoot camera is enough, don't you? Well, I started with a bridge-type camera and got a couple of FP's. Still, a DSLR camera solves much of those technical limitations and I can´t see why we should not use it all the time -- Alvesgaspar 17:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, I store various photo shoots on my computer and it usually takes me a while to upload them all. I'm working on one day where I used the P&S. Lots of pretty pictures (IMO). That's where these nominations are coming from. As for philosophical reasons, I don't think we should have to use an SLR. The guidelines don't require it, and the technical limitations do not prevent one from taking beautiful, and more importantly, useful images. -- Ram-Man 17:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose due to technical quality, lighting and composition. --norro 17:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - I like the composition but the overexposure of the white light reflections spoils the image for me. --Cpl Syx 03:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - quality & composition --Richard Bartz 08:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Composition RedWine 20:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose as per above. -- RBID 09:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
3 support, 5 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 14:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Kurskaya korennaya.jpg - not featured
- Info: created by Илья Ефимович Репин - uploaded by J.M.Domingo - nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden 09:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Adam Cuerden 09:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Only another copy of some old painting. By this way we can step by step go through all world galleries. --Karelj 16:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support Very impressive! --Beyond silence 23:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support-it is not just a copy, the quality and detail that one can see is impresive. i would support making so good copies of all museum galleries. -LadyofHats 14:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
* Support Vanrip 09:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support High yield of information, concerning customs, pilgrimages and detail abundance. Pertinance for encyclopedic information. Excellent contribution. -- Johann Jaritz 06:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose I have a problem with featuring photographs of paintings where there is no proof of the authenticity of the colour reproduction (e.g. with a second picture including a standard colour card). The image is very nice though. Lycaon 07:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
4 support, 2 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 14:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:To pot the red.jpg - featured
- Info: created, uploaded and nominated by MichaelMaggs 17:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Info: Something new. Let's see how it goes.
- Support -- MichaelMaggs 17:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Refreshing topic and elegant composition. Surreal deep DOF illustrating the power of focus-stacked merging. Is it just me, or would the composition have been slightly better if the red ball had been positioned slightly more to the right (although that would make potting the red an obviously trivial task)? -- Slaunger 23:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- (Conditional) Support depending on the red ball going in or not.- I would prefer the white ball being cleaned before the shot though -- Alvesgaspar 00:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- It is clean; that's just the way it is. --MichaelMaggs 07:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support Nice moment! --Karelj 21:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Really good detail but I'm not really liking the lighting on this one. --Dori - Talk 22:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support Composition (may the balls a bit too near) and detail is good. --Beyond silence 23:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support Simplistic, illustrates a point and has some value imo. Freedom to share 18:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Perspective makes the white ball appear larger than the red - it seem as though the white ball would not fit in the pocket Mfield 17:53, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
5 support, 2 oppose >> featured -- Alvesgaspar 14:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Weeki Wachee spring 10079u.jpg - featured
- Info: created by Toni Frissell. - uploaded by Trialsanderrors - nominated by MichaelMaggs -- MichaelMaggs 23:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- MichaelMaggs 23:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support--Mbz1 23:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support - A creepy picture with a surreal kind of beauty. I've seen this image before, was it here? Alvesgaspar 00:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support - yes, there is something to this image, no? --- Anonymous DissidentTalk 00:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support - The combined effect of the black and white plus the fact that the person appears faceless and suspended gives this image a rather "ghostly" yet interesting feel. --Cpl Syx 03:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Luc Viatour 06:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Calibas 07:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support --AngMoKio 11:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose for now --A classic in photography, really great to have it in PD. Nice cleaning work made on it, congrats ! But the original needs to be rotated about 0.15° counter-clockwise which will avoid the unfortunate crop made on this one. I know, very few has been taken out, but this is not a common photograph and as it can be easily fixed, I would prefer the complete negative view. Also, why propose a downsampled version ? I imagine it's to reduce the noise, but from about 3,500 to 2,400 px, isn't there a better way to get a bigger picture ? Sting 13:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support - Comment directly above notwithstanding Booksworm 17:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support Formidable --Richard Bartz 19:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support Wow! --Karelj 21:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support Wow RedWine 20:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support Agree with the wow and the technical aspects, but I'd also love to see the changes Sting proposed. Digitaldreamer 01:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support- i like this one because i feel that the photgrapher was able to translate a dream —the preceding unsigned comment was added by Rahuldb (talk • contribs)
- Support- that's beautiful! JuliusR 19:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- MartinD 13:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support--Bergwolf 16:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support Amazing and valuable. Freedom to share 18:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
18 support, 1 oppose >> featured -- Alvesgaspar 14:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Prorer Wiek 001.jpg - not featured
- Info: created, uploaded, nominated by Simonizer 12:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support The cloud makes it for me-- Simonizer 12:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support Scene is somewhat typical of a rocky bay, but is well-shot and thus useful. Adam Cuerden 13:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - Correct picture, little wow -- Alvesgaspar 15:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose As above, nothing special. —the preceding unsigned comment was added by Karelj (talk • contribs)
- Oppose Ack Alves and Karelj. Freedom to share 17:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
2 support, 3 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 14:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Bartolomeu Velho 1568.jpg - featured
- Info: Figure of the heavenly bodies - Illuminated illustration of the Ptolemaic geocentric model of the Universe by Portuguese cosmographer and cartographer Bartolomeu Velho (?-1568). Taken from his treaty Cosmographia, made in Paris, 1568 (Bibilotèque National, Paris). Notice the distances of the bodies to the centre of the Earth (left) and the times of revolution, in years (right). Created, uploaded and nominated by Alvesgaspar 12:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Alvesgaspar 12:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support Adam Cuerden 13:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Nice, rare and valuable reproduction. Thanks Alves,
but I would have liked to see the explanations you give above also on the description page(done). Sting 14:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC) - Support--Mbz1 16:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support --MichaelMaggs 17:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support Valuable. Freedom to share 18:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Karelj 21:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- MJJR 20:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support Digitaldreamer 01:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support WinSocket 17:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support Rare and excellent map. Very good picture. D kuba 21:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support — Lycaon 07:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
12 support, 0 oppose >> featured -- Alvesgaspar 14:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Garden Strawberries in Germany.JPG - not featured
- Info: created by Leo Johannes - uploaded by Leo Johannes - nominated by Leo Johannes -- Leo Johannes 13:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment This image has great composition, and the strawberries are succulent and delicious-looking. However, it does have a lot of noise in the out-of-focus parts, which may kill its chances here, given the current almost-perfection requirements. Editing may help. Adam Cuerden 13:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Adam Cuerden, thanks for your comment. Although, I can not edit images, because I do not understand my image editing programme, and I have never edited an image (or nearly never). If somebody else can fix it, I would be very happy. Thanks, Leo Johannes 14:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- I've anti-noised the picture a bit. //moralist 16:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Adam Cuerden, thanks for your comment. Although, I can not edit images, because I do not understand my image editing programme, and I have never edited an image (or nearly never). If somebody else can fix it, I would be very happy. Thanks, Leo Johannes 14:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
0 support, 0 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 14:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Edit: Image:Garden Strawberries in Germany - edited.jpg - not featured
- Info: I cutted the image, to make it better. Leo Johannes 15:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry, but it is not special enough for me to classify it as one of the top images here on Commons. Freedom to share 17:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose No wow. RedWine 20:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Bad composition --Manco Capac 22:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
0 support, 3 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 14:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Frozen droplet.jpg - not featured
- Info: Self nom -- Thegreenj 17:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Thegreenj 17:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose I'm afraid that there's depth-of-field issues (most of the leaf, and even the back parts of the ice aren't in focus, for instance) and the crop removes too much of the leaf, leaving the image without enough context (in my opinion). I'd prefer an image that showed a bit more. Adam Cuerden 17:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Just as a note: at this magnification, getting the entire leaf in focus in a single shot is impossible. By the time that any significant DOF gains are made, diffraction will just soften out any extra detail. Thegreenj 17:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support Sorry, Adam, but I'll have to disagree here. Yes, the leaf is out of focus, but it is not the subject of the image imo. What this image is is an illustration of a frozen water droplet and I feel that the author has done a very good job with this. Freedom to share 18:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- I disagree on the wow. But maybe that's because I live in the UK and snow here happens once a year :) Freedom to share 22:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose It is a frozen water droplet. Quite well done, but no wow. Lycaon 20:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support Good work. --Karelj 21:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose I like the background, but the water droplet needs to be more interesting and more crisp for FP (I took a shot at one but the composition didn't come out too well). --Dori - Talk 22:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support Beautiful! --Beyond silence 23:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support - enough "wow" for me. --- Anonymous DissidentTalk 09:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose For the reasons given by Adam Cuerden. --MichaelMaggs 09:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support. Agree with Freedom to share, and also that there's enough "wow", if you will. James F. (talk) 12:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Quote Adam Cuerden. WinSocket 17:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
6 support, 5 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 14:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Sergei Rachmaninoff LOC 33969u.jpg - not featured
- Info: created by unknown (Library of Congress) - uploaded by Balcer - nominated by Alton
- Support -- ALTON .ıl 03:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Aqwis 22:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral -- MartinD 13:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC) I'm sorry, but does this picture have any outstanding photographic qualities?
-
- Given that it's ineligible for Quality Images, I thought I'd submit this here to see what people think. It is similar in clarity to other historical photos (Adm2.jpg, William Tecumseh Sherman.jpg, Ulysses Grant 1870-1880.jpg, all photoshopped), and is simply a remarkable photograph, staring him right on the face as it seems he came or is going from some place. ALTON .ıl 17:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Soft focus, so-so composition (the people on the right are especially distracting).--Ragesoss 04:24, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Ho-hum. I am sure that better photos of the subject exist. This has nothing to recommend it except its age. Oscar O Oscar 15:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose One of my favourite composers. Sadly I can't say the same about the picture. Per Oscar O Oscar. Lycaon 22:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
2 support, 1 neutral, 3 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 14:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Spax Screws.jpg- not featured
- Info: created by - uploaded by and nominated by Goele -- Goele 16:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Goele 16:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose limited DOF, artifacty, poor lighting Mfield 17:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
|
|
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because of insufficient quality, particularly lighting, DOF, artefacts and composition | Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed. |
--MichaelMaggs 18:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Webcam Logitech.JPG- not featured
- Info: created, uploaded and nominated by Laziale93 (Andrea Buratti).
- Support --Laziale93 12:53, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Lighting, boring centered composition, cropped at the bottom. Maybe a QI though. --norro 13:59, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Goele 15:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
{{FPX|Simply everything in this image is wrong.}} --TM 16:14, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- Your statement doesn't fall within the guidelines too. Can't you just state what is actually wrong with the picture? Why did you cross-out the support-vote? --AngMoKio 16:34, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- I crossed the vote out because it comes from the same user, but had a different signature. I corrected this. Some of the things that are wrong in this image: Bad lightning, bad colors and bad shadow (all caused by the flash), cropped parts at the bottom, ugly background, boring centered composition. --TM 16:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- The FPX template is for clear guideline violations. „Make it right“ is not part of the guidelines. --norro 09:31, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose. You must be kidding. This is a clear guideline violation. They require “value”, “composition”, “shape”, “texture”, “perspective” and “balance”. This image is far below as I wrote above. --TM 10:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- Then you should write those things in the template and not "Everything is wrong" (meaning "Do it right"). This template should help the nominator to improve his pictures and make it better next time. Your statement was not very helpful concerning that - and besides that also not very polite. (Quote from the guidelines "Above all, be polite.") --AngMoKio 13:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- The template already said “it does not fall within the Guidelines”. I think it's pretty pointless to include the whole guidelines page here just to be polite. --TM 17:40, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
|
|
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because is cropped, has poor lighting and is not a sufficiently accomplished photographic composition. Sorry. | Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed. |
--MichaelMaggs 17:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Orange by Laziale93.JPG- not featured
- Info: created, uploaded and nominated by Laziale93 (Andrea Buratti).
- Support --Laziale93 12:53, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose -- bad lighting, bad composition and bad background. D kuba 13:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose --norro 14:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Goele 15:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
|
|
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because blurred, bad lighting, boring composition. | Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed. |
--TM 16:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Katta Lemur catta.jpg - featured
- Info: created, uploaded & nominated by --Richard Bartz 12:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Richard Bartz 12:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- An interesting game is to scroll down through the newly-added nominations and to try to guess who took each picture before the name appears. I guessed right on this one - maybe it was the nice clean background? Can I make a minor suggestion - that you consider adding some additional selective sharpening to the eyes? Anyway, it's a great picture, so ...
- Support. --MichaelMaggs 12:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Richard can you add the location, I'm sure it wasn't Madagascar? ;-) Lycaon 12:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- Done --Richard Bartz 13:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Mbz1 15:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support --AngMoKio 19:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support RedWine 20:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Böhringer 21:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support Almost overcropped, tho. Would have loved to see the rest of it. --Digitaldreamer 01:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Luc Viatour 06:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support DocteurCosmos 11:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support Really nice image. WinSocket 17:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Weak sharpness, detail. --Beyond silence 20:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support I like the colors! ALTON .ıl 05:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose boring, bad cropping, not sharp. -- RBID 09:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Bergwolf 16:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
12 support, 2 oppose >> featured -- Alvesgaspar 16:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Aphidoidea fight.jpg - featured
- Info: created, uploaded & nominated by -- Richard Bartz 14:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Info: 2 tiny aphids on nylon fabric doing a rivalry fight. Check the comparisation of sizes here
- Support -- Richard Bartz 14:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support Amazing!--Mbz1 15:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support Good capture of such tiny things. --Dori - Talk 18:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support --MichaelMaggs 18:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Karelj 19:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support Spot on. --Digitaldreamer 01:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support a great photo!--Goele 09:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support D kuba 20:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose bad cropping. -- RBID 09:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support Wonderful. Compliments to screenwriter and director. --norro 10:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support Nice detail. Freedom to share 17:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Question: Did you use flashlight? -- Laitche 18:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- At 5x magnification it's indispensable to use a flashlight as the tubus of the Canon MP-E 65mm is aprox 2 cm in front of the subject and cast a unfortune shadow. The flashlight is used to clear the shadow. Same here as there is lately no difference as without flash --Richard Bartz 21:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- That's why you used flashlight. I see. Thanks. -- Laitche 21:45, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
10 support, 1 oppose >> featured -- Alvesgaspar 16:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Mooring bollard at sunset, Lyme Regis.jpg - featured
- Info: created, uploaded and nominated by MichaelMaggs
- Support -- MichaelMaggs 17:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support I'm a sucker for Nautical stuff. Adam Cuerden 17:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support Nice lighting, good illustration, some technical wow imo and valuable. Freedom to share 17:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support nice -- Gorgo 18:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Technically very good, but lack of wow for me. --Karelj 19:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support Very nice detail. RedWine 20:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Why? No wow. --Beyond silence 20:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support Special in its simplicity. Nice colours and composition, worthy of FP. Lycaon 06:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support Minimalist is great --Jeses 22:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Generic snapshot. What's the point? -- Dontpanic 20:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
7 support, 3 oppose >> featured -- Alvesgaspar 16:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:CampodeiMiracoliPisa.jpg - not featured
- Info: created and uploaded by Massimo Catarinella - nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden 17:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Info: Reality is tilted in this case - the famous Leaning Tower of Pisa (naturally!), and the Baptistry of St. John are both off true.
- Support -- Adam Cuerden 17:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose lighting is not great and it seems to be tilted/distorted (actually the leaning tower is supposed to be leaning and not the other buildings ;)) -- Gorgo 18:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose As Gorgo. --Karelj 19:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - Idem -- Alvesgaspar 08:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral Quote Gorgo. It's a good photo, though. Perhaps fixing tilting needed. WinSocket 17:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Bad perspective distortion. I created a corrected edit on this image's parallel submission to En:WFP and some discussion has gone on there. Mfield 22:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
1 support, 1 neutral, 4 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 16:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Gymnopithys-leucaspis-001.jpg - not featured
- Info: created by Mdf - uploaded by Mdf - nominated by MichaelMaggs -- MichaelMaggs 21:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- MichaelMaggs 21:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Weak Support - Excellent detail, great quality, but the moss (or needles?) on the tree is rather distracting. Adam Cuerden 21:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral DOF too shallow, IMHO. --Digitaldreamer 01:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support Mbdortmund 13:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral - feet of this bird are cover by needles, and on the right-down corner is one visible cut. D kuba 15:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Lerdsuwa 15:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support WinSocket 17:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Question: Isn´t it 90 degrees rotated? I guess from the direction of growth of green ?leaves? on branch. --Karelj 20:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- No, I don't think so. Mdf knows what he's doing. Even this image is the right way up. --MichaelMaggs 21:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose I usually like Mdf photos but this one has too shallow DOF and also red eye (on a bird!). --Dori - Talk 01:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry, I hate flashed photos, looks so unnatural. DOF --Beyond silence 20:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral for now. Oppose Tough one. Great catch, nice composition, etc, etc as an Mdf photo is supposed to be, but the flash(like) exposure and the oversharpening of the feathers can make it swing both ways for me. (BTW, the mosses grow the right way up.) Lycaon 06:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose DOF too shallow. Freedom to share 18:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support May be you should have asked it to keep quiet and remove the little mosses that make not enough actor studio (but I suppose that in a national park, it was not allowed). Colour of eye is natural : it is the colour of iris (when flash makes "red eyes", red colour appears behind the pupil, as you can see here). --B.navez 17:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support The detail in the eye is nice and not coming from 'red eye' (you'd expect a steel-blue tint rather than red in the first place). DOF is what it is at F11, not much to be done about it and face and beak are perfectly in focus. Wwcsig 18:32, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
7 support, 2 neutral, 4 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 16:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Allianz arena daylight Richard Bartz.jpg - featured
- Info: created , uploaded & nominated by -- Richard Bartz 02:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Info: The Allianz Arena is a football stadium in the north of Munich, Germany. The two professional Munich football clubs FC Bayern München and TSV 1860 München have played their home games at Allianz Arena since the start of the 2005/06 season. It can change its color, depending on which soccer club is playing.
- Support -- Richard Bartz 02:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral for now Support. Nice shot of the Allianz Arena aka The World's Biggest Toilet Bowl ;) I wonder if the light could have been better, the front is a bit dark. I guess it was early in the morning? --AngMoKio 08:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- As the building is wrapped in plastic you get some overexposure easily, so i prefered a time aprox 40min before the golden hour to get a metallic look. Lets google around and find out that the building has always a dark shadow caused by transluscence and if not its overexposed --Richard Bartz 11:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- I changed my vote. I guess it is difficult to get a perfect shot of this building. Best example for your explanation might be this photo Image:Allianz Arena Pahu.jpg. --AngMoKio 12:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support following AngMoKio. Perhaps you can try a HDR image? Would that help? --norro 15:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support--Lerdsuwa 15:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support WinSocket 17:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Manco Capac 22:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support--Mbz1 23:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose I don't like the light either, also the surroundings are a bit drab, I'd prefer a photograph in Spring or fall. --Dori - Talk 18:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose I can more accept a bit part overexpose as a full shadowy photo, sorry.--Beyond silence 20:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose as per above. -- RBID 09:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Aqwis 12:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support nice -- Gorgo 13:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support Good photo of difficult-to-photograph subject. Freedom to share 18:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Laziale93 08:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Light. --Dezidor 17:44, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Elia il migliore 12:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose per Dori. --MichaelMaggs 22:09, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose As Dori. --Karelj 19:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral - I won't oppose, not to spoil the party. But there is something which I deslike more than the poor lighting, which is the geometric distortion. Though the image is apparently vertical at the left and right margins, the horizon is curved and the stadium seems to be slipping to the left -- Alvesgaspar 21:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
12 support, 1 neutral, 6 oppose >> featured -- Alvesgaspar 16:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Isla de la Luna from Isla del Sol.jpg - not featured
- Info: created, uploaded and nominated by Nattfodd -- Nattfodd 12:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Info: Isla de la Luna on the Titicaca lake, Bolivia.
- Support -- Nattfodd 12:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Nothing extra special. --Karelj 20:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Yeah, sorry it's not a shot of a grasshopper... --Nattfodd 09:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Overcompressed, which does unfortunately distort the detail and significantly decrease quality. Freedom to share 18:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment It's not compressed at all. It's a raw file exported to a high quality jpg at full res. --Nattfodd 22:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- Strange. Then why is it 657 KB? Freedom to share 20:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- I'm guessing because of the big blue expanses, which jpg is usually quite good at compressing. There aren't a lot of contrasty details that are very costly in memory. --Nattfodd 23:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Strange. Then why is it 657 KB? Freedom to share 20:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment, I can't really see any overcompression artefacts - but the picture does contain a lot of noise. I don't think it would be too hard to get rid of most of it by running a noise reduction filter on it, however. --Aqwis 22:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Agree about the noise. /Daniel78 23:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Rather noisy indeed. I wonder why at ISO 200. Was it very hot that day? Lycaon 06:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment, wow, I didn't notice that it was taken at ISO 200. ISO 200 on Nikon D50 shouldn't be that noisy, it's the minimum ISO speed and is usually completely free of noise (I have the camera myself). --Aqwis 07:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment It was pushed for contrast. You can usually barely distinguish the mountains in the background. --Nattfodd 09:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral for now - IMO island should be in center of photo, otherwise it is very good. D kuba 12:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment It would be a lot more boring with a centred subject. --Nattfodd 15:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose can't get into the picture, lack of dynamism --Alipho 21:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
1 support, 1 neutral, 4 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 16:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Два солнца.jpg - not featured
- Info: created/uploaded/nominated by George Shuklin 15:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment The image's name is "Two Suns". The creator of the image named the image this way because it shows the real Sun as well as the monument to the most famous Russian poet w:Alexander Pushkin, who shone as the Sun in Russian poetry and Russian culture.--Mbz1 16:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Mbz1 16:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - Too dark, maybe using exposure bracketing (I can't understand the author's POV. Making a little effort to write an English text doens't seem too hard and might contribute to a better knowledge of Russian culture) -- Alvesgaspar 16:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- I have a light version - but in this case I wish to have the silhouette. Normal lighted version - Image:Памятник Пушкину на Театральной площади.jpg. English description I do not put due no very good level of my english. #!George Shuklin 17:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support Maybe little bit theatral, but not bad. --Karelj 19:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose The area around the hand is really weird (pixelated). --Dori - Talk 18:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral It's nice, but yes it looks a bit posterized in some areas. /Daniel78 00:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose as per above. -- RBID 09:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Aqwis 17:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support Stunning --Jeses 22:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Nice, but not FP for me. --Beyond silence 16:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support The area around the hand looks ok once it finished loading (I did see pixellation during the load). Good concept and the silhouette is much more dramatic than the normal one. --WikiWookie 08:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support Bela rusa monumento!!--Conrado 00:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Definitely posterized in some areas. --MichaelMaggs 18:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
6 support, 1 neutral, 5 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 16:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Schizophyllum commune with Pollenia sp. male on Betula.jpg - featured
- Info: created , uploaded & nominated by -- Richard Bartz 18:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Info: Surrealistic beauty created by nature
- Schizophyllum commune is the world's most widely distributed mushroom, occurring on every continent except Antarctica.The gills, which produce basidiospores on their surface split when the mushroom dries out, earning this mushroom the common name Split Gill. It has more than 28,000 sexes. On top you find a male cluster fly from the genus Pollenia in the blowfly family Calliphoridae. All that happen on a dead birch (Betula)
- Support -- Richard Bartz 18:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support Adam Cuerden 14:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support, great DOF. --Aqwis 14:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support ahh! The POTY2008 has already arrived! Lycaon 21:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support - very nice. --- Anonymous DissidentTalk 05:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support --AngMoKio 08:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support Toll --Bergwolf 16:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Lijealso 21:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support very nice... try to convert it in B&W --Alipho 21:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support --D kuba 12:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support Excellent image. Freedom to share 18:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- MJJR 18:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Laitche 16:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
13 support, 0 oppose >> featured -- Alvesgaspar 16:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Prokudin-Gorskii-08.jpg - not delisted
- Info: It's serious C/A on girls, saturated color, not focused on subject and anywhere, a girl of the center is not positioned in the middle as poor composition. (Original nomination)
- Delist _Fukutaro 18:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Did you read the summary of the picture? I guess this explains a lot. --AngMoKio 22:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- !!Ah oops, sorry sorry, It's a greatest historic picture. Thanks for telling AngMoKio, thanks for explanation Adam Cuerden. And I'm sorry Mr. Prokudin-Gorsky... _Fukutaro 09:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Did you read the summary of the picture? I guess this explains a lot. --AngMoKio 22:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep This is some of the first colour photography, and, as I recall, at the time the photographer didn't actually know how to combine the three images into a colour picture - only hoped that someone eventually would - and the work was only rediscovered and completed in the last couple decades. So we're looking at a unique, full-colour photographic view of a time period when no other colour photography existed, and, furthermore, which the Russian revolution would soon change irrevocably. Adam Cuerden 06:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination
Withdrawn >> not delisted - Alvesgaspar 21:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Sake barrels.jpg - delisted
- Info: I believe this was the very first FP on Commons (5 Feb 2005), but standards have risen significantly since then. This is now too small, not sharp enough and has odd colour artefacts. Original nomination, though I can't find where the actual promotion was archived. I have taken a similar picture (barrels at Toshogu shrine, Nikko) with a point and shoot - definitely not FP quality either.
- Delist --MichaelMaggs 18:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- 除外 Too small. -- Laitche 19:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delist As per above Booksworm 06:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delist --- Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delist --Lestat 10:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delist As per above. RedWine 20:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delist As per above Banangraut 19:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delist As per above Julesn84 04:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
8 delist, 0 keep >> delisted -- Alvesgaspar 21:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Turdus migratorius 4473.jpg - not featured
- Info: created, uploaded, nominated by --Dori - Talk 20:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Dori - Talk 20:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - Poor composition -- Alvesgaspar 20:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - The crop is a tad 2 tight 4 my taste --Richard Bartz 21:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
1 support, 2 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 5th day) - Alvesgaspar 21:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Turdus migratorius 4473 2.jpg - not featured
- Info: Larger crop of above. --Dori - Talk 22:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Dori - Talk 22:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Not sharp enough over enough of the bird's body. I like the composition of this version, though. A very nice shot, but not quite FP in my mind.--Ragesoss 04:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
1 support, 1 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 5th day) - Alvesgaspar 21:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Turdus migratorius 4494.jpg - not featured
- Info: Another view. --Dori - Talk 23:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Dori - Talk 23:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Has the same problem as other view, and slightly less impressive composition.--Ragesoss 04:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
1 support, 1 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 5th day) - Alvesgaspar 21:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Sunset off the Philippines.jpg - not featured
- Info: created , uploaded and nominated by user t0lk -- T0lk 20:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Info: A beautiful sunset of off the coast of the Philippines.
- Support -- T0lk 20:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose curved horizon, poor composition with horiz centered sun, vert centered horizon and cut off boat on left. Mfield 22:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose per Mfield --norro 20:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose +1, and the boat on the left should not have been cut either --Alipho 21:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Goele 15:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Poor composition. --Karelj 21:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
1 support, 5 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 5th day) - Alvesgaspar 21:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Common skimmer.jpg - not featured
- Info: created, uploaded and nominated by Laitche -- Laitche 19:18, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support Dragonfly in Bokeh.（＾＾）／ -- Laitche 19:18, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Funny that you are fascinated by Bokeh. Then you should read this :-) --Richard Bartz 23:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- That's artificial Bokeh, this one is natural Bokeh :) -- Laitche 04:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- I know. --Richard Bartz 08:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination Thanks a million :) -- Laitche 05:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Withdrawn >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 23:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Glasgow-cathedral-may-2007.jpg - not featured
- Info: created by julesn84 - uploaded by julesn84 - nominated by julesn84 -- Julesn84 04:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Julesn84 04:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose it's barely 2mpx and still really noisy and blurry. Composition is also not that great, neither exactly centered nor divided into thirds. -- Gorgo 05:17, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral - despite the concerns raised above, the composition just disallows me from outright opposing. --- Anonymous DissidentTalk 10:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose. The main part of the church can not be seen, hidden by the trees and the front of the church. The sky is boring. An other point of view would be better. --TM 17:32, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose ac Gorgo --Lestat 17:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
|
|
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because not very sharp, the sky is uninteresting, and the composition is insufficiently compelling - neither exactly centred nor clearly off-centre | Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed. |
--MichaelMaggs 19:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination Julesn84 15:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Withdrawn >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 23:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Antelope Island State Park Map.jpg
- Info: created by Justin Morris - nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden 00:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Justin Morris (User:Justinmorris, also on en-wiki (en:User:Justinmorris) is probably one of the best mapmakers we have here at Wikipedia. His maps look like they came from a professional guidebook.
-
- Comment --With a professional cartographer using ArcGIS, the lead GIS software, we can only expect the best ;) Sting 02:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- Comment Using ArcGIS to make a professional looking map is almost a joke. I've just learned lots of little tricks and to hit the save button every change I make (lol?) Justinmorris 04:26, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Adam Cuerden 00:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral for now --Very clear and clean professional type map but I've got some remarks : the shape of the bathymetry looks sometimes strange, like the first level in the Bridger Bay. Can the author confirm this ? The bathymetric scale is missing. Also, the choice of the grey / white colours is imo surprising : I know it highlights the representation of the relief but at first sight these heights seem to be tremendously high (like covered by eternal snow), which is not the case. But the most important is that I would like a SVG version (for the labels) being available : the purpose of a map is also to be easily translated and used through the whole project. A JPG version alone makes this task very difficult. Sting 02:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- Comment No bathymetric data for the Great Salt Lake exists. It's buffered for cartographic purposes, although the representation is not far from reality. The map looks extremely plain with a solid color. I would not have added it if I felt it was being misleading/inacurate. Perhaps a note on the map explaining this would be appropriate. SVG is pointless when there is raster data, I can provide a blank JPG for labeling in other languages. Justinmorris 04:14, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- If there's no data available for the bathymetry I don't see the point to simulate it because it gives the wrong impression that the whole map is drawn with a 1;30,000 scale. With Inkscape you can embed a raster image (your background map) in a SVG format file in which the labels are in this last format, allowing an easy modification of the text without having to modify the raster image and loosing information. Sting 12:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- I uploaded a new version, I appreciate your comments. I wil upload an SVG as soon as I figure out how to embed the hillshade. Justinmorris 14:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- It's quiet simple : open your raster background map in Inkscape then add a layer in which you write your text (best with Times New Roman or Arial fonts). To embed the image, go to Effects -> Images -> Embed all images (or something like that : I have it in French) and then save the whole in SVG format. Sting 14:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- I don't vote "oppose" anymore but I'm not yet convinced. What is a map for? To make Earth surface understandable by simplifying. So I find microrelief too sharp (sharper than real becaused merging vegetation and stones), choice of standard colors make this island in the Great Salt Lake look like an island north of Siberia, file size is useless too great (picture not easy to upload) and text is too small for web uses.--B.navez 18:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Because it is impossible to translate to other language and colors are quite flat. --QWerk 16:30, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - ArcGis is a powerfull tool and the result of your work is nice to see. I won't vote because I have no effective way of assessing the accuracy of the map. But there is one aspect that I think could be improved, which is the representation of the relief. There is a quite steep slope in the east-west direction (an average value of about
30º12º ) which is not well illustrated. In the map, it seems that the terrain is quite flat from the coast up to very close to the mountain's top, which is not the case (see the aerial photo in Google) Alvesgaspar 20:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)- Uhh, I didn't make the data, and it's not inaccurate. Know what though? Nothing seems good enough for some people, so fuck this site. I withdraw this nomination. And yes you do have the ability to check it. Go here and to download the DEMs/NEDs. Looking at an aerial from, of all places Google Earth, one cannot determine the accuracy of slopes. Justinmorris 03:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- That's a bit unfair ! Critics help to improve and those above are not inappropriate. Modern maps have isolines, otherwise from just colours and shades everyone makes his own interpretation. And raw data though genuine include artefacts which are not really relief, so it is necessary to make some smoothing. --B.navez 09:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- In this case a fancy elevation scale, taken from the ArcGis default options, was used. That was a quite poor solution, as no quantitative information can be taken from that scale. It would have been better to use a monochromatic sequence complemented with elevation contours (and shadows). As for the slope, it can be calculated from the map itself, by dividing the height above the water (at the peak) by the distance to the lake. Anyway, the author has withdrawn the nomination and doesn't look very interested in constructive technical advice. -- Alvesgaspar 10:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- Uhh, I didn't make the data, and it's not inaccurate. Know what though? Nothing seems good enough for some people, so fuck this site. I withdraw this nomination. And yes you do have the ability to check it. Go here and to download the DEMs/NEDs. Looking at an aerial from, of all places Google Earth, one cannot determine the accuracy of slopes. Justinmorris 03:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- ... which is a shame as some users here, Alvesgaspar among them, are extremely knowledgeable about cartography and can help by providing professional feedback. Alvesgaspar teaches cartographic sciences at university level [16]; why not welcome his expertise rather than swearing at him? --MichaelMaggs 13:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- Support : perfectly adapted to the topographic issue. Great job. Stop to be artistic centered on this FPC page. Yug (talk) 17:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Withdrawn >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 23:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:View from Gile Mountain fire tower in autumn.jpg - not featured
- Info: created, uploaded, and nominated by me -- Ragesoss 03:06, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Ragesoss 03:06, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Not quite there yet. It would need a bit more wow and a polarizer would help too imo. Freedom to share 13:01, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Composition and no wow. --Karelj 21:34, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
1 support, 2 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 5th day) -- Alvesgaspar 08:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Girona panoramic.JPG - not featured
- Info: created by casuarez85 - uploaded by casuarez85 - nominated by casuarez85 -- C·A·S·K 21:35, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- C·A·S·K 21:35, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Hazy, not particularly detailed--Ragesoss 01:49, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Not particularly detailed--Laziale93 08:53, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Low detail. Sorry, you should try Commons:Quality images candidates first! --Beyond silence 09:17, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
1 support, 3 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 5th day) -- Alvesgaspar 23:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:EPO 0980 wiki.jpg not featured
- Info: created by Eric Pouhier - uploaded by Eric Pouhier - nominated by Username -- Eric Pouhier 20:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Quite noisy, awkward crop. Lycaon 20:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Under exposed. Sorry we have a much better photo:
--Beyond silence 18:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC) - Oppose Poor composition. --Karelj 21:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
0 support, 3 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 5th day) -- Alvesgaspar 23:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:STS-123-launch2.jpg - not featured
- Info: created by NASA/KSC - uploaded by Alessio Rolleri - nominated by startaq -- startaq 11:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- startaq 11:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Noise, posterization, overexposure, underexposure, ca fringing, compositional flaws. Sorry, opposition is the only way out ;-). Lycaon 11:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Nice photo, but there are significantly better ones of shuttle launches. Freedom to share 15:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
1 support, 2 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 5th day) -- Alvesgaspar 23:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Tipulid March 2008-5.jpg - not featured
- Info: Let's give it another try. A detailed and crisp close-up on the head of a crane-fly (Nephrotoma cf. quadrifaria). Created, uploaded and nominated by -- Alvesgaspar 09:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Alvesgaspar 09:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose resolution too small, too shallow depth of field, tilt in composition doesn't appeal to me. --Donarreiskoffer 13:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Well, this is an extreme close-up on a small creature. Under these conditions it is just not possible to have a much larger DOF. As for the resolution, it complies with the guidelines. Maybe with a large format Hasselblad we could get more pixles ... -- Alvesgaspar 14:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose The interesting and focussed part is only about 10 percent of the image. --norro 14:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Hasselblad does not help ;-). As per Donarreiskoffer --Richard Bartz 16:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the info. But all I have is the old 1:2 Tokina model, in second hand, and it makes scratching noises when focusing, scaring the insects. When I have one of those, I'll throw the extension ring away and ... beware critters! -- Alvesgaspar 20:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
1 support, 3 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 5th day) -- Alvesgaspar 23:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Spider and fly March 2008-2.jpg - featured
- Info: A spider (Xysticus sp.) paralysing a fly (Xyloma maculata). Yes, the composition is a bit confusing but also has some dramatism. Notice the pollen all over the fly as a result of the struggle to get free. Created, uploaded and nominated by -- Alvesgaspar 09:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Alvesgaspar 09:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support--Lissen 21:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry, dof. --Beyond silence 18:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support Valuable and difficult moment caught. Nice work, Freedom to share 13:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral Nice catch, but it's difficult to see what's going on due to shallow DOF. --Dori - Talk 19:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support Fascinating moment! --Karelj 21:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support interesting moment captured. I am not sure if a higher DOF would help much...the situation itself is a bit complicated. :-) --AngMoKio 14:31, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support --B.navez 19:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support- A nice closeup Zimbres 00:27, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
7 support, 1 neutral, 1 oppose >> featured -- Alvesgaspar 17:06, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:PiedCormorant MC.jpg - featured
- Info: created, uploaded and nominated by Chmehl 16:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Chmehl 16:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support He opened his beak so wide and excited because he said: "Wow! what a great day, what a nice ocean! Its all mine" --Richard Bartz 16:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support wonderful --norro 20:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Alvesgaspar 20:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Lijealso 20:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- MJJR 21:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Simonizer 23:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Wisnia6522 08:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support --D kuba 12:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support - Keta 17:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support Nice work Freedom to share 19:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Boring, poor no wow composition. --Beyond silence 18:34, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support - Loved this at QI - still wonderful here - Peripitus 13:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support Nice moment. --Karelj 21:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support Zimbres 20:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support — Lycaon 10:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
15 support, 1 oppose >> featured -- Alvesgaspar 17:06, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Kosovo map-en.svg - featured
- Info: created by Sémhur - uploaded by Sémhur - nominated by Sémhur/Nikola 21:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment This map has recently been nominated, but a number of users had objections about its contents; the problems are fixed, but not everyone managed to withdraw their vote before the nomination was closed. So, I'm renominating it. Nikola 21:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Nikola 21:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Aqwis 22:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Firstly, the Kosovo part looks great... but, I don't want to support it without checking out the sources and looking into it more carefully. My one concern is that the Europe map looks a little sloppy. I know it doesn't have to have that much detail since it's just a locator but some areas--the heel of Italy, etc.--just look bad to me. Not that I'd oppose just for that reason after I checked out the sources more. gren 04:17, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Beyond silence 18:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support great again. DocteurCosmos 09:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Even better now. Sting 15:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Same as before, not really English as name suggests. --Dori - Talk 00:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - What is the meaning of "disputed border" and "accepted border"? Like it is, it makes little cartographic sense because the Kosovo region appears as an open region, with no accepted borders. The problem is not with the recognition of the borders but of the state. I suggest that distinction to be eliminated. -- Alvesgaspar 16:52, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
5 support, 1 oppose >> featured-- Alvesgaspar 22:44, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Fly March 2008-1.jpg -not featured
- Info: Spring is definitely coming (here in Portugal) and with it, the flies and other critters. I found this colours and composition very beautiful. Created, uploaded and nominated by Alvesgaspar -- Alvesgaspar 16:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Alvesgaspar 16:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination despite the gorgeous colours and composition ;-) -- Alvesgaspar 00:12, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Withdrawn >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 09:45, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Stazione alghero sant agostino.jpg - not featured
- Info: created by Bol2030 - uploaded by Bol2030 - nominated by Bol2030 -- Bol2030 12:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Bol2030 12:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Coloured streaks of light on top extremely distracting (they are probably flare). Freedom to share 23:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Many reasons - lens flare, unsharp for a start Mfield 09:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose The motive, the train, is too far away. The perfect moment was missed. Metoc 17:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose It seems like your photography was taken behind a glass because of the flare. Never hesitate to go outside to take a picture, and choose a better angle --Alipho 18:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I'm afraid I'm going to have to agree with Freedom to share, though I do like the composition a lot and disagree with Metoc on that count. Adam Cuerden
|
|
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because unsharpness, low quality | Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed. |
--- Anonymous DissidentTalk 22:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
1 support, 4 oppose >> not promoted (rule of the 2nd day) -- Alvesgaspar 23:15, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Monkey grass droplets.jpg - not featured
- Info: self-nom -- Thegreenj 19:12, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Thegreenj 19:12, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I prefer this one -->
:) -- Laitche 19:39, 15 March 2008 (UTC) - Support --Laziale93 08:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Small DOF. --Beyond silence 09:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Nice wow, but insufficient technical quality. Sorry, Freedom to share 13:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support. For me the small DOF is perfect. --TM 16:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Raminus (talk) 20:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support Not bad! --Karelj 21:25, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose DOF is in my view much too small to allow an effective photographic composition. --MichaelMaggs 17:54, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support Nice as 14 years old author's photo :) -- Laitche 18:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support Zimbres 20:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose DOF and technical quality insufficient. Lycaon 22:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Not completely convinced by the composition. I've the feeling there is too much space around the subject. -- Basilus 03:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
7 support, 5 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 10:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:AucklandPano MC.jpg - featured
- Info: created, uploaded and nominated by Chmehl 19:39, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Chmehl 19:39, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support Very impressive. Lots of interesting details, and no stitching or other technical problems that I could find.--Ragesoss 03:59, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Beyond silence 09:19, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support Very good detail and sharpness, valuable. Freedom to share 13:07, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- MJJR 21:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Miaow Miaow 19:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Raminus (talk) 20:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support Great --Simonizer 18:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support Zimbres 20:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
9 support, 0 oppose >> featured -- Alvesgaspar 10:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Zvole, kostel.JPG - not featured
- Info: created, uploaded, edited and nominated by Aktron -- Aktron 20:07, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Aktron 20:07, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support A good composition... --Dsmurat 21:18, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Some blown highlights, and much of the main subject is obscured by trees.--Ragesoss 03:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose. As Ragesoss said. --TM 16:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral I don´t know. --Dezidor 17:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose. Very good for an article, but not enough wow for FP, and those above mentioned trees... Mimochodem, překvapuje mě, že se to autor odvážil nominovat s tak nicneříkajícím popiskem, alespoň název kostela tam být měl. :-) Ale to hezké počasí chválím a závidím. :-) Miaow Miaow 18:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- Hmm, obrázků jsem nenahrával málo, dělat detailní popisek ke každému to bych to taky nahrával dva dny. Jako pokud by tahle nominace prošla (haha) tak bych to samozřejmě vylepšil. --Aktron 22:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose A quality picture but the motive is too normal for this normal composition. Metoc 16:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral Pane kolego, nechci vám a českému obrázku dávat palec dolů, ale tohle asi skutečně není na FP. --Karelj 21:42, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
2 support, 2 neutral, 4 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 10:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Joseph Albert - Ludwig und Malwine Schnorr von Carolsfeld - Tristan und Isolde, 1865e.jpg - not featured
- Info: created by Joseph Albert - uploaded by Benutzer:Lorem ipsum (German wiki) - nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden 22:39, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- Info: While the photograph has obviously degraded in the nearly a century and a half since it was taken, who would have guessed that we'd have photographic evidence of what the first production of Wagner's Tristan und Isolde was like? Adam Cuerden 22:39, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Adam Cuerden 22:39, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support A great photo that deserves to be celebrated.--Ragesoss 03:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support Definitely packs in quite a bit of value. Freedom to share 13:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Very low quality. --Karelj 21:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- I would disagree. Imo the age and value mitigates the poor quality. Freedom to share 17:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- If it helps, I tried to clean it up in an alternate:
- I would disagree. Imo the age and value mitigates the poor quality. Freedom to share 17:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Low quality. Lycaon 10:11, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
3 support, 2 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 10:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Alternate - not featured
- Support Adam Cuerden 19:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Too dark, I would prefer the first one --Alipho 18:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
1 support, 1 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 5th day) -- Alvesgaspar 23:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Synchiropus splendidus 1 Luc Viatour.jpg
[edit] Original - not featured
- Info: created by Luc Viatour - uploaded by Luc Viatour - nominated by -- Luc Viatour 22:43, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Luc Viatour 22:43, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support I think it's wonderful! --Dsmurat 23:21, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support, it is definitely noisy, but the composition and colours are so great that I can't bring myself to do anything else than supporting. --Aqwis 23:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Has this photo been retouched? Because it looks almost like a watercolour painting. Adam Cuerden 04:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- It was in an aquarium, but the fish is even more beautiful in real life.I adjusted the color balance to offset artificial light and remove noise iso (1600 iso) --Luc Viatour 08:02, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Laziale93 08:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Noisy, not very high detail and sharpness. --Beyond silence 09:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- C'est un sujet difficile à photographier. Je n'ai pas trouvé équivalant libre et de bonne qualité. Le poisson est petit et dans l'eau ou derrière une vitre, il est très difficile d'avoir mieux. --Luc Viatour 10:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Nice composition, but quite noisy and insufficient DOF. I much more like the alternative. Lycaon 09:43, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- The quality of the alternative is better, aesthetically, but I find it best. I submit another if it is not selected.--Luc Viatour 10:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support A difficult situation with only very few light. The composition is great (also true for the alternative version) --AngMoKio 12:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Ack Lycaon. Try nominating the alternative version. Freedom to share 13:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support Noise wouldn't be visible on a photoprint. Outstanding picture :-) --Richard Bartz 17:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- MJJR 21:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support Great composition and colours. Chmehl 07:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Goele 14:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose. Ack Lycaon. --TM 16:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose ack opposers above. --Dori - Talk 19:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral Quite like this, but prefer the alternative Julesn84 03:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose A difficult picture, but I fear the colours have been oversaturated. --MichaelMaggs 17:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support Wonderful composition, this could easily be downsampled to reduce the noise. Calibas 23:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support --B.navez 16:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support Good subject, nice colours --Alipho 18:50, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
13 support, 1neutral, 6 oppose >> not featured (alternative version featured) - Alvesgaspar 10:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Alternative - featured
- Support Lycaon 13:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support also gets my vote. --AngMoKio 13:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support--Luc Viatour 14:01, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Wisnia6522 14:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Aqwis 14:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support Much better in many aspects, including DOF. Freedom to share 15:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support Nice colour.（＾＾）／ -- Laitche 16:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose I prefer the original --Richard Bartz 17:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- Question: Hi Luc. Do you have a graphics tablet ? -- Laitche 19:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- No I do not have a graphics tablet! I did not fish painted by hand as it was already this ;) --Luc Viatour 05:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- I mean that device is very convenient, especially on partial editing (partial noise reduction, etc), I assure.（＾＾）／ -- Laitche 06:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- No I do not have a graphics tablet! I did not fish painted by hand as it was already this ;) --Luc Viatour 05:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Goele 14:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Karelj 21:30, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support Julesn84 03:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose A difficult picture, but I fear the colours have been oversaturated causing CA. See in particular the artefact line around the outline of the lips. --MichaelMaggs 17:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support I like this one too, though the composition isn't quite as good. Calibas 23:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Lerdsuwa 08:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- SupportZimbres 20:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support Great picture! And I must admit a bit of disappointment. I have images of a pair of these mating taken at Lembeh straits last November which I have been meaning to upload, but don't see the point now. In the wild, underwater, there would be no match to this. Well done sir. --Jnpet 20:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support great --Mbdortmund 14:52, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
15 support, 2 oppose >> featured - Alvesgaspar 10:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Young boy reading manga.jpg - not featured
- Info: created, uploaded and nominated by me. -- Ragesoss 02:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Ragesoss 02:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Laziale93 08:51, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Low wow and value. Sorry --Beyond silence 09:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- Can you tell me tell what exactly you mean when you talk of value? --AngMoKio 11:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral In general a well composed high-quality portrait . Have to think a bit about it...I might change to pro. --AngMoKio 11:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- True. Personality rights issues should get clarified. --AngMoKio 13:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- Question: Did you get the boy's parents permission to post this here? Lycaon 13:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Until personality rights issues are taken care of. Freedom to share 13:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- I've added the personality rights warning template. I didn't get a release form or anything like that, but it's my understanding that that is not necessary for use on Wikimedia projects.--Ragesoss 13:50, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- Commons:Photographs of identifiable people In some countries it is necessary in others it depends on the context of the image. But even if it might not be necessary, when publishing portraits of someone you should ask them at least as an act of courtesy. -- Gorgo 22:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- I've added the personality rights warning template. I didn't get a release form or anything like that, but it's my understanding that that is not necessary for use on Wikimedia projects.--Ragesoss 13:50, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
* Please sign your vote. --MichaelMaggs 17:52, 18 March 2008 (UTC) Oppose As above.
- Oppose because of personality rights --Mbdortmund 14:50, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
2 support, 1 neutral, 3 oppose >> not featured - Alvesgaspar 10:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:ZionPark amk.jpg- not featured
- Info: Created, uploaded and nominated by AngMoKio -- AngMoKio 12:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- Info: Zion National Park in Utah, USA.
- Support -- AngMoKio 12:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Harsh shadows/unflattering lighting and not great composition with the cut off rocks on left and top right and the centered horizon - more sky or more foreground would work better Mfield 15:02, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yes in general i would agree. The problem here is that if i have more sky in the photo I lose the impression of the whole valley. And more foreground would even cut off more of those high rocks. So I tried to put the bottom of the valley at the place where the horizon normally is.--AngMoKio 16:19, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- MJJR 21:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Low quality, poor contrast, composition?? --Karelj 21:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose I tend to agree with Mfield. --MichaelMaggs 17:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support, great composition. --Aqwis 13:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
3 support, 3 oppose >> not featured - Alvesgaspar 10:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Pinicola-enucleator-001.jpg
[edit] Original - not featured
- Info: created & uploaded by Mdf - nominated by Laitche -- Laitche 15:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Laitche 15:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Unfortune circumstances. As much i
the work of MDF ... this picture lost its plasticity & beauty because of 2 much and hard flashlight. --Richard Bartz 17:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC) - Support Nice composition and quality. --Raminus (talk) 20:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Agree with Richard. Freedom to share 16:32, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose The ambiance is boring and the bird doesn't looks extraordinary also. Metoc 16:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
2 support, 3 oppose >> not featured - Alvesgaspar 10:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Alternative - not featured
- Support --Luc Viatour 13:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Still suffering from the shortcomings of flash. An artificial shadow, for example, appears behind the bird that I find quite distracting. Freedom to share 16:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
1 support, 1 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 5th day)- Alvesgaspar 10:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Zitronensäure im Mikroskop mit Polfilter besser.jpg - not featured
- Info: created, uploaded and nominated by Jan Homann -- Jan Homann 02:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Jan Homann 02:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Sorry, my German isn't particularly good - I gather this is Citric acid seen through a microscope, but I can't quite figure out what's causing the colours. Could you give an English translation for us ignorant Brits? Adam Cuerden 12:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Goele 14:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose. I'm sorry. This is a great image. But the JPEG compression is horrible when the image is viewed in full size. That's because it's an edited version of Image:Zitronensäure in Mikroskop mit Polfilter.jpg. --TM 16:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment This is a microscopic image, there would be not more shapeness anyway, if compressed or not. The strongly visible noise and blocks in full resolution are indeed due to strong picture editing, because I tried to enhance contrast and color, which is often necessary in microscopic pictures. It is not easy to make a high resolution microscopic picture. You are always limited by your optics and wavelength. You cannot have a better resolution than 0.5µm. Try to find a microscopic picture with a better resolution than this one on the internet and if you found one, please tell me. --Jan Homann 03:57, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but I'm not talking about resolution. You obviously used the strongly compressed Image:Zitronensäure in Mikroskop mit Polfilter.jpg. It squeezes 4 megapixels in only 0.3 megabytes! Try to use the RAW original of this shot and redo the enhancements. --TM 09:04, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- You are right, I used this strongly compressed version. Unfortunately my camera didnt produce a RAW file for the picture, which means that I dont have any less compressed version. Sorry. By the way, the first version was Image:Zitronensäure_im_Mikroskop_mit_Polfilter.JPG --Jan Homann 14:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- I just found the original and uploaded it. Its 2.35 megabytes, but it containes already the same artefacts if you do the picture manipulation. Image:Zitronensäure im Mikroskop mit Polfilter orig.jpg --Jan Homann 15:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Quote TM --Raminus (talk) 20:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - Anonymous DissidentTalk 20:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Karelj 21:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support --B.navez 19:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose poor quality. Lycaon 22:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment This is a unique picture in Wikipedia! It has an amazigly high resolution for a microscopic picture, as I said. Try to find a picture with better resolution not only in wikipedia but in the whole internet. The whole opposes because of poor quality have no realistic basis. It also schould be mentioned, that I did the picture completely on my own. --Jan Homann 13:35, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support However, don't feel bad about the opposes - this isn't exactly an easy subject to understand, which may limit its mass appeal. The JPEG artefacts are the only problematic part, and if that could be fixed by retaking it, I think that most of the opposes would turn to supports. Adam Cuerden 15:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support Retake, if possible but still a great shot not to dismiss Heptagon 13:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
6 support, 4 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 09:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Lac Peyto.jpg - not featured
- Info: created by Christian Abend] at flickr - uploaded by Oxxo - nominated by me -- -- Fernando Estel ☆ · 星 (Talk: here- es- en) 09:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support This photographer has an excellent collection of cc-by-sa images at Flickr -- -- Fernando Estel ☆ · 星 (Talk: here- es- en) 09:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral. Nice picture, but we have already featured picture on Lake Peyto: Image:Peyto Lake-Banff NP-Canada.jpg. I'm not sure do we need another featured on same subject. --QWerk 10:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Bad image quality, noisy, oversaturated. --norro 14:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support Nice. --Dezidor 17:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose I'm afraid I can't support anything this unrealistic. --MichaelMaggs 18:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Nice image, but awful noise and saturation. --Raminus (talk) 20:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- Ruined by noise. Oppose - Anonymous DissidentTalk 20:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support Good, maybe little bit more sharpeness could help? --Karelj 21:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support--Conrado 23:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose noise, saturation -- Gorgo 05:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose technical problems (noise, sharpness) are too severe. --AngMoKio 08:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose. Noise. Why are the trees near the water blurred? --TM 17:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose too much jpeg compression related artifacts Movieevery 12:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support Zimbres 20:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose I'm sorry but your image is... blue. Try to fix it to make it more realistic. --Alipho 18:42, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Certainly not Christian Abend's best photograph. Blue are oversaturated. It gives an unpleasant unrealistic feeling and ruins the perspective. Scanner digitalization created too much noise and artifacts. -- Basilus 03:24, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
5 support, 1 neural, 1 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 09:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Flower March 2008-4.jpg - not featured
- Info: A minimalist picture of a Dahlia sp. garden cultivar. Created, uploaded and nominated by -- Alvesgaspar 12:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Alvesgaspar 12:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose. I'm sorry. The lightning is very good. But the composition is boring, centered on the middle. --TM 17:25, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose There is nothing so special on this image, just foto of common flower. --Karelj 19:28, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Distracting background would need to be more uniform. Freedom to share 20:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support- I like it. Zimbres 00:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support FRZ 18:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
3 support, 3 oppose >> not featured - Alvesgaspar 23:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Scorpionfly March 2008-2.jpg - not featured
- Info: A female Scorpion fly (Panorpa meridionalis). Created, uploaded and nominated by -- Alvesgaspar 12:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Alvesgaspar 12:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support are males even more freaky ? --B.navez 16:26, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, in males the genitals are up-curved like scorpions (hence, the name scorpionfly) - Alvesgaspar 17:40, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose. The overall quality is good. But it looks flat and the background is odd. The other image (above this) is better. --TM 17:21, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support FRZ 18:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
3 support, 1 oppose >> not featured - Alvesgaspar 23:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Scorpionfly March 2008-1.jpg - not featured
- Info: A female Scorpion fly (Panorpa meridionalis) collecting nectar. Created, uploaded and nominated by -- Alvesgaspar 12:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Alvesgaspar 12:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support. Good work. Most of the flower is ripped off, but I think that's not a problem. --TM 17:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Nice, but the ripped flower seriously detracts, IMO. --MichaelMaggs 17:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose FRZ 18:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
2 support, 2 oppose >> not featured - Alvesgaspar 23:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Jenni.svg - not featured
- Info: created by Wilfredor - uploaded by Wilfredor - nominated by Username -- libertad0 ॐ 13:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- libertad0 ॐ 13:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Fine work but I fear we've lost the common meaning of featurable. --B.navez 16:17, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose I don't see the point in making a SVG of a portrait. --norro 17:05, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose. Nice artwork. However, what kind of illustration is this? What's the point? I don't see how it could be used in
an encyclopedic contextany Wikipeida project. The shading in the face looks incomplete. The nose looks to big. The neck is missing. --TM 17:19, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Comment It doesn't have to be useful for wikipedia. Commons is the media project for all wikimedia projects. --norro 17:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
![[2]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c5/Three_chiefs_Piegan_p.39.jpg/800px-Three_chiefs_Piegan_p.39.jpg){kind=link}
![[3]](http://memory.loc.gov/service/pnp/cph/3a50000/3a51000/3a51300/3a51399r.jpg){kind=link}
![[4]](http://memory.loc.gov/service/pnp/cph/3g00000/3g08000/3g08800/3g08852v.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
![[9]](http://www.umext.maine.edu/images/buds1.GIF){kind=link}
![[10]](http://content.answers.com/main/content/img/McGrawHill/Encyclopedia/images/CE098300FG0010.gif){kind=link}
![[12]](http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/img/fig2.gif){kind=link}
_-_Sewing_(1898)_Edit.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_-_Sewing_(1898)_Edit.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-2){kind=link}
_-_Sewing_(1898)_Edit.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-3){kind=link}
_-_Sewing_(1898)_Edit.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-4){kind=link}
{{FPX|material which is not featurable}}- Anonymous DissidentTalk 12:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)- I striked this template out, because I don't see a clear guideline violation, that makes this image unfeaturable material. --norro 18:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support partially because of the opposes... definitely not Wikipedia featurable but very well done SVG. gren 11:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose This is not a nice portrait. Neither a painting nor an illustration. Here the technical accomplishment stands in the foreground. Metoc 17:02, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose It's not so bad but I see too many weaknesses in the drawing. As we don't know the model and the likeliness is not important, the nose and the nostrils looks like to big comparatively to the eyes and mouth for instance. The light gradation on the chin is rather rudimentary and it tends too much towards a greyish tone. There are interesting effects in the hair but the lock of hair on the cheek doesn't fit with the remaining, it's not at all in the same style. The reflections on the lower lip are symbolic too much. The composition is not well balanced. Etc. All those little errors give the feeling of a first try, not completely mastered. -- Basilus 03:10, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- Thanks, interesting --libertad0 ॐ 13:32, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose not WOW --Laziale93 13:50, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose no encyclopedic use FRZ 18:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
2 support, 3 oppose >> not featured - Alvesgaspar 23:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Panorama Bussumerheide.jpg - not featured
- Info: created by Sebastian Scheper - uploaded by Sebastian Scheper - nominated by Sebastian Scheper -- Sebastian888 15:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Sebastian888 15:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support Well executed pano, geolocation adds value. Freedom to share 16:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Field, some trees, clouds on sky, pathway... and what? --Karelj 19:33, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - What is special in this panorama? --Umnik 20:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- Info: It shows a flat heathland, typical for this region of The Netherlands --Sebastian Scheper 22: