Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/May 2008
From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
This is an archive for Commons:Featured picture candidates page debates and voting.
The debates are closed and should not be edited.
[edit] Image:turdusmerula.jpg - not featured
Info: created by Stulli - uploaded by Stulli - nominated by Stulli -- Stulli 18:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Support waited more than 10 minutes for the best light and the ideal position of this turdus merula Stulli 18:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Nice, but a tighter crop would be needed. --Freedom to share 19:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)- Oppose ack FtS --Leafnode 05:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose agree with Freedom to share --Dsmurat 15:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose poor composition --Taraxacum 13:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
1 support, 4 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 5th day) - Alvesgaspar 23:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Listi vrtnic in kapljice.jpg - not featured
- Info: created, uploaded and nominated by Mihael Simonic
- Info: Young rose leaves taken in our garden after rain some days ago.
- Support I think that this is good enough. --Mihael Simonic 14:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Comment If anyone is interested in this image I can nominate it too. --Mihael Simonic 14:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)- Oppose - DOF is just not enough. The extensive out-of-focus foreground is distracting -- Alvesgaspar 14:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - In my opinion foreground is not so important here, because light stress is in region, where drops are dominated. Maybe you can help me how to take photos with popper focusing from this position (I relay hate to take photos from "bird perspective").--Mihael Simonic 18:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- To get a good depth of field you need a smaller aperture, say f20 rather than f8. That will mean a slower shutter speed and of course a tripod which you'll find essential for photos like this. --MichaelMaggs 20:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks it helped for newest pear flowers shoots. After next rain I'll try this with roses. Just a question which lens are good for macro on Nikon D series (I'm going to buy new lens this year, because now I have just Nikon D40's kit lens). --Mihael Simonic 12:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Not bad, but not enough for FP. Agree with Alvesgaspar. --Karelj 22:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose ack Alvesgaspar --Leafnode 10:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Not bad. Agree with Alvesgaspar. --Myminpins 23:13, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose --Taraxacum 13:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
1 support, 5 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 5th day) -- Alvesgaspar 23:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Chelonia mydas albino p1440273.jpg - featured
- Info: created, uploaded and nominated by David Monniaux David.Monniaux 07:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- David.Monniaux 07:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- Comment -- Very nice picture, but in comparison to yesterday's commons:POTD (Image:Hawaii turtle 2.JPG), I would have liked to have seen more of the body of the turtle on this one - or at the least a wider shot. Cirt 09:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- I have wider shots but... This turtle was surfacing in a shallow basin and was very close to the edge, so wider shots show some unpleasant concrete wall. :-) David.Monniaux 09:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- That couldn't be cropped out? Cirt 11:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support. Not bad, now contrast seems to be OK, thanks. --Karelj 18:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- I enhanced the contrast. David.Monniaux 19:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support. Blanche est une star. Thierry Caro 20:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Lerdsuwa 18:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support Ludo 20:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support with enhanced contrast. --MichaelMaggs 22:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support Really beautiful. Fred waldron 18:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support Impressive... Vassil 23:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support FRZ 02:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
9 support, 0 oppose >> featured -- Alvesgaspar 16:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Larus michahellis LC0046.jpg - not featured
- Info: A Yellow-legged gull; created, uploaded and nominated by LC-de -- LC-de 17:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- LC-de 17:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Myminpins 23:19, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support reduced to the max --Taraxacum 15:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Feathers could be better exposed. --Freedom to share 19:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose I agree with the above. Also I see nothing special in the picture. Barabas 23:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose FRZ 02:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
3 support, 3 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 22:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Hite Crossing Bridge HWY95 view2 MC.jpg - featured
- Info: created, uploaded, and nominated by Chmehl 19:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support The second panorama has a view from beneath the bridge showing the Colorado River. -- Chmehl 19:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support I prefer this one. Impressive composition but also a great stitching job. --AngMoKio 19:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support Agree with AngMoKio --Simonizer 20:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Richard Bartz 00:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Very high quality shot, nice framing, the perspective is just great. Cirt 01:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Thermos 04:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support I prefer this one too. Very good. --MichaelMaggs 06:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Aqwis 06:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support top --Böhringer 09:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support This is good stuff. It would be valuable if you could document in the image page the tools and process you have used to generate this image. -- Slaunger 21:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- Done. Chmehl 07:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support Good. --Karelj 22:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support Nice photo. Too bad thumbnail is so poor. --Leafnode 05:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support This one is very nice... --Dsmurat 15:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Myminpins 23:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Taraxacum 13:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support Very nice. /Daniel78 22:38, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support Excellent pano. --Freedom to share 06:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support. Very good image. --Johney (T∀LK) 17:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support That is a fine example of a excellent panorama. Fred waldron 18:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Question: That one doesn't look natural to me (still very good and impressive though). It's of course hard to be sure, since I've never been there. was the tripod's rotation axis set vertical, or do you fix this during sitching ? Benh 19:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- I used the Nodal Ninja [1] nodal point adapter which has a spirit-level (or water-level, what is it called in English?) built-in. So, the rotation is exactly around the vertical axis. I think the "bending" of the bridge is due to the cylindrical projection on the image plane. (I tried a rectangular projection also but for this large field of view you don't get usable results.) Chmehl 19:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- thanks for explaining :) Benh 18:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- I used the Nodal Ninja [1] nodal point adapter which has a spirit-level (or water-level, what is it called in English?) built-in. So, the rotation is exactly around the vertical axis. I think the "bending" of the bridge is due to the cylindrical projection on the image plane. (I tried a rectangular projection also but for this large field of view you don't get usable results.) Chmehl 19:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support FRZ 02:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
20 support, 0 oppose >> featured -- Alvesgaspar 22:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Ptilinopus melanospilus male.jpg - not featured
- Info: colourful South-East Asian bird. Created , uploaded and nominated by Magalhães -- Magalhães 08:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Magalhães 08:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
FPX| out of focus --Richard Bartz 13:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC) Magalhães is certain that the focus is sufficient for FP --Richard Bartz 15:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I agree and on top of that the resolution (1.8 MP) is really not up to the technical standards expected for a featured picture. However, I think it is a well composed photo and a good illustration of the species and thus of great value to Commons. I suggest you try to test nominate it as a Valued image candidate within the scope Ptilinopus melanospilus. There, the emphasis is more on the value of the subject and not so much on the technical side. In that forum I think the image will have a good chance of being promoted. -- Slaunger 14:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Out of focus/blurry and a bit 2 small --Richard Bartz 15:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry Magalhães, but Richard is right. Saudações!(with that name I assume you read Portuguese...) -- Alvesgaspar 17:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose for the same reasons. --MichaelMaggs 05:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Resolution is low, it's blurry. Try again but with higher resolution and less blurry picture. --Kanonkas(talk) 12:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Myminpins 23:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Where is the color? --Taraxacum 13:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose poor exposure --Leafnode 08:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose FRZ 02:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- Comment please state reason for opposition as a courtesy to the author/uploader. Lycaon 06:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
2 support, 7 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 17:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:WMAP spacecraft.jpg - not featured
- Info: Artist's impression of the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe. Created by NASA / the WMAP Science Team, uploaded and nominated by Mike Peel 13:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support Mike Peel 13:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose mainly due to clutter in the middle. Barabas
-
- What clutter? Do you mean the instrument at the centre of the spacecraft? That's like objecting to a picture of Paris due to that pointy tower thing in the middle... Mike Peel 08:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose FRZ 02:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- Comment please state reason for opposition as a courtesy to the author/uploader. Lycaon 06:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Rendering could be much more detailed, I personally find it to be oversimplistic geometrically. --Freedom to share 06:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
1 support, 3 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 17:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:WMAP receivers.png . not featured
- Info: Illustration of the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe spacecraft receivers. Created by NASA / the WMAP Science Team, uploaded and nominated by Mike Peel 13:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support Mike Peel 13:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose I do not see anything special about it. Barabas
- Oppose FRZ 02:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- Comment please state reason for opposition as a courtesy to the author/uploader. Lycaon 06:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
1 support, 2 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 17:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image: EPO 2537.jpg - not featured
- Info: created by Eric Pouhier - uploaded by Eric Pouhier - nominated by Username -- Eric Pouhier 18:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- Info: -- Please note that the white balance was calibrated on site and that there is no perspective issues, thank you for your support Eric Pouhier 18:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support nice mood good background high res very sharp. Featured imo. --Ikiwaner 18:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support - Excellent colours, details and composition. Vive le Roi Soleil et la reine! -- Alvesgaspar 19:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Richard Bartz 21:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose I do not like this composition, metal fence as background... Photographic quality is good. --Karelj 23:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose as other opposers. --MichaelMaggs 05:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- Comment category? what is EPO? Przykuta 06:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Composition! --Simonizer 07:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- weak Support it is true the fence is for sure no the nicest background. But please put this photo in a category or gallery. ...I thought this is a requirement for a FPC, but couldn't find it right now. It should get added. --AngMoKio 19:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Abstain High quality but composition... -- Laitche 18:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)- Support Incredible quality, I could care less about the fence. Serg!o 11:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support The fence provides a bit of interesting tension, without it would be too pompous --Taraxacum 13:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Aqwis 16:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose The fence ruins the picture. --Lerdsuwa 18:02, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose I think the fence also make thie image look tilted (even if it's not in reality). /Daniel78 22:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support The fence is not bad background, as long as it's not garbage dump fence ;) --Leafnode 08:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support It is always too good to be out of fence. We are all ordinary people! :) --Manco Capac 21:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose bad composition --Herrick 08:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Where do people see a "good background" :-o ? Fred waldron 18:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Would love to support this one, but the fence ruins it. Barabas
- Oppose FRZ 02:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- Comment please state reason for opposition as a courtesy to the author/uploader. Lycaon 06:35, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
9 support, 10 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 09:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Cuphea pn.JPG -not featured
- Info: created by penubag - uploaded by penubag - nominated by penubag
- Support --penubag (talk); 09:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose I find the composition cluttered, I see no clear idea with the composition. Nor do I see any significant value for Wikimedia projects. Nothing much is in focus except the central small flower (that one is nice though with a good separation to the background). Colors are good too. -- Slaunger 21:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
{{FPX|out of focus and a confusing composition -- [[User:Alvesgaspar|Alvesgaspar]] 23:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)}}
- This image is not out of focus and it being of confusing composition is an opinion. --penubag 00:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support, I agree. --Aqwis 09:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - Confusing composition and poor image quality. Most of the picture is out of focus -- Alvesgaspar 10:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - Please notice that the intention of the FPX template is not to humiliate the nominators. On the contrary, it was created with the purpose of permiting a quick closing of obvious sub-standard nominations, thus avoiding a pile of oppose votes and drawing the attention to the FP criteria in the guidelines. A better place to start is Quality images candidadtes-- Alvesgaspar 11:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- No humiliation taken, I just think that it was an inappropriate use of the template --penubag 19:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose As above - first of all composition. --Karelj 18:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose confusing comp --Richard Bartz 23:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Neutral Good species picture, probably QI, surely not FP (no wow) yet still valuable. Lycaon 20:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)- Oppose FRZ 02:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- Comment please state reason for opposition as a courtesy to the author/uploader. Lycaon 06:35, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
2 support, 1 neutral, 5 oppose >> not featured
[edit] Image:Istanbul1.jpg -not featured
- Info: created by Alphascorpii - uploaded by Alphascorpii - nominated by Alphascorpii --Alphascorpii 16:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Alphascorpii 16:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Cluttered, disorganised composition does not appeal to me. --Freedom to share 20:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support, very interesting. --Aqwis 21:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose As Freedom to share. --Karelj 22:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Istanbul is a beautiful city with many landmark buildings and I do not see any of them in this image; not even mentioning image's poor quality... - Noumenon talk 05:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral in my opinion this "clutteredness" is the whole thing about this photo...and this is a very nice idea. I would even crop away the part with the church and the tree to get it more cluttered. There is no need to show only the nice spots of a city. --AngMoKio 06:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose per Noumenon. --Dsmurat 15:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral per AngMoKio, this image captures large parts city of Istanbul very well from my visits there. Mfield 00:59, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose unfortunately not extraordinary and additionally, poor quality --Taraxacum 13:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Johney (T∀LK) 17:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support FRZ 02:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
4 supprt, 2 neutral, 5 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 16:43, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Below Chestnut & Broad.jpg - not featured
- Info: created by Ms. Jane Hudson - uploaded by evrik - nominated by evrik -- Evrik 21:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- Info: SEPTA's Center City commuter tunnel in Philadelphia
- Support -- Evrik 21:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Nice patterns, but I fail to see the value. --Freedom to share 06:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose ack FtS --Leafnode 10:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose --Taraxacum 13:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support, Wikipedia wants its "value"-opposers back. --Aqwis 16:29, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- Not wikipedia! They bite there ;) You can't be NPOV and you don't feel superior and elitist if you vote in POTY. I don't wanna go back! ;) (former WP FP reviewer) --Freedom to share 19:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
3 support, 4 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 10:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] image:Ouareau JPS0029.jpg - not featured
- Info: created by jeanphilipperichard - uploaded by jeanphilipperichard - nominated by jeanphilipperichard --Jeanphilipperichard 22:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Jeanphilipperichard 22:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose No category,
no description, no FP, sorry. Lycaon 22:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC) - Info: Novice mistake. Description is now complete jeanphilipperichard 22:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Still should be categorized, though. Lycaon 23:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Done, if I am correct. jeanphilipperichard 22:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose inadequate DOF - see unsharp trees - F5.6 was too wide an aperture for this scene, F11 would have been more appropriate for your sensor at this focal length. Mfield 00:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 |
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because the DOF is too shallow | 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 06:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
1 support, 2 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 10:31, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Pont Neuf at Sunset.jpg not featured
- Info: created by sherseydc - uploaded by sherseydc - nominated by sherseydc -- Sherseydc 22:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Sherseydc 22:06, 1 May 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 22:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
1 support, 0 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 10:31, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:718smiley.svg - not featured
- Info: created by east718 - uploaded by Howcheng - nominated by Vipersnake151 -- ViperSnake151 17:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- This, is starting to turn into one of the most popular and parodied emoticons in the world right now, known to some as the "awesome face". It's just that epic. And also, this nomination is not a joke. ViperSnake151 17:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I can't undestand the point --libertad0 ॐ 18:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose I don't know any of those parodies and the first results in some search engines don't show it to be epic. --norro 19:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Well FP is not connected to popularity. /Daniel78 19:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose And nevertheless, I think this is a joke ;-) --Taraxacum 20:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Agree with Taraxacum. --Karelj 16:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose ??? FRZ 01:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Oppose --Finn Rindahl 07:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- It looks like we finally found an image to replace all the other comment images. I made you a template. Rocket000 09:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
1 support, 6 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 21:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support I came here to find out what all the rage was about.
[edit] Image:NMMP dolphin with locator.jpeg - kept
- Info: Noise and low res. and bad cropp (Original nomination)
- Delist --Manco Capac 20:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- Delist --norro 20:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- Info: See also the previous delist request: Commons:Featured picture candidates/removal/NMMP dolphin with locator.jpeg. --MichaelMaggs 21:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
KeepI really do not know to laugh or to cry at the delisting request of such unique and one-of-a-kind image.--Mbz1 03:47, 26 April 2008 (UTC)- Keep The crop is fine. --Lerdsuwa 17:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- Keep per Mbz1, if such an eye-catching and unique image as this gets delisted, then you may as well delist most WPs on Commons. Mfield 20:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Please note that delisting does not mean to delete the image. The image still could be uniq image without being a FP. --Manco Capac 21:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- Thank you! It is great to know!--Mbz1 17:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- Thank you for your sarcastic response on this, I can not understand how a person wrote this may act like this. I am appologising from others that I had to give an answer to such a sarcastic comment--Manco Capac 06:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- Keep as above PMG 12:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Keep /Daniel78 20:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Delist per nom: lousy quality, oversharpened, noisy, (probably upscaled) and badly cropped..., Lycaon 21:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Delist nice composition but unacceptable quality considering its modern origin Movieevery 08:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- May I please ask you what do you think about this Commons FPC 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." ?Isn't this a picture of s very difficult subject ?--Mbz1 15:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- I don't believe this is a hard to reproduce shot, these are trained dolphins and probably do tricks like this on a regular basis (as opposed to a wild dolphin), so the technical flaws of a 2003 image can't be forgiven so easily since the U.S military has expensive equipment to produce high quality images but this looks rather poor for a 1/500 shutter speed, also very noisy and oversharpened. Movieevery 17:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- Maybe U.S military has "expensive equipment" maybe not, maybe U.S military did not care to let their "expensive equipment" to get wet in order the picture would pass FPC, maybe it is easy to reproduce, maybe not. I do not know. What I know that right now Commons do not have a better image of the unique and interesting subject and IMO the image should stay at least untill a better one will be availabale.Thank you.--Mbz1 18:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)17:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- May I please ask you what do you think about this Commons FPC 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." ?Isn't this a picture of s very difficult subject ?--Mbz1 15:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Very good, valuable and high wow image. This is what an FP is about, not constant bickering about technical quality. --Freedom to share 15:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Delist Strange discussion about whether it's hard to reproduce, like the picture gets burned and destroyed when it's no longer an FP? FRZ 02:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Very interesting capture; the composition is very good also. Technical imperfections are not that bad and should not outweigh in this case. Barabas
- Keep The uniqness of this situation makes up for the techical "mishaps". --Hebster 12:56, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
8 keep, 6 delist >> kept -- Alvesgaspar 21:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Ophelia - Hybrid Tea.jpg - not featured
- Info: created, uploaded and nominated by Laitche -- Laitche 11:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Laitche 11:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination Thanks. -- Laitche 19:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Withdrawn >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 22:05, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Mandarin drake.JPG - not featured
- Info: created by Seahamlass - uploaded by Seahamlass - nominated by Seahamlass -- Seahamlass 23:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Seahamlass 23:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Noisy. -- Laitche 05:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support A bit noisy background, but that's not matter. I like it. --Mihael Simonic 07:45, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- Comment, looks more like artefacts than noise. --Aqwis 08:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- Question: hmm...it was a 40D...did you have a special setting in the camera? For example the tonal value priority (is it the right english term?!), it can creat more noise at times. But i also think that is doesn't look like the tyical noise. Did you do sth with the picture afterwards, like heavy sharpening? --AngMoKio 08:50, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Myminpins 23:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Taraxacum 12:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Noisy, overexp, detail. Sorry, you should try Commons:Quality images candidates first! --Beyond silence
17:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC) - Oppose As Beyond silence. --Karelj 19:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I wish to withdraw the nomination. Many thanks to those whose supported the picture. This was my first pic with a new camera - and I like it! I won't bother again - you people are just unbelievably snooty! (And, having seen some of your pics, without any justification in some cases) --Seahamlass 19:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- For withdraw just type {{withdraw}} --Richard Bartz 23:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- I think human being is not perfect creature. Please don't be disappointed. This pic's composition is very good, anyway. :) -- Laitche 20:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- Agree with Laitche. Such short statements behind an opposing vote sometimes seem harsh. But they are not meant mean or something. Your picture really has artefacts that shouldn't be in an FP. I am sure those artefacts are not from your camera (I have the same)...you did a wrong move in the post-processing. This happens... But when you nominate a picture you have to expect that you also get opposing votes. Don't take it hard and try again with another photo. In the end all this is helpful for you to improve. --AngMoKio 21:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- I hope you come back with new contributions because this image is very nice; although I too agree about the noise issue mentioned. And always remember that images might be just as valuable to Wikimedia Commons even if they are not promoted to FP. And note that FP is supposed to be some of the finest on Commons, not just good images. /Daniel78 22:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- Please don't take offence. The most important thing in the image - the composition - is great. Had you selected 100 ISO rather than 400 ISO the noise would have been much lower and I strongly suspect you would have been successful. Do please try again. --MichaelMaggs 22:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- It's not the fault of the ISO - even my D50 gives far less noise than this at ISO 400 and the 40D is much better at ISO 400 and up than a D50. I think it's just too much compression combined with oversharpening of the compression artefacts. --Aqwis 22:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- Oppose There is no need to come unglued and call opposers snobbish. Let's call a spade a spade - yes, there is a heavy amount of noise/artefacts caused by sharpening the image, furthermore the white feathers on the neck lost any drawing caused by slight overexposure. As we have a ringed bird here a location info in which zoo you took the picture would be great --Richard Bartz 05:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
{{withdraw}}
- Withdraw not considered (anonymous user) -- Alvesgaspar 22:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support // tsca [re] 10:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
5 support, 4 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 09:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Frogs mating.jpg - not featured
- Info: created, uploaded and nominated by Mihael Simonic
- Info: Toads mating (Kreda lake in Radovna, Slovenia, 2008)
- Support --Mihael Simonic 07:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Umnik 13:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Taraxacum 12:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Too small. It does not fall within the Guidelines. -- Laitche 13:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - per the above. - Anonymous DissidentTalk 16:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support I just really like it.--Seahamlass 19:45, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose It is too small. Since composition and lighting are not too good and mating frogs are not that rare, I can't see mitigating reasons. --norro 21:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Lacks in sharpness, and I think another angle would be better. /Daniel78 22:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose It is not aesthetically good enough for a featured picture (thankfully, not too far). Barabas
- Oppose per norro. Lycaon 08:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support FRZ 02:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
5 support, 6 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 09:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Enfant d'Ouzbékistan-691bis.JPG - not featured
- Info: created by ANGLO152 - uploaded by Anglo152 - nominated by ANGLO152 --ANGLO 10:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support --ANGLO 10:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
{FPX} * OpposeNot a good composition: the baby's face is partially hidden and the window grating is distracting -- Alvesgaspar 10:43, 3 May 2008 (UTC)}
- Support for now. I can imagine that the window bars possibly indicate some cultural context. -- Klaus with K 11:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- Question: what about these people's personal rights? Have they agreed on the license of this photo? --Leafnode 11:30, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Comment J'ai parlé avec cette femme, ravie qu'on la prenne en photo avec son enfant (ça se voit sur son visage, non?). Mais je n'ai évidemment pas son autorisation formelle quant au dépôt sur Wikimedia ! Si cela doit poser problème, je commence à comprendre pourquoi on voit si peu de photos de personnes de chair et de sang sur les galeries! Quant à l'avis d'Alvesgaspar je le trouve très "théorique" et un peu formaliste : visage partiellement caché? oui, mais as-tu vu ses yeux? La grille, elle, me semble justement faire la petite originalité "technique" (et peut-être symbolique) de la prise de vue! Amicalement ! --ANGLO 13:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- Yes, you have to have agreement of people in photos, if they are object of the photo. See Commons:Photographs of identifiable people --Leafnode 14:28, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose As Leafnode mentioned, obtaining and recording the consent of the subject is a must here. Lycaon 20:13, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- Legal perhaps, but a little stupid! Long live insects, wasps, crabs, dragonflies, beetles, big butterflies and small flowers!
I withdraw my nomination.--Anglo 23:13, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Withdrawn >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 10:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Sunset from Internation space station.jpg - not featured
- Info: created by NASA - uploaded by Anonymous101 - nominated by Anonymous101 . I'm not sure if this is featured picture quality but I think t might be.-- Anonymous101 19:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Anonymous101 19:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment, so much dust! --Aqwis 21:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose The dust as mentioned and there are some vertical lines visible. /Daniel78 22:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination
. After looking at it more carefully I have decided its not featured picture quality `Anonymous101 06:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Withdrawn >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 09:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Clone war of sea anemones 2-17-08-2 edit.jpg - kept
- Info: Dear all,
I've decided to stop my contributions to Commons because uploading images without nominating them on FP is boring, while nominating them on FP is depressing to me. I am probably not right, but it is the way I am, and I cannot change it. Sorry. I will continue upload my images to Wikipedia, but not to Commons. Here's one last thing that I believe I should do before I go, and it is about the image, which I am nominating for delisting. Before I nominated the image to get FP status I e-mailed it to the expert, who wrote a book about sea anemones in California. He said the image was of Anthopleura elegantissima engaged in a clone war. After the image passed I found more info about Anthopleura elegantissima and now I believe my image is of Anthopleura sola (not of Anthopleura elegantissima). I did e-mail image to other expert, who also believes that the image is of Anthopleura elegantissima, but he did not convinced me. I am almost positive that my image is of Anthopleura sola. If it is the case, it means, that not only ID was made incorectly, but it is not a clone war, but simply a war because Anthopleura sola do not clone. Sorry for the confusing explanation. Richard, you've done a great job with the image and I am sorry I have to nominate it for the delisting. It is still a rare and very interesting IMO image of sea anemones action, but, if you decide to keep it, I believe it should be renamed (I mean I believe it should be renamed in any case). Thank you.--Mbz1 04:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- Delist --Mbz1 04:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- Keep and rename I like thc olours and the action :) --norro 16:50, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- Keep --Lerdsuwa 17:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- Keep As long as the description is updated with the concerns and info given here I think it can be kept. And hope you return to contributing, although it can be very hard to please everyone. If everyone were too easy to please than the FP process would become a little pointless I think... /Daniel78 20:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I've decided to stop my contributions to Commons because uploading images without nominating them on FP is boring
but it has value for other wikipedias ! hope you will keep uploading to commons rather than wikipedia (I guess english one ?). This would just add pain to some other guy who will need to transfer to commons. Benh 18:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for your comment, Benh and Daniel78. I will continue to upload my images to Commons and sooner or later I probably will nominate one on FP. The thing I have no interest in taking pictures at all, if I do not upload them to Commons.--Mbz1 19:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Keep FRZ 02:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
4 keep, 1 oppose >> kept -- Alvesgaspar 09:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- I've changed the name of the file and updated Commons FP accordingly. Thank you.--Mbz1 14:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Ischgl church interior from below.jpeg
 |
 |
| Original | Edit2 by wau |
- Info: Self nom -- Freedom to share 16:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- Info: The inside of the St. Nikolaus Catholic Church in Ischgl. -- Freedom to share 16:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- Info: Unless the GIMP's grid is wrong, this image is not tilted from what I saw, although I could be wrong. -- Freedom to share 16:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Original - not featured
- Support -- Freedom to share 16:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- Comment What do you say if we cropp a little bit more more left and right (Just few pixels) in order to let the window lights out of image? --Manco Capac 20:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- Interesting idea. I thought about that while stitching and even tried it, only to see that such a crop did not show the grand nature of the inside of the church. --Freedom to share 21:46, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
1 support, 0 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 5th day) -- Alvesgaspar 23:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Edit - not featured
- Support Thanks for the edit. It is very impressive. --Freedom to share 08:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose The picture is of good quality, but in this case, HDR would help giving the dark parts more brightness and color. Personally, i don't like the shabby carpet and the interior of the church is not that extraordinary. --Taraxacum 13:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - A very difficult subject due to the high dynamic range. What I really don't like is the extreme geometric distortion, maybe that could be corrected. -- Alvesgaspar 23:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support - ultimately, I appreciate the artistic technique applied so far as the capturing of the subject. I like it. --- Anonymous DissidentTalk 12:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support Much better now, in my opinion. I liked the dark parts and the other parts equal. The darkness of these parts is the part of the atmosphere, and without them the room will be different. --Manco Capac 12:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose This is a very beautiful image, but nowhere enough wow factor. Barabas
- Support FRZ 02:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Disturbing stitching errors (e.g. bench down left, window right). Lycaon 17:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
4 support, 4 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 08:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Oxya yezoensis November 2007 WUXGA.jpg - not featured
- Info: created, uploaded & nominated by Laitche -- Laitche 17:05, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Laitche 17:05, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Myminpins 23:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Technically real good quality, but composition lacks a bit of creativity, so really good, but not excellent. --Taraxacum 12:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support, noisy?!? --Aqwis 16:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support Excellent compositin, well-controlled depth of field, good sharpness. --Freedom to share 16:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose As Taraxacun and colour of object and background practically the same. --Karelj 19:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- I think that is called camouflage. :) -- Laitche 20:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose The background and subject merge into one another, making it confusing. I had to enlarge the picture just to see what it was. That is NOT the sign of a good picture.--Seahamlass 19:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support noise? where? --AngMoKio 21:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - Agree with Taraxacum -- Alvesgaspar 23:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support Nemo5576 08:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Good macro, nice composition. The lighting is a tad 2 harsh, causing overexposed highlights. Can be avoided by making a slight shadow 2 the insect with a stretched nylon sock or pantyhose. A very thin plasticbag works very well, too. --Richard Bartz 17:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Not enough separation from background. Barabas
- I am afraid my Support vote will not change anything, but I really like the image.--Mbz1 18:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Comment BTW the image passed quality nomination. --Mbz1 18:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose FRZ 02:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- Comment please state reason for opposition as a courtesy to the author/uploader. Lycaon 06:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
7 support, 7 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 08:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:WMAP 2008.png - not featured
- Info: The Cosmic Microwave Background as seen by NASA's Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe. Projected from full-sky using the Mollweide projection. Created by NASA / the WMAP Science Team (hence public domain). Uploaded by Gmaxwell, nominated by Mike Peel 12:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support. This is the best "baby picture" humanity has of the universe. Well worth framing and putting on the mantlepiece. Mike Peel 12:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- By the way, for the photographers: this picture is the result of 5 years' cumulative exposure on a camera with effectively 16 pixels continually being sampled, which have a resolution around 10 times worse than the human eye . While it does have a lens that is one and a half metres wide, the photons it is collecting have a wavelength of around 1-15 mm, about 2,000 times longer than visible light, making it an effective optical lens of about 0.75mm in width. The image is after subtracting off a baseline that is over a thousand times stronger than the signal. The camera cost a couple of billion dollars, and made a trip of over 1,500,000 kilometers to take the photo. Oh, and the image has been used to weigh the universe, and to calculate its age. Mike Peel 22:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support This definitely needs to be featured. It is the definition of value like few other images imo. --Freedom to share 21:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Really excellent scientific work, very impressive conditions and costs to produce a picture like this. And surely, the meaning for mankind is oustanding. I'm glad having such pictures in WM-Commons, but I think a FP should touch a viewer by itself and not by additional information. edit made by Taraxacum 14:37, 28 April (UTC) - Alvesgaspar 17:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC) Sorry, forget to sign... --Taraxacum 07:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - Must agree with Taraxacum. No doubt the picture took a huge amount of work and represents an important scientific achievement. But it is little more than a symbol of the actual results, which cannot obviously be all taken from the image (which is 2D and has a limited resolution). And, as a symbol, it is not particularly beautiful or meaningful by itself -- Alvesgaspar 17:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support This is a great document, of a great quality. Not beautiful, but really useful. More images of the sort are really needed. Fred waldron 18:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose per above. Barabas
- Support FRZ 02:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support If scientific images are within the scope of FP, and I believe they are, then this image should defitiviely be featured. -- Klaus with K 11:08, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support, wonderful. James F. (talk) 12:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support--Mbz1 15:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose As Taraxacum. Masur 20:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose per above. — Lycaon 18:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
7 support, 5 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 14:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Glen Canyon Dam MC.jpg - featured
- Info: created, uploaded, and nominated by Chmehl 08:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support This panorama image shows the Glen Canyon Dam and the Colorado River. -- Chmehl 08:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Karelj 18:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support I find it amazing. -- Benh 19:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Comment How many Canyon river bend FP's are we going to have :) ? /Daniel78 19:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support Great work! Barabas 20:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support Very nice detail for an image of this scope. Cirt 00:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support --MichaelMaggs 06:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support Gordo 16:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support FRZ 01:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Urban 04:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
9 support, 0 oppose >> featured -- Alvesgaspar 08:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Orchid blue.JPG - not featured
- Info: This is a photo of an orchid I took some years ago. Uploaded and nominated by Taraxacum
- Support --Taraxacum 16:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Depth of field too low. Sorry, --Freedom to share 20:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry, have to agree with Freedom. --MichaelMaggs 06:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Orchid is not identified (main subject). Lycaon 20:15, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
|
|
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because of insufficient depth of field and the orchid is unidentified | 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 07:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
1 support, 3 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 07:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:barbula_fallax.jpeg - not featured
- Info: created, uploaded, and nominated by Fabelfroh 10:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support This image of dozens of very tiny moss plants (about 4 mm each in size) was made with the MP-E 65 1x-5x lens at 3.5x. 12 single photos were "stacked" together to reach reasonable dof and sharpness. This exceptionally peculiar photo has the "wow" effect on me. Fabelfroh 10:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Your license terms ("a commercial use of the image is only possible with the permission of the author") are not acceptable for Commons ("Media licensed under non-commercial only licenses also are not accepted.") Effectively your license amounts to by-nc-sa. --Stefan Vladuck 11:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- Comment Sorry for uncommenting you, but I've made up that license text to be compatible with both flickr, korseby and private websites. I'm really tired of all these license discussions here on the commons that arise from time to time. If you and other people think that this license is incompatible with the commons, then please go on and delete all the other 1888 photos (including Featured and QI) I've uploaded so far. Your oppose vote is a non-issue here. Fabelfroh 12:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- Comment, I am sorry, but NC-licenses are strictly forbidden on Wikimedia Commons per Commons:Licensing. If you do not change the license of your pictures, we will sadly have to delete them. --Aqwis 13:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- Comment How comes he can upload 1888 files, get some past FP and QI, without anybody noticing this restriction? Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 13:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- Only images uploaded since 26/12/2007 have this licence and will have to have their licence changed or (sadly, but necessarily) be deleted. Lycaon 13:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- And that's why custom licenses suck. People can just change them at will. Fortunately, you can't add restrictions on top of cc-by-sa-3.0. All that text after the "cc-by-sa-3.0" means nothing. Either it is or it isn't under that license. Since we know the author's intent, is it legally binding? ...probably not since she didn't fully understand what the license entailed. Rocket000 16:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- "Fortunately, you can't add restrictions on top of cc-by-sa-3.0." Of course you can. The CC licenses can be treated as templates, and nothing stops you from adding additional restrictions on top of them. --Aqwis 16:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Indeed. There's no "can't" here: a copyright holder can do whatever he or she pleases. If he says it's under "cc-by-sa plus a ton of restrictions", then it's under cc-by-sa plus a ton of restrictions. That's just how licensing works. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 16:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- What!? If you say it's under a specific Creative Commons license, then that's it. If you add anything on top of that then it's not really under that license. Those license tags are "templates" but the legal document it links to isn't. You can't just customize it to your liking. They mean something. Otherwise, I could say my work was CC-BY plus all rights reserved. Yeah, that doesn't make sense. Anyway, I just noticed the EXIF data: The author of this image is Kristian Peters. He owns the original copyright. This work is licensed under Creative Commons 3.0 cc-by-sa-nc license. Rocket000 16:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- If you add anything on top of that, then it's not really that license anymore. You're right on that count: the license grant that the copyright holder has given will consist of the terms of that license, plus those restrictions. To use a dodgy analogy, if I say "you can eat this whole cake, but save the cherry on it for me" you can't go and eat the cake, cherry included, and say in your defense "but you said I could eat the whole cake!". Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 16:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- What!? If you say it's under a specific Creative Commons license, then that's it. If you add anything on top of that then it's not really under that license. Those license tags are "templates" but the legal document it links to isn't. You can't just customize it to your liking. They mean something. Otherwise, I could say my work was CC-BY plus all rights reserved. Yeah, that doesn't make sense. Anyway, I just noticed the EXIF data: The author of this image is Kristian Peters. He owns the original copyright. This work is licensed under Creative Commons 3.0 cc-by-sa-nc license. Rocket000 16:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
-
But the thing is he did release under that license. So the rest is meaningless. This License constitutes the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the Work licensed here. There are no understandings, agreements or representations with respect to the Work not specified here. Licensor shall not be bound by any additional provisions that may appear in any communication from You. This License may not be modified without the mutual written agreement of the Licensor and You. - Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported §8(e) Rocket000 16:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'm guessing he didn't read that bit. That, I think, is where we run into informed-consent-type issues. The intent of the copyright holder is clear: he doesn't want it to be used for commercial purposes. That intent is also clear to anybody that has read the image description page. He could very easily argue that he didn't understand what he was consenting to (and before you say anything, I find that troubling too -- as far as consequences go, the difference between this and revocation is rather small). Courts won't look too well on license "traps" given that he has clearly stated his intent so clearly... Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 17:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, I'm not saying we should (or could) hold him to the license. At least not in good faith. But it is the licensor's responsibility to understand the terms and conditions they are willfully agreeing to. Otherwise, there'd always be a easy way out. All you would need to do is plead ignorance. And how many people do you think that use these licenses have actually read the legal code? How many really understand the implications? Rocket000 17:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Crap. I forgot where we were. Sorry everyone else for the copyright talk. :) Rocket000 17:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, I'm not saying we should (or could) hold him to the license. At least not in good faith. But it is the licensor's responsibility to understand the terms and conditions they are willfully agreeing to. Otherwise, there'd always be a easy way out. All you would need to do is plead ignorance. And how many people do you think that use these licenses have actually read the legal code? How many really understand the implications? Rocket000 17:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
|
|
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because subject of licensing issues. --norro 15:33, 4 May 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. |
1 support, 1 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 09:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Dyavolski bridge.jpg - not featured
- Info: uploaded by Laveol - nominated by Laveol -- Laveol 10:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Laveol 10:14, 5 May 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. |
Freedom to share 10:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment It is with great pity that I insert this FPX tag, for this is a truly amazing image, with an excellent composition and atmosphere. Freedom to share 10:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment It is an amazing composition indeed, although I'd recommend less post-processing which is very visibly in the clouds, in case the author were to upload a higher resolution image. -- Klaus with K 11:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
1 support, 0 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 08:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Petrovatnight.JPG- not featured
- Info: created by Gothic2 - uploaded by Gothic2 - nominated by Gothic2 -- Gothic2 14:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Gothic2 14:35, 5 May 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. |
Do you have a larger version? -βαςεLXIV™ 14:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- Question: Excuse me, but I mean that the picture is big enough to see if it´s good or not! For what do you need a bigger resolution? --Gothic2 15:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- Could you read the guidelines, please: Resolution - Photographs of lower resolution than 2 million pixels are typically rejected unless there are 'strong mitigating reasons'. Note that a 1600 x 1200 image has 1.92 Mpx, just less than the 2 million level. --QWerk 16:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- Hey man (QWerk) RELAX, RELAX :-) --Gothic2 16:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- Pictures just ain't high quality if they are low-res... The guidelines are there for a reason. 81.224.104.150 15:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Hey man (QWerk) RELAX, RELAX :-) --Gothic2 16:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Vendeuse d'arachides.jpg
[edit] original - featured
- Info: created and uploaded by Romanceor - nominated by Thermos -- Thermos 15:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support Quite simply, a stunning work of photography, where the colours, composition and athmosphere are perfect. Excellent bokeh too. -- Thermos 15:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support Great photo. I really enjoy looking at it --Leafnode 16:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support I like the original one. Great job! --Manco Capac 21:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Comment The colors are off, everything has a red tinge. --Calibas 21:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support Sometimes, at the end of the day, colors and light are just like that and that's what is great. --B.navez 03:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- temporary Oppose ... until the colors are tweaked correctly. No sandstorms 4 me. --Richard Bartz 04:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose due to colour cast. --MichaelMaggs 05:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support Very nice mood and atmosphere. I trust the creators statement that the colors in the original best resembles how it really was. -- Slaunger 06:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Comment The original has a low dynamic range and I don't like the contrast. Unfortunatley, the first edit eliminates this together with it's warm evening atmosphere. Maybe a second edit keeping its original colour temperature would enhance the picture's quality, but in general, a suitable candidate... --Taraxacum 07:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose bad contrast --Herrick 07:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support I like this one the best out of the three. I find the colours natural. Popperipopp 16:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support The colours of this one give it all its charm. Colours don't seem natural on first edit, and there is too much light on the two edits. Fred waldron 17:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support FRZ 01:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
8 support, 3 oppose >> featured -- Alvesgaspar 09:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose, odd colour cast, even if it's natural. --Aqwis 07:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Too late... -- Alvesgaspar 11:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] edit 1 - not featured
- Comment a great composition, I also noticed it in the QICs. I added a new version. I am not the best concerning colour-balancing...maybe someone can make it better (Richard..are you there? ;)) but i thought that the sky is too brown in the original version. --AngMoKio 17:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Comment _Please_ link all edits/versions with each other. It's so often forgotten. /Daniel78 19:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- I did it. /Daniel78 10:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Your edit looks good. --Richard Bartz 17:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Nice new balance but the "true" colors are more like in the original ; sky isn't blue in Ouagadougou. --Romanceor 17:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- I agree that the colors could be more like in the original, but the original has not the original/true colors IMO. When looking at the histogram on circle1 the blue channel isn't congruent like it should. Furthermore its hardly imaginable 4 me that we have a twilight or a rainy situation here as the shadows in circle2 are nicely drawn and the afternoon sun (arrow4) causing overexposed highlights in circle3, even at 1/1000s. The truth is somewhere between the original and AngMoKio's edit --Richard Bartz 04:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- At 18:18 under tropics night is very soon, you can also see that by the enlightening of the cushion very horizontally. And you can have dusty clouds in the background but not necessary around you. --B.navez 15:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- I agree that the colors could be more like in the original, but the original has not the original/true colors IMO. When looking at the histogram on circle1 the blue channel isn't congruent like it should. Furthermore its hardly imaginable 4 me that we have a twilight or a rainy situation here as the shadows in circle2 are nicely drawn and the afternoon sun (arrow4) causing overexposed highlights in circle3, even at 1/1000s. The truth is somewhere between the original and AngMoKio's edit --Richard Bartz 04:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Comment This edit copleteley changed the photo. In the original version the day light is close to a rainy day and wich is great with the colors of the dress of the lady. But in the edited version it is a sunny day and I didi not liked the colors in that way. --Manco Capac 21:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose artificial change of colors --B.navez 03:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose The moody atmosphere in the original is lost for me. -- Slaunger 10:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose FRZ 01:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose as it was said, colors are unrealistic now --Leafnode 20:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
1 support, 4 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 09:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] edit 2 - not featured
- Question: What is your opinion to this version? --Taraxacum 07:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support This one works for me too. -- Slaunger 10:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support This is also fine for me. --Manco Capac 10:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support FRZ 01:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- Comment please state reason for opposition as a courtesy to the author/uploader. Lycaon 06:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Leafnode 20:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose ALL versions. Not enough wow, aesthetically not very strong, and I do not like the tree in the background (composition). Barabas 23:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Info: - Sorry, but each nominations has its own poll. The vote only counts for this one -- Alvesgaspar 11:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
4 support, 1 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 09:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Ap4-s67-50531.jpg - not featured
- Info: created by - uploaded by Papa November - nominated by Happy-melon -- Happy-melon 21:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support I just saw this on and thought "WOW". I gather it's very slightly under your recommended size for featured pictures, but it strikes me as a stunning photo. Happy-melon 21:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose An extremely dusty and scratched scan, rather too small, and the artificially-added moon disturbs me. Sorry. --MichaelMaggs 22:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
How do you know the moon is artificial? Just curious. Happy-melon 08:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)Duh perhaps I should actually read the image page :D Happy-melon 09:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose ack Michael, but replace extremely with quite. -- Slaunger 06:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Aqwis 17:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Same as Michael... Sorry :( Fred waldron 17:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Karelj 18:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Not sharp enough, resolution is below guidelines; fake Moon
, and aesthetically not good enough.Barabas- I accept your other points, but how is it aesthetically lacking, in your opinion? Happy-melon 21:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- I guess I looked at it when my monitor was too dark. The top of the mast blended with the dark sky. I retract that. Barabas 23:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- Comment please state reason for opposition as a courtesy to the author/uploader. Lycaon 06:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose grainy/dusty, and the composition isn't that great. Naerii 04:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose It's just the moon-part that bothers me. Popperipopp 08:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
3 support, 8 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 09:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Temple Saint Sava.jpg - not featured
 |
- Info: created by Fred waldron - uploaded by Fred waldron - nominated by Fred waldron -- Fred waldron 00:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Fred waldron 00:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I am not sure if it is sharp or striking enough for FP, but I felt it deserved an edit to correct distortions and crop out the unsightly background buildings. Mfield 01:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks, the edit is better indeed and I replaced the original ;) Fred waldron 07:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Question: / Comment
- I am confused about the categorization of the images. The first one is categorized to Category:Belgrade, which is a relevant category, but I would like also a category referring to the type of building.
- I put back the category "church". That is the right term in english. But the official name is "Temple", and many languages use the term "temple" for non-catholic churches (for example in French, "église" would be used for a catholic church, and "temple" for a protestant or, sometimes, an orthodox church). A category "orthodox church" might be a good idea... Fred waldron 07:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- This brings me to my question: Is it a church or a temple? The image title indicates it is a temple, but the building bears symbols of christianity, which for me indicates a church?
- The edit has the additional categories Category:Churches and Category:Temple. Once the church/temple question is sorted out a relevant base category shall be selected and explored to a specific subcat relevant for this building. Note, by the way that the plural forms Category:Churches and Category:Temples are the correct base categories to explore, the ones chosen are in fact deprecated.
- I suggest the creator geocodes the original and edit. Adds value to the image page.
- I geocoded it. Fred waldron 07:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- I agree the edit is better than the original.
- I agreed too, and even replaced the original : minor changes only, and real improve. Fred waldron 07:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- I have looked at both images in full res and in the preview size of 400x600pixels. In the preview size there is a very clear fringe all way around the building - especially around the crosses in the blue sky. I do not know if this is an artifact caused by the Wikimedia software or whether it is a residue from non-optimal masking of building/sky in some postprocessing step (e.g., selective sharpening).
- No sort of postprocessing was used on the original. And, by the way, I can't see that fringe :( ? Fred waldron 07:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- If the above issues are addressed in a satisfactory manner, I will be happy to support the edit. -- Slaunger 06:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Are they ;) ? Fred waldron 07:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Almost, expect for the categorization. Try to read again what I wrote about cats, explore the large Category:Churches base category for one or more specific church categories, which match the image. With pedantic regards, -- Slaunger 09:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, and regarding church vs. temple: In Denmark, where we mainly have protestentic churches, they are called...churches, not temples. -- Slaunger 10:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- I changed the categories and I think that will be okay now. Fred waldron 17:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Yes the specific cat for the temple is the right one. But you do not need the Orthodox churches cat as that cat is already a member of the categorization tree for the temple itself (I have therefore removed it), see Commons:Categories#Over-categorization for a more thorough explanation and an example. Sorry for being such a pedantic on this point, but I find it very important to categorize properly in order to maximize chances that other Wikimedia editors can actually find this nice image. -- Slaunger 19:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- I changed the categories and I think that will be okay now. Fred waldron 17:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Are they ;) ? Fred waldron 07:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- I am confused about the categorization of the images. The first one is categorized to Category:Belgrade, which is a relevant category, but I would like also a category referring to the type of building.
- Support As promised. -- Slaunger 19:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Sharpness is average and the white haloes are disturbing. Good composition and light though. Lycaon 08:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose As Lycaon. --Taraxacum 16:47, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support FRZ 01:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support the composition is really nice --AngMoKio 20:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
4 support, 2 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 09:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:EtaCarinae.jpg - not featured
- Info: created by Jon Morse (University of Colorado) and NASA Hubble Space Telescope image, published by STScI - uploaded by Yann - nominated by MichaelMaggs -- MichaelMaggs 05:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- MichaelMaggs 05:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support Wow and value -- Slaunger 06:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support impressive --Herrick 07:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support dito --Taraxacum 14:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support hermosa Comu nacho 16:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose I know this represents work and the result looks really good, but I can't see what the interest of such edits is : this image is of no big scientific value. Just compare to the NASA original... Sorry. Fred waldron 17:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose As Fred waldron. --Karelj 18:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Fred waldron. Lycaon 20:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Too dark and unclear what this actually is Gordo 16:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support I feel better knowing that not only mine images, but amazing NASA images also get opposed.--Mbz1 18:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Depending on how you define color, all of these space photographs are subjective versions of the object. If you define color as what a human eye would see looking through an eyepiece attached to Hubble (and that would have been really awesome, btw!) you would see this object as mostly white with the darker regions going towards green. Back in the days of images on film, the colors of the astrophotography depended greatly on the brand of film that was being used, for instance. One of the major brands captured more blue than its rival which grabbed the reds. I have no idea what to expect from digital image grabs -- is it dependent on the brand of camera or on the brand of the cf card? I was and still somewhat unclear with the explanation for this human eye phenomena; the explanation was that the eye sees more green -- the color that is inbetween the color of the sun and the color of the sky and the predominate color on the planet (I think). Then, ten or twelve years after that, I learned that the moon is not larger on the horizon due to refractive things with the atmosphere as I had thought and taught, but instead due to a psychological thing that the brain does when it makes object that are on the horizon bigger than objects that are more towards the zenith. Our bodies are sad excuses for measuring tools, it is somewhat impressive that our toys work at all. -- carol 23:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- Comment please state reason for opposition as a courtesy to the author/uploader. Lycaon 06:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- Question: / Comment
- I have done a little research on the subject and I am now quite sure this picture is a mix between Image:Eta Carinae.jpg and Image:Etacarinae-001.jpg. I would like to have confirmation on that.
- That leads me to a first question : what is the purpose and scientific interest of such an edit, when each of the two pictures is useful in itself, and shows different things.
- Then, I think the author of that edition should at least be mentioned (it seems to come from the University of São Paulo [3]) ? Can we still consider that it is a NASA image, hence in the public domain ? Vol de nuit 15:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
7 support, 5 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 10:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Sd.Kfz. 250-1 (alt) 01.png - not featured
_01.png)
- Info: created by Spike78 - uploaded by Spike78 - nominated by Nemo5576 -- Nemo5576 08:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Nemo5576 08:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support Marvelous! Masur 09:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
{{FPX|too small and lacking proper image description. --[[User:Norro|norro]] 09:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)}}
- FPX can't be used when there are already two support votes. --MichaelMaggs 11:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Info: I've just added sources. Render at 2000x1500px is in prograss (it will take a couple of hours). Im waiting for more conclusions, so I could correct/unify rest of my work. Spike78 11:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Theres a small technical problem with bigger render. Ill try to fix it but ill take some more time. Spike78 17:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Question: Could you please supply more detail about what is shown and why it's of interest, and also about the program you used to create it? I'm a bit concerned about the sources you used; you give ISBNs but not titles and dates of publication. Were the sources within those books photographs or drawings, and are you able to show that they are out of copyright? Otherwise, there may be a copyright infringement problem. --MichaelMaggs 11:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Well, this is a 3D model drawn in Autodesk Autocad 2007, i dont understand Your concerns about copyright: 2D plans were published as well as photos as copyrighted. So I redrawned 2D plans in acad and then made 3D model and then corrected the model by comparing it to several photos... well I think details of whole algorithm isn't worth writing. This picture isn't even similar to any of graphics nor photos published in sources. I will add full (and then redundant) information about sources and anything You like. I've (unfortunately) never disputed seriously about these works so im grateful for Your comments. Spike78 12:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Has been contructed, as I understand it, essentially from plans and photos published in two recent books. Unless we have a reason to suppose those plans and photos are in the public domain my concerns that this is a copyright infringement remain. --MichaelMaggs 17:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Errrr... if I'd do a photo of modern building would You be concerned if "plans are copyrighted" because building is "recent"? I don't undersand it. Oh, do You have a permission to use this
for a photo from the manufacturer? 'cause there may be a copyright infringement problem. Spike78 01:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Completely irrelevant. 3D based on published 2D plans cannot be a subject of any "copyrights" (regarding 2D plans authors). If so, all models (especially modern ones, like airliners) would be violating these, because we dont think that Boeing has relased its design and plans into PD? 3D modelling of any form is far beyond of any "derivativeness". Please think about it, and verify your vote. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Masur (talk • contribs) 05:39, 30 Apr 2008 (UTC)
- My oppose is based on the copying of 2D plans into another 2D form in acad. That is copyright infringement unless the original plans can be shown to be in the public domain, or you have a licence. The chess example is different since (a) I did not do any 2D -> 2D copying of any original plans, and (b) that design is out of copyright. To answer the question about buildings: yes, buildings do have copyright, which normally expires 70 years after the death of the architect. There are special provisions in some countries, though, which allow photographs to be freely taken in spite of that. See Commons:Freedom of panorama. --MichaelMaggs 06:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- So? Plans were coppied and? We don't have them anymore in the final work. Pls think about those Boeing models. One can say, that capturing and publishing a photo of that models was a copyrights violation of 2d plans, because 2D plans were included in a box with model and "derivative" work (3D model, not even 3D, but photo of it) was finally released under GNU license. Dont be ridiculous. In your oppinion, as far as I understood it, ANY 2D/3D work based on existing template is copyvio... What concerns also buildings, airplanes, models, and so on... photos. Oh, another example - one can buy a architectonic plans and legally build a house based on them. And now, when I take a photo of that house, and relase it, i will make a copyvio? I think that somewhere is a limit of "derivativeness", and it is closer than you think. Otherwise we wouldnt be allowed to build any models! Masur 06:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Please see Commons:Derivative works. --MichaelMaggs 16:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- So i think all is about: In short, all transfers of a creative, copyrightable work into a new media count as derivative works. But creating (because its creating! not reproducing or simply changing media) 3d model basing on 2d plans, is, IMO, not a transfer to a new media. Because I create (build) sth completely new and uniqe, as well as my interpretation of those plans is original (i.e. color schemes, details). And you just gave me the link to that page , but you didnt answer what about other models? Those plastics ones i.e. If this particular work (3D digital construction based on 2D (i dont go deep into how accurate is that reconstruction, cosit may be that changes of original concept from plans can be so large that no copyrights can be potentially aplied anyway) printed plans) is for you copyvio, ANY other model is a copyvio too. Cos in most cases they are constructed basing on plans prepared and sold by certain company (i.e. Italeri, if I remember the name of one of them). Pls notice also that those plan were not intended to be basis of any 3D digital reconstruction, I assume that they were more or less simple profile drawings or projections. And once again - plans are only recipe and NOT a work themselves. Masur 18:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Please see Commons:Derivative works. --MichaelMaggs 16:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- So? Plans were coppied and? We don't have them anymore in the final work. Pls think about those Boeing models. One can say, that capturing and publishing a photo of that models was a copyrights violation of 2d plans, because 2D plans were included in a box with model and "derivative" work (3D model, not even 3D, but photo of it) was finally released under GNU license. Dont be ridiculous. In your oppinion, as far as I understood it, ANY 2D/3D work based on existing template is copyvio... What concerns also buildings, airplanes, models, and so on... photos. Oh, another example - one can buy a architectonic plans and legally build a house based on them. And now, when I take a photo of that house, and relase it, i will make a copyvio? I think that somewhere is a limit of "derivativeness", and it is closer than you think. Otherwise we wouldnt be allowed to build any models! Masur 06:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- My oppose is based on the copying of 2D plans into another 2D form in acad. That is copyright infringement unless the original plans can be shown to be in the public domain, or you have a licence. The chess example is different since (a) I did not do any 2D -> 2D copying of any original plans, and (b) that design is out of copyright. To answer the question about buildings: yes, buildings do have copyright, which normally expires 70 years after the death of the architect. There are special provisions in some countries, though, which allow photographs to be freely taken in spite of that. See Commons:Freedom of panorama. --MichaelMaggs 06:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Errrr... if I'd do a photo of modern building would You be concerned if "plans are copyrighted" because building is "recent"? I don't undersand it. Oh, do You have a permission to use this
- Support PMG 12:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose I don't like it for FP, because it does not WOW me. --Taraxacum 14:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support Wow for me though -βαςεLXIV™ 14:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support Ala z talk 14:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Good modeling but standard rendering & cheap lighting. The wood shader is very poor, same for the metal shader on the tools. The MG 42 has a poor antialiasing same here with the shader. I miss decals. It's 2008 now and there are much better renderer around such as Maxwell or Vray. --Richard Bartz 17:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Decals hmmm... I've done models with and without them. If theres a need (and I also like them) i can make them. But i wanted to show "standard vehicle". Spike78 22:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Johney (T∀LK) 17:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Nice idea for a rendering, but would need a bit more work done on it such as lighting etc. --Freedom to share 18:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Ill try to make better ambient. Spike78 22:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Good but I agree it needs a bit more work. /Daniel78 19:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Work on what? Spike78 22:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry I should be more clear :) I was mostly thinking about the lighting as mentioned by others. And perhaps there could be some sort of texture on the metal plates ? I do not know how it looks in reality but currently it looks slightly plastic instead of metallic to me. /Daniel78 11:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Ill try to find better texture for it. Using better lightning is now for me out of question. I've rendered this under Acad (and the ambient light is simulated by approx. 100 point lights placed spherically), now i will do it (and the others) on my gf comp under 3dmax. I didn't care about it 'cause I've allways considered these works as "technical" not "artistic". Take a look at my earlier models - they have even more simplified lightning, Ill correct them too after this discussion but I want to "collect" any "cons" so I could do it absolutely-total-good-and-nice. I just want Wiki to have the best pics in this matter all over the net. That's why I'm asking about any "cons" to be precise. And thank You for Your opinion. Spike78 12:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry I should be more clear :) I was mostly thinking about the lighting as mentioned by others. And perhaps there could be some sort of texture on the metal plates ? I do not know how it looks in reality but currently it looks slightly plastic instead of metallic to me. /Daniel78 11:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Work on what? Spike78 22:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral for now --Amazing 3D model with lots of details of this vehicle, but some small issues should be corrected as the overall quality deserves it : the lightning could be much better, the dim shadow around the vehicle looks like it has been made with MS Paint and as R. Bartz wrote, some anti aliasing corrections are needed. Well done ! Sting 19:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose poor antialiasing and small size. Lycaon 20:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Dull lighting, I am sorry. Barabas
Info: All negatives ale better than positives for me. I've allways wanted to know how to do it better. I know that 3d-model alone isn't all - but I've got a pretty dull comp, so the lightning is also dull ;) My GF agreed to help me with her hot-machine ;) Spike78 22:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Beyond silence 17:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Laziale93 18:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose per Lycaon--Mbz1 18:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose FRZ 01:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- Comment please state reason for opposition as a courtesy to the author/uploader. Lycaon 06:31, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment If you do a new rendering, I would prefer a version with more space around the vehicle. This version is far to tight for me. It looks like a lot of work to me to create such a model. I am just curious, how much time did you spend? --Chmehl 12:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Hebster 12:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose As Lycaon. --Karelj 20:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
9 support, 10 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 10:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Shea Smith.JPG - featured
- Info: The quarterback Shea Smith in the moment before passing. Public domain, uploaded by Earthfighter, nominated by --norro 19:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support A high quality sports photograph --norro 19:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral --Taraxacum 20:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Barabas
- Support -- Nice focus. Cirt 00:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support --MichaelMaggs 05:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Nice moment, but photographic quality is low. --Karelj 16:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Question: Hmmm, could you please elaborate on this? Quality is very good in my opinion. --norro 16:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Beyond silence 17:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support FRZ 01:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support great freeze --Leafnode 20:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Simonizer 19:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support — Lycaon 18:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Böhringer 22:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
10 support, 1 oppose >> featured -- Alvesgaspar 22:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Dragonfly-Brown-070624.jpg - not featured
- Info: created by Loadmaster - uploaded by Loadmaster - nominated by Loadmaster -- Loadmaster 18:10, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Loadmaster 18:10, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose I'm sorry, but you will have to identify your dragonfly before it stands a chance at becoming an FP. Lycaon 20:10, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- Comment Thanks for the advice. As this is my very first nominated pic, I didn't expect it to pass muster. How does one go about identifying the species without wading through hundreds of images? - Loadmaster 22:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Well, the guidelines help you to get an idea, how a FP could look like. And becoming a FP SHOULD NOT depend on scientific identification of the subject. It helps categorizing a picture and maybe someone knows the species on this picture and gives you a hint. But an excellent picture stands for itself. --Taraxacum 08:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - I was before a "victim" of that requirement but agree with Lycaon. FP is not (only) about aesthetics and technical perfection though the artsy side plays an important role IMO. Because of the yellow pterostigma I'm tempted to bet on a Sympetrum fonscolombei (a female, which are sandy coloured). But I'm not sure, the bulge in the abdomen is puzzling. Please check these too-- Alvesgaspar 09:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose- This is a wonderful composition (one of the best I saw, for this subject), a pity that the body and head of the darter are not sharp enough -- Alvesgaspar 09:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- Comment Thanks for the positive critique. As I recall, it was a bit windy that day, so I was forced to use a faster shutter at the expense of a wider focal field in order to reduce motion blur. -- Loadmaster 14:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
1 support, 2 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 22:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Submarine cable cross-section 3D plain.svg - not featured
- Info: created by Mysid - uploaded by Mysid - nominated by Omegatron — Omegatron (talk) 22:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support Just a nice, clear diagram. — Omegatron (talk) 22:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose
It could use a legendMfield 22:43, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- There is a proper (text) legend on the description page. -- Dontpanic 08:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- The legend is in the image description, where it belongs. Images are not supposed to have text in them, so that they can be used on different-language projects without creating a new version. — Omegatron (talk) 20:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- Fair enough. Mfield 05:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Agree with Omegatron: just a nice, clear diagram. QI for me, but now wow to be featured. --norro 09:05, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Not even QI for me,
some of the steel wires have no circular cross section (the rearmost ones). Lycaon 19:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC) - Oppose nice and useful, but not special. /Ö 09:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
1 support, 4 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 22:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Schronisko PTTK przy Morskim Oku-protestuję.jpg - not featured
- Info: created by User:Samson6 - uploaded by User:Samson6 - nominated by User:Samson6 --Samson6 00:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Samson6 00:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose poor colors (probably due to poor weather), poor perspective (due to photographer's location), size slightly below threshold --Leafnode 08:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Agree with Leafnode. Furthermore it's leaning (look at the trees). --norro 16:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
|
|
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because is leaning and has poor colours | 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 19:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
1 support, 2 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 22:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:The surfers in santa cruz california.jpg - not featured
- Info: created, uploaded and nominated by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 16:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Mbz1 16:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Low quality, small size. --Karelj 16:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- 2.5 mega pixels should be enough IMO.--Mbz1 16:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - Uninteresting composition with a huge dark foreground, poor quality -- Alvesgaspar 23:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination Thanks for the comments
Withdrawn >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 08:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit]
 |
 |
| Original | reduced excessive blue in snow and shadows |
- Info: created by Markus Bernet - uploaded by Markus Bernet - nominated by Ikiwaner 16:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support I like this one for its excellent composition and perfect exposure. It makes me feel the cold there. -- Ikiwaner 16:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry but this would have been much better shot from the other side of the aircraft so that it wasn't in shadow. Plus the wingtip is clipped Mfield 16:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Ack Mfield. --Freedom to share 16:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- Comment When I say excellent composition I mean that ist's shot contre jour and you still see details in the shadow. I think the picture would be boring when shot from the other side. --Ikiwaner 17:17, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- It looks to me like a snapshot that is being justified from this side because the photographer didn't have permission didn't have permission to walk around the other side. If doesn't feel like a shot that was deliberately taken contre jour. It's a weak justification for a boring underexposed snapshot of an aircraft with one wing clipped off. Sorry if it sounds harsh but this is not FP material. Mfield 19:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support In this case the shadowside is the better solution. The reflection would be to hard on the sunside. --Niabot 19:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support Good atmosphere. --Karelj 19:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose bad lighting, average composition -- Gorgo 20:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose ack Mfield. -- Slaunger 21:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose I agree about the shadow. Probably another time of the day would be better. /Daniel78 22:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support Ack Karelj --Thermos 05:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support Good choice for light atmosphere--B.navez 18:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose ack Mfield. --MichaelMaggs 22:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose no wow --Beyond silence 11:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose per above. Barabas
- Support FRZ 02:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support I prefer the original over the edited version though --Hebster 12:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
7 support, 8 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 20:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Edit - not featured
- Support I don't think the snow was that blue naturally, rather it was a effect of poor white balance (I could be wrong since I wasn't there of course, but this is a well known photographic effect) Movieevery 15:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Better, but no wow, anyway. --MichaelMaggs 16:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support Solid and proper enough for an FP imo. --Freedom to share 18:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support FRZ 02:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose, not aesthetically pleasing and it seems a bit blurred towards the back end of the plane. Naerii 04:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose its still poorly composed and has one wing clipped off. Mfield 08:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- OpposeNot a good composition --Manco Capac 11:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
3 support, 4 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 17:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Hawaii Island topographic map-fr.svg - featured
- Info: created and uploaded by Sémhur - nominated by Sting -- Sting 15:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support --A very good topographic map of the island of Hawaii using SRTM data, with an excellent choice for the framing showing the structure of the submarine relief. Notice also the underwater shaded relief. Very nice imo. Sting 15:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Comment 1) the letter "o" of "Wahipi'o" it collides with a point. 2) an airport exists in the coast, near Kalaoa that lacks name. 3) "Côte du Kohala" a curved pattern could continue. 4) triangles exist where the highways never arrive to their destination, to see "Mauna Loa." 5) I would like to see the relief really transformed into SVG, and not, svg has more than enough bits map (not wanted pixelation in more impressions to the own size of the image). Please, you see the image next, surroundings of the river
--libertad0 ॐ 16:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- I've uploaded a new version of the map in which I've modified the size of "Wahipi'o" and added a key for better understanding. The airports aren't named as it isn't the purpose of this topographic map. Comparing to other maps, it seems that the Kohala Coast only goes until Kawaihae. The triangles represent summits : roads seldom go to the top of mountains. The pixels you see (at a very large zoom level) come from the raster image of the shaded relief which is the only raster element of the file : the whole topography and bathymetry are made with paths (I've translated the note in the description page in English for clarification). Sting 18:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support Excellent. Thank you to take into account my comments. Greetings (completely vectorized) --libertad0 ॐ 13:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- Info: --To be the echo of user:Alvesgaspar, a SVG image may be scaled to any size without loss of quality, but a map has a scale and so, a resolution. For the SRTM3 data used here, it's 93 m. Zooming in over 100% won't give you a better resolution and at very large size the paths may look quiet simplified. Consider the SVG format is only used in maps to ease the translations and modifications. Sting 14:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- I don't agree, a map in SVG should be scalable at any approach level. I think that you could convert to line the area pixelation. Once you carry out this modification, I will change my vote to favor. Thanks --libertad0 ॐ 15:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- If you know how to vectorize a raster image of a shaded relief, I'm ready to learn ;-) Sting 15:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
-
Finger painting with elbows version (completely vectorized) by CarolSpears
- I think that this is magic that you knew how to do, but it was fun to do and now I know how to do this.
- My relief parts seem a little dark compared to the raster version -- are they too dark?
- I left the 'approved by wiki-blah blah (atlas I think)' on the image description, it should be removed if it doesn't apply
- The upload dialog that I use (or that we all use lately -- who knows such things?) would not have allowed me to upload the original file....
- Liars :) -- carol 21:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Wow !! I'm impressed ! How did you get this ? I think there's a loss in the underwater shading, less smooth than the original raster one, but the shading on the island is really amazing ... but with a file weight of 7.7MB, is it worth ? Sting 00:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks to CarolSpears, I have updated this picture. This map is all-SVG now. It's a little darker than before, but clearer than the Carol's try. I have reduce the weight too. Sémhur 10:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Potrace (which comes with Inkscape and (I think) is older than GIMP), I scanned the grays, without the background, 16 paths each. Then using color information from GIMP (there might be an easier way) I converted the gray filled paths to transparencies of black. The underwater shading needed blurring (so that it looked less like a depth map) and my transparency was not enough -- but I was done with it by then.... The island shading was incredible right out of the trace and needed only the conversion to transparencies of black. My first attempt with potrace and inkscape is:
, I compared it to finger-painting with my elbows. :) -- carol 12:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks carol. I'm less convinced by the new full svg version : if at small size the rendering is smooth, at full size the steps in the shadow are clearly visible. This plus the fact the file weight doubled makes me think this solution as it is now isn't really worth. Sting 12:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Some of the additional file weight is due to the way I managed the potraced paths -- I am very new to this svg stuff. I broke the paths apart and that was a step that was perhaps unnecessary and added to the file size. My version was more to answer what seemed to be a simple challenge (more than file purity). I still have the original tracings of the embedded images, I can upload them here or make them available from my web site if anyone is interested to see if the bitmaps can be removed more sensibly. For the depth map, the paths might have been more sensibly made with a smoothed GIMP selection to path and I didn't do that either. The SVG I have created are not too many that I would be able to confidently say that any of them are among the best. Rearranging xml and filling paths others made -- I am fairly good at this lately. (no big deal there) -- carol 16:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks carol. I'm less convinced by the new full svg version : if at small size the rendering is smooth, at full size the steps in the shadow are clearly visible. This plus the fact the file weight doubled makes me think this solution as it is now isn't really worth. Sting 12:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Potrace (which comes with Inkscape and (I think) is older than GIMP), I scanned the grays, without the background, 16 paths each. Then using color information from GIMP (there might be an easier way) I converted the gray filled paths to transparencies of black. The underwater shading needed blurring (so that it looked less like a depth map) and my transparency was not enough -- but I was done with it by then.... The island shading was incredible right out of the trace and needed only the conversion to transparencies of black. My first attempt with potrace and inkscape is:
- Thanks to CarolSpears, I have updated this picture. This map is all-SVG now. It's a little darker than before, but clearer than the Carol's try. I have reduce the weight too. Sémhur 10:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Wow !! I'm impressed ! How did you get this ? I think there's a loss in the underwater shading, less smooth than the original raster one, but the shading on the island is really amazing ... but with a file weight of 7.7MB, is it worth ? Sting 00:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- If you know how to vectorize a raster image of a shaded relief, I'm ready to learn ;-) Sting 15:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- I don't agree, a map in SVG should be scalable at any approach level. I think that you could convert to line the area pixelation. Once you carry out this modification, I will change my vote to favor. Thanks --libertad0 ॐ 15:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support --norro 22:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support Great! Detailed. James1293 22:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support FRZ 01:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Urban 04:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support The orriginal is ok for me. --Manco Capac 06:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support Sémhur 10:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support warmly Really good map. --Pymouss44 Tchatcher - 11:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- WARNING!!! It needs update. The road south from volcano is shown. But it is impassable, completely buried deeply below lava fields since the eruption started in early 1980s. 71.135.48.155 04:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oops ! It seems that the Demis road layer is down-to-date a lot. I will update the map, thanks for your note. Sémhur 07:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- Done. Sémhur 18:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Done. Thanks for the link and the help. Sémhur 17:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Done. Sémhur 18:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - These nominations are a mess! Please put it right so I can promote the right picture!... -- Alvesgaspar 22:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- I have reorganized it. Sémhur 09:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
9 support, 1 oppose > featured -- Alvesgaspar 13:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Support. I know, it is already late, but am sticking to my promise. Thanks for foxing the map around the active volcano. I was not watching Commons for a couple days. Best! And congrats! Barabas 21:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Hong Kong Skyline - Dec 2007.jpg
- Info: The Hong Kong Skyline created and uploaded by Diliff, nominated by --norro 19:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support --norro 19:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose wow wow, but buildings are leaning to the left. Easy to fix I believe, hence my oppose. -- Benh 19:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
* I like the edit even more. --Taraxacum 10:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC) Support Absolutely great! I think the buildings are not leaning to the left, it's a matter of perspective. For me, an excellent panorama of Hong Kong @ Night. --Taraxacum 20:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- it really is leaning to the left (author found out the same on english FPC). All the buildings are leaning to the left the same way which is why I consider this an error. Benh 20:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Those on the LHS are leaning, and those on the RHS are too, to a lesser extent. Those in the centre are straighter. --MichaelMaggs 06:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
* Support Beautiful, though the perspective corrections make it a little strange looking. --Calibas 20:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support Wow! Barabas
- Support Whoa, are you sure it's Hong Kong? Looks more like Coruscant ([4]) to me. Now the real question is, how do you geotag stuff on other planets? (No, 'Top of Jedi Temple' is not geotagging) :-) --Freedom to share 21:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Beautiful. Cirt 00:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support - not the best of days (or should I say nights) for a skyline pic, but it's very nice. --typhoonchaser 06:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
* moving below :) --Leafnode 20:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC) Support I'd say it was great day for this shot - haze over buildings looks great. Impressive! --Leafnode 07:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support Liked the colors. --Manco Capac 08:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
* Moving support to the version below which I think is even better. --Chmehl 18:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC) Support For me the haze makes the wow. --Chmehl 09:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- Oppose Supported the other version. --Chmehl 16:51, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
* Support --Böhringer 12:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support Gordo 15:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support Great! --Karelj 16:09, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Distorted. FRZ 01:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose I prefer the alternative. Lycaon 23:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Leaning buildings. I have supported the alternative. --MichaelMaggs 06:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination --norro 15:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
WIthdrawn >> not featured - Alvesgaspar 10:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Alternative Image:Hong_Kong_Skyline_Restitch_-_Dec_2007.jpg - featured
- Support Diliff has adressed a few issues (including the tilt) on this one, which is the one I prefer too. Benh 18:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support Even better colors and more view on the bottom which is why I am moving my support to this version. --Chmehl 18:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support Hong Kong - a must-see city...especially for skyline fans! A great high-quality panorama. --AngMoKio 22:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support I don't like cities, but the picture is FP! Lycaon 23:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support FP without a doubt Vol de nuit 23:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Thermos 01:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support FRZ 01:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support Slightly better than the previous, which was of very high quality in itself. Naerii 03:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support --norro 09:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support Absolutely great! I think the buildings are not leaning to the left, it's a matter of perspective. For me, an excellent panorama of Hong Kong @ Night. --Taraxacum 20:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support Splendid. --Pymouss44 Tchatcher - 11:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support, better colours and composition than the original. --Aqwis 16:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support better --Leafnode 20:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support Wow. --Calibas 04:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support Like this one better. --MichaelMaggs 06:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support Gordo 07:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Good fixes. Cirt 18:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Böhringer 19:51, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support Excellent work. --Freedom to share 21:05, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support Nifty shot. --JaGa 21:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Simonizer 21:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Rohan 13:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support --junafani 13:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
23 support, 0 oppose >> featured -- Alvesgaspar 17:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Pelagia noctiluca (Sardinia).jpg
[edit] Image:Golden Gate Bridge and sun dog 2.jpg
[edit] Original - not featured
- Info: created, uploaded and nominated by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 16:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Mbz1 16:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment IMO it is a rather interesting and special image with the sun over one tower of the Bridge and w:sundog over the other. If somebody could improve the quality of the image from original jpg format, please let me know and I'll upload it. Thank you.--Mbz1 17:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Reminds me of the old diffraction grating lab that was always done in physics classes. Does it have anything to do with it? Also, could you please explain a bit more about the phenomena, their rarity and the like in the nomination so that we can judge it more objectively? The reality is that most of those that review images for FPC know little about atmospheric phenomena and we would probably require some enlightenment in that area. Thanks, Freedom to share 18:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- Thank you for your comments and questions Freedom to share. w:Sundogs are not rare. I see them maybe 15-20 times per year. In order for sundogs to form there should be ice crystals shaped like this present. They are called horizontal plate crystals and they are present in high clouds. Sundogs are formed when light passes through crystal side faces inclined at 60° to each other. People, who live far North or far South might see sundogs much more often than I do in San Francisco. Sometimes sundogs are created by so called diamond dust, when the weather is cold. What makes my image special IMO is rather not the sundog itself, but sundog and the Bridge together. Besides I relly like how the Sun behind clouds looks. IMO it is interesting. --Mbz1 19:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- I just wanted to add that there were quite a few people taking pictures of Golden Gate Bridge yesterday. I wonder how many of them saw a sundog. I am afraid not so many simply because most of them did not know what to look for.--Mbz1 19:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support Freedom to share 19:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination
Withdrawn >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 19:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Alternative - not featured
- Oppose I personally prefer the first version. Freedom to share 19:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - Tilted -- Alvesgaspar 23:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- Did I understand you right that, if I am to correct the tilte you support the image? :-)--Mbz1 03:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination
Withdrawn >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 19:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Comment - Please don't mess up the usual way of inserting alternatives to the original nomination. That makes the reviewing and closing processes harder to control -- Alvesgaspar 20:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Two Phalacrocorax auritus and one fish.jpg - not featured
- Info: created , uploaded and nominated by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 23:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Mbz1 23:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Anon. user: This picture really "captures the moment" if you know what I'm talking about. If that bird was flying fast, my camera couldn't have done it. :)
- Comment If you are interested what happened to the fish, it was able to escape right after that shot. That's why, Lycaon, I am afraid I was not able to id the fish :-) --Mbz1 23:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- :-)). Lycaon 00:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- BTW, The fish is a salmonid: I can clearly see an adipose fin. Lycaon 14:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- That's nice to know that at least something is seen clearly at my image :-). Thank you, Hans!--Mbz1 14:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- Question: Was it badly oversharpened or it's only some strange kind of motion blur? --Leafnode 10:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- When I nominated the image last night, I hoped that in the morning I would get at least 4-5 oppose votes, and I got only one question! Doing great so far :-) , but jokes aside I know the image has many problems to be opposed for. I nominated it because IMO it is more or less rare action shot and I hoped some of the image's problems might have been mitigated by that fact. Here's is the original version :
. Maybe somebody could do something to improve the image quality. Thank you.--Mbz1 13:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- When I nominated the image last night, I hoped that in the morning I would get at least 4-5 oppose votes, and I got only one question! Doing great so far :-) , but jokes aside I know the image has many problems to be opposed for. I nominated it because IMO it is more or less rare action shot and I hoped some of the image's problems might have been mitigated by that fact. Here's is the original version :
-
I withdraw my nomination in a favor of a much better edit
Withdrawn >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 08:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Two Phalacrocorax auritus and one fish edit.jpg. Edit by User:Lycaon - not featured
- User:Lycaon did a great job with the image, but I am afraid it is still not good enough for him to support his own edit :-)--Mbz1 16:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support--Mbz1 16:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support Of much better quality now. Freedom to share 05:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral Quality is sufficient for me considering the action :) But I still hesitate because of the cropped cormorant on the left. --norro 19:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose composition is not that great (cropped on the left, too much space on the right) -- Gorgo 21:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, it is easy to explain. First I divided the image with two imaginary horizontal and two vertical lines. Then I placed my subjects of interest (two Phalacrocorax auritus and one fish) in one of the "interest points", where horizontal and vertical lines intersect and 4 interest points were created. Then I placed horizons in the upper horizontal line. My main idea here was not to center the subjects. While I was doing all these manipulations, one of my subjects (the fish) almost got eaten while two of my other subjects run out of the "interest points" and almost out of my view finder. I wanted to recompose the image once again, but the fish escaped and birds were gone. :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbz1 (talk • contribs) 00:29, 7. Mai 2008 (UTC)
- You definitively have to work on your animal tamer skills. --norro 11:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- You are absolutely right and I will try next time, only I doubt there would be a next time. IMO it is rather a rare shot and I hoped it might be featured under the criteria " A bad picture of a very difficult subject is a better picture than a good picture of an ordinary subject. ", and I had not just one, but three difficult subjects. Thank you, Norro.--Mbz1 14:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- don't forget the last part of the sentence "A good picture of a difficult subject is an extraordinary photograph." I think featured pictures should't simply be good pictures, they should be some of the best images on commons .. thus extraordinary. -- Gorgo 23:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- That is a personnal (mis)unterstanding of the sentence.--B.navez 02:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- don't forget the last part of the sentence "A good picture of a difficult subject is an extraordinary photograph." I think featured pictures should't simply be good pictures, they should be some of the best images on commons .. thus extraordinary. -- Gorgo 23:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- You definitively have to work on your animal tamer skills. --norro 11:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- IMO most of the FP images we have now including my own FP images cannot be called extraordinary. Informative - yes, valuable - yes, high quality - yes, extraordinary - no.(IMO)--Mbz1 04:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support Though fish rights are not preserved and species identification is missing (I would say maybe Oncorhynchus mykiss, but surely a trout for the fatty fin).--B.navez 16:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, Lycaon was first to mention it, I hadn't read the discussions for the first version. --B.navez 16:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose A very dynamic picture and the subject is interesting, but the exposure time is not high enough for details, the second edit seems oversharpend and together with the cropped wing, it's not FP quality. --Taraxacum 14:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- "A bad picture of a very difficult subject is a better picture than a good picture of an ordinary subject. " from Commons selection criteria. The nominated edit by User:Lycaon is really good. Honestly, when I saw it, I could not believe that I myself took this image :-)--Mbz1 04:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Agree, the edit improves it a lot, but better is not excellent, yet. Nevertheless a good shot. --Taraxacum 06:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Both birds were unfortunately at wrong angle. --Lerdsuwa 18:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- I wish I knew what would have been a better angle in the user opinion. You know, just to ask the birds next time to pose better for FP, but no I'm not really interested in learning the user opinion about the angle. Tha's OK. No worries.
I withdraw my nomination boring!
Mbz1 18:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Withdrawn >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 22:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Turdus migratorius with worms 1.jpg
- Info: created, uploaded and nominated by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 00:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Mbz1 00:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose I think it lacks in sharpness. /Daniel78 20:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Seems to have some misfocus. Head appear not that sharp compare to its wing. --Lerdsuwa 17:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination
Withdrawn >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 22:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Turdus migratorius with worms 3.jpg - not featured
- Support --Mbz1 23:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Flash photo? Too strong shadow behind the bird. Busy background. --Lerdsuwa 18:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- No flash was used, but whatever... Who cares?--Mbz1 18:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination
Withdrawn >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 22:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Mercury transit 2.jpg - not promoted
- Info: created , uploaded and nominated by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 20:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Mbz1 20:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support Most impressive image. --MichaelMaggs 05:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support Amazing image, excellent work. Could you please give us some details on the lens used as well as the body, aperture and shutter speed? Thanks, --Freedom to share 06:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for your question, Freedom to share. I used Canon XTI, which was mounted at 3.1 inches telescope. There are three ways of astrophotography: first is afocal, which means one takes image of the object focusing one's camera at the object as it is seen in an eyepiece of the scope;second is eyepiece projection, which means one takes off the camera lens and mounts the camera at the scope, which has an eyepiece installed;third is prime focus, which means one takes off camera lens and mounts a camera at the scope, that has no eyepiece installed. In that case the scope works simply as a zoom lens. For the first way of astrophotography any camera might be used; the latest two require the use of SLR. I've used prime focus. My scope's focal length is 900 mm, so it is like 900 mm zoom lens. The focus of course is manual. It might be interesting to know that it is very hard to focus. I was lucky because I had a very big sunspot to focus on. I used 1/500 exposure with F8.Of course for taking pictures of the sun one should use a filter. When one puts a filter at the scope, one cannot see anything, but the sun. If one could see something else, but the sun, it means that one's filter is demaged and one would probably go blind as soon as one looks at the Sun. That's why it might be tricky to find the sun. Imagine you're moving your scope around the blue sky, but the only thing you could see is black nothingnss and then suddenly you see the sun and it is exiting!--Mbz1 13:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support Very nice job. --Manco Capac 06:25, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry, I don't see anything impressive. Maybe some experts who are related to that kind of subject think it's excellent work. For me, it's an egg from bottom with some black spots and even fullscale does not reveal anything compared to the thumb. I believe, this is Mercury transit, but a photo having nearly no composition, colour, dynamics and emotion is not suitable for FP. --Taraxacum 11:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Aqwis 14:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- Question: / Comment Why nominating this version and not number 1, or even the animated gif (on which an indication of order & time would be an important addition, by the way) ? Another idea would have been to create a composite picture, as in this picture, but in higher definition and quality, thanks to your great work. Vol de nuit 23:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- Thank you for your questions,Vol de nuit. I do not think I could repeat this picture with my background (the Sun) simply because I cannot make it 100% accurate. The same applies to gif. I created the animation just to illustrate how it looked, but I cannot claim that my animation is accurate. It probably is not. May I please ask you what "number 1" you reffer to? There are few other versions of the same image and I'm not sure what image you meant. I'd also like to mention that your questions are absolutely legitimate and IMO they could be legitimate reasons to oppose the nominated image. Animation might have been better. On the othe hand the only images of the Sun FP has is two images of solar eclipse. IMO it would have been nice to have an image of not eclipsed Sun as FP. Thank you.--Mbz1 00:37, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- Do you mean you do not know the exact time of each picture ? Well, that's quite sad. I still need to think about my vote. For these reasons, and because as I told you previously there are two pictures which look quite similar to me here (1 & 2). In addition, why don't you categorize your picture in Category:Sun too ? By the way, I thought you were right about having no Sun picture as FP, so I just uploaded a few high-definition Sun pictures from SOHO in that category. Maybe one of them could become FP one of these days... Vol de nuit 16:54, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- Yes it is what I mean. I do not know the exact time of each picture. I took very few pictures. The sun went behind the trees. I have not seen the end of the transit. I was lucky to see it at all. The weathermen promised 80%clouds cover that day. You're right there are few pictures in the category, that are identical to the one, which is nominated. They are the same with only minor edits of colors. I do not think SOHO has a free licence. I've uploaded few images from SOHO myself (the two with big prominences as you did) and they got deleted at the same day. I nominated one at Wikipedia FP. See what happened? I ended up adding my own images to w:solar prominence article. If you look at the history you would see edit by Fir0002 with the summary: "replaced copyrighted image". It was, when, he removed the SOHO images I added. You are right - I'm adding "Sun" category to my image.Thank you.--Mbz1 18:40, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- You were right about Soho :( . I guess your picture won't need my vote to become FP. And I hope SOHO pictures will be released in PD soon... Vol de nuit 20:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- Sure my picture will need your support. Just wait and see haw many more FP reviewers would complain that the sun looks as "egg from bottom with some black spots and does not show any emotions" ( I wish I knew what "bottom", or maybe I wish not) :-)In any case I'd like to thank you for your comments and suggestions. --Mbz1 20:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- You were right about Soho :( . I guess your picture won't need my vote to become FP. And I hope SOHO pictures will be released in PD soon... Vol de nuit 20:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support --B.navez 10:50, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- Question: Is the grainyness in the sun a feature of the sun itself or does it come from the imaging process ? I have seen both grainy and non grainy images before. /Daniel78 10:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- Thank you for your very good question, Daniel78. The feature you see is called granulation--Mbz1 13:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support Thanks for the link. However there also appears to be some posterization, you know why ? However still I think this is a very valuable and good image so I'll support it. /Daniel78 21:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- Part of this might be because the brightness of the sun is not even. This phenomena is known as w:limb darkening. Most of it however is due to the image not being perfectly taken and not being perfectly post-processed. The questions you're asking are very good ones and the problems you point out to might be legitimate reasons to oppose the image. Still IMO this image is very valuabale because it not only shows the Sun and sunspots, but also Mercury, which gives the readers ability to compare the size of the sun with the size of a small planet. It might be hard to comrehend that the mass of the Sun is 99.98% of the Solar System's mass. Everything else: Planets, Moons, Asteroids, Comets are only 0.02%. That's why IMO the image with all its imperfection could be concidered to get FP status. BTW the image was selected from few dozen images, which were submitted, and published at NASA site Earth Science Picture of the Day . Thank you.--Mbz1 00:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose agree with Taraxacum -- Gorgo 21:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- I've told you, Vol de nuit :-)--Mbz1 00:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination
Withdrawn >> not promoted -- Alvesgaspar 22:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Fair Ellen.jpg
[edit] Original (left)- not featured
- Info: created, uploaded and nominated by Laitche -- Laitche 13:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support I took this photo today.（＾＾）／ -- Laitche 13:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
* I moved my support the latest nomination above. --Taraxacum 13:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC) Support A classical approach, technically perfect.
- Oppose Technically it is nearly perfect (i miss the stem in focus). The background is 2 distracting 4 my taste, especially the flower on the left side in the background. It could be more chic --Richard Bartz 17:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose per Bartz. Barabas 20:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry, the backgound is too distracting. Moving the camera to get an all-green background would have been better. --MichaelMaggs 06:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support so good --Beyond silence 17:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support I tried hard but the background didn't distract me at all, sorry. FRZ 01:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral Good pic but don't we have enough FP of flowers ? --Pymouss44 Tchatcher - 11:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
3 support, 1 neutral, 3 oppose >> no featured -- Alvesgaspar 22:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Alternative - not featured
- Info: Cloned out the flower on the left side in the background and cropped. -- Laitche 10:19, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Laitche 10:19, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support--Beyond silence 08:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Unfortunately the picture now feels unbalanced with all the red colours on the right. --norro 12:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry, the backgound is still too distracting. Moving the camera to get an all-green background would have been better. --MichaelMaggs 20:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination Thanks. -- Laitche 14:35, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Withdrawn >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 20:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Pahoeoe fountain original.jpg - not featured
- Info: created by USGS - uploaded by Saperaud - nominated by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 18:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Mbz1 18:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Comment A few dust spots and a scratch from scanning is visible in the middle of the image. Removing should be easy. Otherwise a really impressing picture. --Chmehl 18:47, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Too noisy and scratched. One must shoot a much better picture for featuring. --B.navez 18:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support I like this original better. /Daniel78 10:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Supporting edit2 instead /Daniel78 14:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
1 support, 1 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 08:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Pahoeoe fountain original-edit11.jpg - not featured
-
- I've remvoed the scratch. I'm not sure about dust. They might be very small lava rocks.--Mbz1 19:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support--Mbz1 19:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Please link all edits/versions with each other. It's so often forgotten. /Daniel78 23:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Done. Thank you.--Mbz1 01:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support FRZ 01:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Liking the clear, stark colors. Cirt 02:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Urban 04:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support I have seen much finer pictures of lava fountains, but unhappily with no free license. So I support for the catching of the phenomenon which is very impressive.--B.navez 04:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support The wow compensates for the missing sharpness. --Chmehl 06:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support a phenomenally composed image IMHO. --- Anonymous DissidentTalk 08:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Just because I think the original version looks better, this seems oversharpened (for lack of better words to describe it), it's very visible on the thumbnails. Maybe it's just me :), anyway I support the original instead. /Daniel78 10:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I know what you mean, but I'd like to mention that the above edit was not sharpened at all. I only made it a little bit darker. Thank you.--Mbz1 13:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose By the help of this edit it is unrealistic now. --Manco Capac 11:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Unfortunate edit of his spectacular image. Lycaon 23:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose per Manco Capac. --MichaelMaggs 05:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you, B.navez, for the link and for the comment. Beautiful images!--Mbz1 13:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
7 support, 4 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 22:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Pahoeoe fountain edit2.jpg - featured
- Comment I kept the original colors in this edit. Only removed scratches. Thanks.--Mbz1 12:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support--Mbz1 12:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Richard Bartz 20:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support Much better, thanks. /Daniel78 14:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- I liked Image:Pahoeoe fountain original-edit11.jpg, but this one is great as well. Cirt 18:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support ok for this one too --B.navez 23:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Naerii (talk• contribs)
- Support --Böhringer 22:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Karelj 21:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Rohan 13:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
9 support, 0 oppose >> featured -- Alvesgaspar 20:32, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Station de métro Porte de Vincennes à Paris en restauration.jpg - not featured
- Info: Ads from the sixties revealed by the workings in the parisian subway station "Porte de Vincennes" — Created, uploaded and nominated by Romanceor 04:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - I don't see why this is featured quality material. --- Anonymous DissidentTalk 08:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support urban times are passing, very meaningful picture --B.navez 10:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose In general a nice subject, but I think the quality is not good enough. --Taraxacum 11:00, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral a nice idea and composition. The quality is a bit problematic..did you make the photo with a tripod? --AngMoKio 11:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Info: Yes I did (1/3s). --Romanceor 13:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support Good composition and original subject. It makes a change from the over-coloured HDR and the macros of insects. --Pymouss44 Tchatcher - 11:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral I like the idea and intention very much, but composition and lighting are not perfect in my opinion. Not sure yet. --norro 11:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose per AngMoKio. Lycaon 11:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Info: New, better quality version. --Romanceor 14:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral If it were not for the camera shake, I would support it. -- Klaus with K 11:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
2 support, 3 neutral, 3 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 20:35, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Fly April 2008-12.jpg
[edit] Original - not featured
- Info: The Stomorhina lunata is a fly of the Calliphoridae family, quite often misidentified because of the unusual band pattern in the abdomen, resembling a hoverfly. This specimen is a male and was found in Lisbon, close to my house. Created & nominated by Alvesgaspar 11:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Alvesgaspar 11:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support — Lycaon 18:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral after a long time of thinking: technically a great image, but the composition doesn't wow me. --AngMoKio 20:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
2 support, 1 neutral >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 13:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Alternative 1 (centre) - not featured
- Support - With the dry flower in the foreground cloned out -- Alvesgaspar 14:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Question: Good clone-work. But is it realistic that a fly has its leg hanging in the air? I am not a biologist, so i really don't know. It just seems strange to me... --AngMoKio 17:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- I think it is, like in this other picture -- Alvesgaspar 18:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Böhringer 22:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Prefer the unedited version. /Ö 09:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
2 support, 1 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 20:36, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Alternative 2 (right) - not featured
- Support - Please consider aldo this alternative view -- Alvesgaspar 22:15, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Given high bar of insect shots. Little contrast between fly and background that does not seem to be due to camouflage. Freedom to share 14:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
1 support, 1 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 22:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Sphegina montana Syrphidae.jpg -featured
- Info: created , uploadedm & nominated by -- Richard Bartz 16:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Info: A 3x magnification of Sphegina montana which is a very rare and tiny (2-3mm) Syrphid fly on Marsh Marigold (Caltha palustris). This picture offers both - a detailed image of the Syrphid and a very detailed/magnified image of the Marsh Marigold stems. If you Google around you will find out that there are only 2 pictures of this Syrphid available in the whole internet, thats because its so rare. P.S. this animal lives in a swamp.
- Support -- Richard Bartz 16:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Very good indeed. As you know the exact species, why not create a category for it and add the picture to it? --MichaelMaggs 16:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- I tried here but it didnt work that it is displayed in the syrphidae category--Richard Bartz 17:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- I have created a species cat for you. It's not linked via a full taxonomic tree as Wikispecies does not list this species, and I don't know enough to do it otherwise, but better than nothing. --MichaelMaggs 06:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support Now that it is categorized to species level ;) --MichaelMaggs 06:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Good detail and focus on the key areas of the image. Cirt 18:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Böhringer 22:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support Excellent shot of a difficult and rare subject. --Freedom to share 07:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support // tsca [re] 10:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support — Lycaon 18:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
7 support, 0 oppose >> featured -- Alvesgaspar 20:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Rubik's cube.svg - featured
- Info: A Rubik's cube. Created , uploaded by Booyabazooka, nominated by --norro 20:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support Please take the file extension into account. --norro 20:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support Nice work. --Freedom to share 20:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support Great!
213.140.6.120 21:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)Jacopo 21:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC) - Support well done. Lycaon 21:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Richard Bartz 00:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support Very nice. I love seeing SVG work like this. Rocket000 04:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support Very nice. --Manco Capac 06:24, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support A very good image, nice job making this. Cat-five 06:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support Excellent... --Dsmurat 12:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- 支持 -- Laitche 15:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- Stödjer /Daniel78 16:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Very nice SVG, will be quite useful cross-projects. Cirt 18:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support --MichaelMaggs 19:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support --AngMoKio 23:12, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support originality = valued. --- Anonymous DissidentTalk 00:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support - very encyclopedic, also. Leo Johannes 09:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support - very useful image for encyclodeia.--Pauk 10:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support // tsca [re] 10:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support Simply Excellent --Mifter (talk) 13:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- A favor Fantastic SVG Rastrojo (D•ES) 18:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support Amazing SVG Anonymous101 19:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support Perfect SVG! Masur 20:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support Perfect --Nevit Dilmen 07:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Alvesgaspar 15:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support very good /Ö 09:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support--Kfasimpaur 17:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support --junafani 13:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
25 support, 0 oppose >> featured -- Alvesgaspar 20:42, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Rubik's cube v3.svg - not featured
- Info: Alternative with corrected colors, added shadow and reflection. Uploaded by Niabot, nominated by --Niabot 15:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Richard Bartz 22:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- This is also good, but I prefer it without the shadow. /Ö 09:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Don't like the shadow and the reflection. --norro 15:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I like
better. It has no shadow but with fixed color. /Daniel78 19:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
1 support, 1 oppose >> not featured - Alvesgaspar 20:42, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Prunus cerasus LC0133.jpg - not featured
- Info: Blossoms of sour cherry (Prunus cerasus); created, uploaded and nominated by LC-de 20:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- LC-de 20:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose A pretty image, but to my eyes the background is too busy. --MichaelMaggs 06:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Taraxacum 15:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Böhringer 22:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Not bad, but the leaf above the blossom would have to be in focus, too. --Freedom to share 07:31, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
3 support, 2 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 20:43, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Lift arms with hammer against.jpg- not featured
- Info: created by AKA MBG - uploaded by AKA MBG - nominated by AKA MBG -- AKA MBG 08:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- AKA MBG 08:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
|
|
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because of little value and of very poor photographic quality -- Alvesgaspar 09:14, 9 May 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. |
Result >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 08:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Pavlovsk Railing of bridge Yellow palace Winter bw threshold.jpg - not featured
- Info: created by AKA MBG - uploaded by AKA MBG - nominated by AKA MBG -- AKA MBG 20:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- AKA MBG 20:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support Very interesting work!--Mbz1 21:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose The delicate iron-cast railing was removed by the BW rendering. IOW, not really good quality. Lycaon 21:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Clearly overdone -- Alvesgaspar 23:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose I agree with Alvesgaspar.. Overedited. JDiPierro 01:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Creating pure black and white (binarized) images can give very nice results sometimes. However I do not think this one is in a league of it's own although I do like it. To me it seems like a simple threshold value has been used in the binarization step. A more adaptive approach or a en:Morphological image processing technique could possibly provide a more interesting result. /Daniel78 00:32, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment OK. Thank you for your comments. I should think about remaking this binarized image.
I withdraw my nomination AKA MBG 09:52, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Withdrawn >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 10:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Neuenburg Kollegiatskirche Kirchenhof.jpg - not featured
- Info: created and uploaded by Ikiwaner - nominated by Klaus with K -- Klaus with K 14:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support Good Herr Stahlhoefer 00:01, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support I like the church relief and the translucent green of the trees. -- Klaus with K 14:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral So do I. But it's leaning to the right, composition is very narrow and I don't like the crowd in front of the church. --norro 16:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral No, it's not leaning - I had similar impression while reviewing it for QI, but I've checked it and it's perfectly straight. But it looks like, and because of it, I remain neutral --Leafnode 10:25, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose I see nothing special. Moreover, trees in front of it are distracting. Barabas 23:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose ack Barabas. DocteurCosmos 09:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
2 support, 2 neutral, 2 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 15:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:New Horizons Liftoff.jpg - not featured
- Info: created by NASA - uploaded by White Cat - nominated by White Cat -- Cat ちぃ？ 06:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support I couldn't decide if cropped version or non cropped version was better so I nominated both. -- Cat ちぃ？ 06:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - Really noisy image. Not one of NASA's best - Peripitus 12:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
1 support, 1 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 15:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:New Horizons Liftoff (croped).jpg - not featured
.jpg)
- Info: created by NASA - uploaded by White Cat - nominated by White Cat -- Cat ちぃ？ 06:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support I couldn't decide if cropped version or non cropped version was better so I nominated both. -- Cat ちぃ？ 06:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - Really noisy, and artifacted, image. Not one of NASA's best - Peripitus 12:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
1 support, 1 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 15:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Toulon Faron3 P1440701-P1440708.jpg
Note: There is an aircraft carrier (the Charles de Gaulle) in the picture. Find it. :-)
- Info: created, uploaded and nominated by David Monniaux-- David.Monniaux 07:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- David.Monniaux 07:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Image resolution is rather weird, is this a stitched panoramic? -- Cat ちぃ？ 08:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Stitched panoramic indeed. David.Monniaux 16:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Image resolution is rather weird, is this a stitched panoramic? -- Cat ちぃ？ 08:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Rather noisy and unsharp. Furthermore, fast moving objects (in casu the speed boat) are prone to yielding stitching errors. Lycaon 09:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose As Lycaon. --Karelj 19:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
1 support, 2 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 15:20, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Chrysanthemum coronarium - not featured
- Info: created, uploaded and nominated by Laitche -- Laitche 18:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Laitche 18:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Good quality of the picture, but I dislike the flower in the center and the leaf on the right troubles me --Alipho 19:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Question: - Are you sure about the species? The leaves don't seem to match. It could be another Glebionis (G. segetum?) or even a Coleostephus myconis -- Alvesgaspar 08:43, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- It is not possible to identify the plant just by the flower, there are many similar species, like the Anthemis sp. and the Coleostephus myconis. The leaves of the G. coronaria look like this. -- Alvesgaspar 17:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks Alves, I'll check it out again. :) -- Laitche 18:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- I took the picture of the flowers and the leaves. Here >> Image:DSC01835.jpg. I think this flower is Chrysanthemum coronarium. What do you think? -- Laitche 10:20, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- I agree, concerning the picture at left. But there are here two types of C. coronarium: the one all yellow and the discolor variety. As far as I know they don't occur in the same plant -- Alvesgaspar 11:39, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- It looks same but I think that's different one, like this one(
). -- Laitche 13:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- It looks same but I think that's different one, like this one(
- I agree, concerning the picture at left. But there are here two types of C. coronarium: the one all yellow and the discolor variety. As far as I know they don't occur in the same plant -- Alvesgaspar 11:39, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- It is not possible to identify the plant just by the flower, there are many similar species, like the Anthemis sp. and the Coleostephus myconis. The leaves of the G. coronaria look like this. -- Alvesgaspar 17:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Composition too bland imo, the stem at the top right is highly irritating with that choice of point of view. Freedom to share 15:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination Thanks. -- Laitche 13:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Withdrawn >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 08:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Coat of arms of Mexico.svg - featured
- Info: uploaded by AlexCovarrubias - nominated by Jon Harald Søby -- Jon Harald Søby 17:19, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support Jon Harald Søby 17:19, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support // tsca [re] 10:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Question: Is the eye suppose to be orange. I like it better this way, but if that's how it's suppose to be then, ok. Rocket000 17:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support Very nice and clear. Good svg work. Masur 20:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Beyond silence 14:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support - very clear... --typhoonchaser 15:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
5 support, 0 oppose >> featured -- Alvesgaspar 18:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Garden of Eden ArchesNP MC.jpg - featured
- Info: created, uploaded, and nominated by Chmehl 08:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support The Garden of Eden in Arches national Park. A few climbers on the second pillar from the left visualize the size. -- Chmehl 08:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Aqwis 09:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Simonizer 16:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support Lycaon 19:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support--Mbz1 23:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support --JaGa 21:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support - Peripitus 12:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support Freedom to share 14:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose. Not enough wow. Barabas 23:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose As Barabas. --Karelj 19:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support. Very nice. --Pauk 05:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
9 support, 2 oppose >> featured -- Alvesgaspar 08:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:HP Pavilion (angle).jpg featured
.jpg)
- Info: HP Pavilion in San Jose, California, home to the San Jose Sharks (hockey) - everything by JaGa -- JaGa 09:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- JaGa 09:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Question: Can you please provide a more detailed image description about what this pavilion is about? I don't know what I am looking at. And do you have a less tight cropped version available? --norro 10:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- The HP Pavilion is a sports venue in San Jose, best known as the home of the San Jose Sharks (pro hockey), but also hosts the SAP Open (men's tennis tournament) and San Jose SaberCats (arena football). It hosts about 160 events a year, seating just under 20,000 people (the amount of seating available depends on the event). I went with a tight crop because (1) the foreground is a parking lot, not very pretty and (2) the picture is pretty wide already, and I want it to fit in Wikipedia pages. --JaGa 17:28, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Comment That's exactly the type of information that should be put to the image description page. :) Thank you. --norro 19:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- The HP Pavilion is a sports venue in San Jose, best known as the home of the San Jose Sharks (pro hockey), but also hosts the SAP Open (men's tennis tournament) and San Jose SaberCats (arena football). It hosts about 160 events a year, seating just under 20,000 people (the amount of seating available depends on the event). I went with a tight crop because (1) the foreground is a parking lot, not very pretty and (2) the picture is pretty wide already, and I want it to fit in Wikipedia pages. --JaGa 17:28, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support
but there are still a few (probably fixable) stitching errors noticeable.Lycaon 19:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC). There are a few minor ones left, but they are trivial (and only visible withe magnifying glass ;-)). It is quite difficult to match up everything with all the straight lines (hugin or no hugin). Lycaon 09:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)- Can you point us to the stitching errors? I can't find any... --Chmehl 22:01, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support Impressive quality. Freedom to share 10:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Beyond silence 14:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose. Boring picture. Barabas 23:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- weak Oppose, I have to agree with Barabas /Ö 09:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose IMO no composition, no wow, no interesting architecture, just an ad for HP. Sorry. --Taraxacum 14:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support Good quality and useful image. /Daniel78 09:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support Great quality! Chmehl 13:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
6 support, 3 oppose >> featured -- Alvesgaspar 20:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Lynx der lander.jpg - not featured
- Info: Shot and nominated by myself -- Hebster 12:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support Hebster 12:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support Nice image, good choice of shutter speed imo. --Freedom to share 07:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - Por lighting resulting in a poor image quality and lack of detail -- Alvesgaspar 18:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose noisy & artifacts Movieevery 20:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Karelj 19:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
3 support, 2 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 20:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Konica Minolta alvesgaspar.jpg
- Info: Despite its limitation this camera has done a wonderful job and win a couple of FP. Maybe it deserves now some recognition... Composite picture made of seven photos, using focus brackting and a tripode. Natural light, taken on the kitchen table. Created & nominated by Alvesgaspar 13:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Original (left) - not featured
- Support -- Alvesgaspar 13:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose, very unsharp. --Aqwis 13:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Question: - Very unsharp? Are we talking about the same picture? This is a A3+ image which should be viewed from at least 50cm away -- Alvesgaspar 13:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- I don't see any reason why it should not be judged by the same sharpness criteria as any other image. It's not really huge either, at 5.5 megapixels. --Aqwis 13:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I think sharpness in general is ok. But if you look at the top of the camera (for example at the "Konica Minolta" writing) there is a strange blur. Maybe with another image focussed slightly more to the back you get sharper edges? Another thing which can be easily corrected is the bright reflection seen on the background (left side, lower third of the image). --Chmehl 14:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Contra Bad lighting (inconsistent color temperature of light sources), some spherical aberration due to wide aperture (or just dirt?), random reflections in front lens, really odd background. Neither documentary nor studio style. --Dontpanic 14:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Contra Agree with Dontpanic --norro 16:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
1 support, 3 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 17:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Alternative (right) - not featured
- Support - Wow, this is more difficult than I thought (especially avoiding the geometric aberration). What about this one? -- Alvesgaspar 17:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support Interesting shot given photographic technique used. Freedom to share 14:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose For the exorbitant effort i find the result disappointing. --Richard Bartz 17:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- What effort? Have you heard of this?... -- Alvesgaspar 21:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- sure --Richard Bartz 22:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- What effort? Have you heard of this?... -- Alvesgaspar 21:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose, I am sorry but I still feel it is far too unsharp for an FP. --Aqwis 07:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
2 support, 2 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 20:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:76.Pollineta a Agullana.JPG - not featured
- Info: taken, uploaded and nominated by Lascorz. Young female of Catalan Donkey photographed in northern Spain province of Girona, while rising the sun in early december 2007. -- Lascorz (I'll read it)
19:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC) - Support -- Lascorz (I'll read it) 19:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- A favor Rastrojo (D•ES) 19:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Too small and the sky is burnt out. --Freedom to share 21:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - Poor lighting causing the subject to be in the shadow and showing no details. Alvesgaspar 16:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose As above. --Karelj 18:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose as above /Ö 09:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
2 support, 4 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 20:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Dsm pano.jpg -not featured
- Info: created, uploaded and nominated by Muhammad -- Muhammad Mahdi Karim 15:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Muhammad Mahdi Karim 15:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose on grounds of composition. In my opinion, it would be better to simply just take an image of one of the subjects (building OR cemetery), but both of them seem to fill the image up necessarily while not focussing on a central subject. Freedom to share 19:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Common image of common object with no wow factor. --Karelj 19:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Common image of common object on commons. That has to be a wow factor! (just kidding. Thanks for your criticism) Muhammad Mahdi Karim 20:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose I agree with Fts concerning composition. I added Category:Islamic cemeteries as I found it relevant. The road in front of the cemetary and building is really pretty straight, isn't it. With the projection used it looks very distorted, which for me does not help either. Could benefit from geocoding. I know you can do that now ;-) -- Slaunger 21:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for categorizing it. And yeah, I can geocode now, thanks to you :) Muhammad Mahdi Karim 21:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
1 support, 3 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 20:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Thraciae-veteris-typvs.jpg - not featured
- Info: created, uploaded and nominated by Adamantios 15:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Adamantios 15:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Should be crisp. Lycaon 16:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Poor quality, map cropped -- Alvesgaspar 23:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment "This image has been assessed using the Quality image guidelines and is considered a Quality image"! Commons lacks common sense... Adamantios 08:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- It would not be given the QI seal if it was nominated these days. There will always be errors of judgement, but that's not a disaster. Lycaon 06:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Nice and interesting document, but insufficient sharpness for FP (and even for QI...). What happened with the edges: damaged by fire? -- MJJR 21:16, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
1 support, 3 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 20:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Cox Ford Bridge, IN 1.jpg - not featured
- Info: Cox Ford covered bridge, Indiana. Created, uploaded, and nominated by Dschwen
- Support -- Dschwen 18:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose No wow factor and the trees at both sides of the image are rather unsharp IMO. Sorry.--Mbz1 19:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- That's called Depth of field. They are not the main subject, and please consider the overal resolution of the image. --Dschwen 19:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Nice Image. I like the green and pink colours. But the picture is a little unbalanced in my opinion. The main subject is much to small and the blue of the sky is a unnecessary additional colour. I would choose a horizontal instead of a vertical format without sky, only the bridge, green branches and the pink flowers. --Simonizer 22:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Nice, but nothing special. Probaly a HDR with the interior would be nice. MatthiasKabel 14:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
1 support, 3 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 20:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Sultan Omar Ali Saifuddin Mosque 02.jpg - featured
- Info: created by Sam Garza (Flickr) - uploaded by Kimse - nominated by Kimse -- Kimse 03:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support Liked the combination of the colors and the high quality of the image -- Kimse 03:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support Excellent compostition and nice colors, could use a bit of noise reduction (see water) though. --Chmehl 05:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Not a bad composition indeed, but in addition to the bit of noise in the darkest parts, the building exhibits some rather disturbing perspective deformation: everything leans to the centre of the image. Lycaon 05:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose ack Lycaon - noise, leaning buildings --Leafnode 10:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC) Neutral but perspective could use a little bit more work --Leafnode 05:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Karelj 18:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support per Kisme - but Lycaon has a point, it would be nice if the perspective were corrected. --JaGa 21:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I coorected the perspective. It was not much just 2.6° --Ikiwaner 23:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support --B.navez 17:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support I like it a lot --Eric Pouhier 20:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support So do I. --MichaelMaggs 20:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support Excellent photo. I suggest to geocode it - adds value. -- Slaunger 22:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Taraxacum 14:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Kfasimpaur 17:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Laitche 21:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
11 support, 1 neutral, 1 oppose >> featured -- Alvesgaspar 08:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Kaiseradler Aquila heliaca amk.jpg
[edit] Original (left) - not featured
- Support -- AngMoKio 15:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Simonizer 16:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- A favor WOW! Rastrojo (D•ES) 19:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support top --Böhringer 19:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support--Mbz1 00:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - Nice picture but needs denoising (not only in the background) -- Alvesgaspar 16:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- I tried to improve it a little - also by reducing size as i am not a big fan of denoising. Better? --AngMoKio 17:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - Its not a good idea when editing images during a nomination. I have 2 agree with Alves. Tone value priority is a nice thing but can cause heavy noise. EXIF infos would be great --Richard Bartz 17:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- yeah guess you are right...so far I mostly added a new version to the nomination. Somehow I had the idea to make it different this time...god knows why :) Do you think that the current version is still too moisy? (EXIF: F/7.1, 1/400s, iso 800 [tripods are not allowed there], 200mm[x1,6] ) So far I haven't found a good way to denoise, that's why I don't really like it. Do you have a good way to denoise...maybe you want to give it a try? :) (The original version is still in the image history) Oh yes and I used tone value priority..but so far i don't understand in which situations it creates noise. --AngMoKio 20:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- For denoising you can try this. I dont use it anymore but its free. Denoising works best on a raw/psd level at 16 bit. Do you took raw files ?--Richard Bartz 21:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks, I will give it a try. Unfortunately i didn't take raw files. --AngMoKio 21:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- What a pity. When having RAW available it would be possible to bring back the drawing on the washed out white feathers --Richard Bartz 22:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks, I will give it a try. Unfortunately i didn't take raw files. --AngMoKio 21:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- For denoising you can try this. I dont use it anymore but its free. Denoising works best on a raw/psd level at 16 bit. Do you took raw files ?--Richard Bartz 21:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- yeah guess you are right...so far I mostly added a new version to the nomination. Somehow I had the idea to make it different this time...god knows why :) Do you think that the current version is still too moisy? (EXIF: F/7.1, 1/400s, iso 800 [tripods are not allowed there], 200mm[x1,6] ) So far I haven't found a good way to denoise, that's why I don't really like it. Do you have a good way to denoise...maybe you want to give it a try? :) (The original version is still in the image history) Oh yes and I used tone value priority..but so far i don't understand in which situations it creates noise. --AngMoKio 20:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Karelj 17:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Supporting the noise-reduced version --Chmehl 08:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Question: Several people have used the expression "deionise", which I understand means to remove ions (eg from water). Is it being used synonymously with "noise reduction" here? If so, it's a usage I have not seen before. --MichaelMaggs 20:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Greenish white-balance. -- Ram-Man 00:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
5 support, 4 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 20:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Edit (right) - featured
- Comment Added new version Is it better concerning noise? --AngMoKio 18:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support --AngMoKio 20:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Yes, it is! -- Alvesgaspar 20:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- thanks :-) took me quite some nerves to get it done. --AngMoKio 20:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support Excellent shot, a pity about the lack of tripod by IS seems to have compensated well for it. (you used IS, right?) Freedom to share 20:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- yes..it was an IS lense. --AngMoKio 20:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support Noise dont bother me anymore. But i support this as well --Simonizer 21:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support Nice shot! --Chmehl 08:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Karelj 19:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support --MichaelMaggs 20:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Böhringer 21:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Taraxacum 14:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Richard Bartz 17:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Greenish white-balance. -- Ram-Man 00:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Out of focus feathers. Barabas 21:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
10 support, 2 oppose >> featured -- Alvesgaspar 22:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Galaxies Gone Wild!.jpg - featured
- Info: created by NASA - uploaded by White Cat - nominated by White Cat -- Cat ちぃ？ 06:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Cat ちぃ？ 06:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Mbz1 13:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Karelj 17:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Are the individual images uploaded ? In that case it would be very nice to link this image to the smaller ones. It's far from always that the montage is the ideal. One might want one of the individual images instead. /Daniel78 19:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Hubble has taken 59 images of Galaxy collisions. They are all uploaded to commons: User:White Cat/To boldly go where no one had gone before#Cosmic Collisions Galore!. I do want to point out that some of the individual images are over 10MB in size. They too can be individually nominated for featured status. :) -- Cat ちぃ？ 00:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support --MichaelMaggs 20:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support --junafani 12:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support /Daniel78 17:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support Valuable. --mh 09:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
7 support, 0 oppose >> featured -- Alvesgaspar 08:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Victoria Crater taken by Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter.jpg - featured
- Info: created by NASA - uploaded by White Cat - nominated by White Cat -- Cat ちぃ？ 07:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support This is a stereo image. -- Cat ちぃ？ 07:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support cool --Richard Bartz 08:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support--Mbz1 13:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support Very interesting and valuable shot. Freedom to share 16:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support Nice. --mh 09:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
5 support, 0 oppose >> featured -- Alvesgaspar 08:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Forestry Forwarder Ösa 250 2.jpg - not featured
- Info: created, uploaded & nominated by -- Richard Bartz 09:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Info: Do you like MONSTERMACHINES ? As shown a Forwarder. A forwarder is a vehicle that carries logs from the stump to a roadside landing. Unlike a skidder, a forwarder carries logs clear of the ground, which can reduce soil impacts but tends to limit the size of the logs it can move. Forwarders are typically employed together with harvesters in cut-to-length logging operations.
- Support -- Richard Bartz 09:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support I prefer this one. :) -- Laitche 11:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support--Mbz1 13:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Ikiwaner 21:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC) I also prefer this. I like the rather dark mood. --Ikiwaner 21:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral High quality picture but too static for my taste--B.navez 01:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose No wow factor for me. Just mechanical monster in forest. --Karelj 19:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose No wow for me either. --MichaelMaggs 20:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose composition -- Gorgo 22:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose poor composition and underexposed. JDiPierro 01:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
4 support, 1 neutral, 4 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 11:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Forestry Forwarder Ösa 250 2.jpg - not featured
- Info: created, uploaded & nominated by -- Richard Bartz 09:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Info: Alternative
- Support -- Richard Bartz 09:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support--Mbz1 13:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose composition, lighting -- Gorgo 21:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support good composition showing vehicle at work and skilled light balance (not easy for this kind of scene when spring morning sky is so luminous and wood inside yet so dark)--B.navez 01:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose No wow for me. It's a pity the subject is in shadow. --MichaelMaggs 20:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thats forrest --Richard Bartz 17:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Would support this if it were not underexposed, considering fixing. JDiPierro 01:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Pretty ordinary picture, no wow. Barabas 18:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
3 support, 3 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 11:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Pelargonium graveolens - featured
- Info: created, uploaded & nominated by Laitche -- Laitche 11:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Laitche 11:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support Lycaon 11:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support Solid and good quality. Freedom to share 16:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Böhringer 22:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support Nice quality on the image --Kanonkas(talk) 05:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support I prefer the composition of this one compared to the older nominated one. --Taraxacum 14:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support. This is an image of one of the flowers in the cluster. I don't see what's wrong with that. --MichaelMaggs 20:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- If it becomes a FP, this picture will be prefered to any other to show how a rose geranium is flowering and it would give a wrong opinion. Laitche had the choice as we can guess in some backgrounds of the series. Why did he arrange to show only one flower each time ? This a HQI but not an encyclopedic one. --B.navez 02:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- I added the image of the cluster in other versions. :) -- Laitche 07:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- I cancel my opposition to this one for the effort but waouh what an extraordinary picture the cluster one !--B.navez 08:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC) --B.navez 08:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- I added the image of the cluster in other versions. :) -- Laitche 07:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support Very nice composition. Muhammad Mahdi Karim 21:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
8 support, 0 oppose >> featured -- Alvesgaspar 11:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Mandoe.JPG - not featured
- Info: created by Bertilvidet - uploaded by Bertilvidet - nominated by El Comandante --El Comandante
Hasta ∞ 18:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC) - Support I'm not sure if it's really valuable but I think it's so beautiful that maybe someone will find a value to this picture... -- El ComandanteHasta ∞ 18:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Nice idea. But image quality is not too good and I would like to see it landscape format and with greater DOF. But I really like the idea. --norro 19:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Excellent idea, bad execution from a technical point of view. More depth of field would be good. Freedom to share 14:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support Wow, nice! --Karelj 19:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Nice idea, but the object is not complete and the DOF to small. MatthiasKabel 19:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Interesting and surprising image. Unfortunately the image quality is not on par with expectations for an FP. I suggest you geocode the image. -- Slaunger 21:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose As above, DOF is too shallow. --Cpl Syx 16:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
2 support, 5 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 22:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Mallard 080508.jpg - not featured
- Info: created by Anton Holmquist Soasta - uploaded by Soasta - nominated by Soasta -- Soasta 16:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Soasta 16:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Exposure could be better to bring out the details on the feathers. Freedom to share 21:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - I agree. Also the general quality is not enough -- Alvesgaspar 22:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
1 support, 2 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 22:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Wasp May 2008-1.jpg - not featured
- Info: A queen paper Wasp (Polistes gallicus) taking a rest. At this time of the year they are usually taking care of the new colony. They leave the nest only for short periods to gather food and drink for the larvae. Created & nominated by Alvesgaspar 23:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Alvesgaspar 23:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Not enough wow. Barabas 22:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
1 support, 1 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 22:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Podarcis sicula.jpg - not featured
- Info: Portrait of an Italian Wall Lizard, Sardinia, Italy created, uploaded and nominated by Lycaon 22:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Lycaon 22:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Most of the body is out of focus. For a photo site it might be ok, but this is an encyclopedia, and here it is a very serious drawback. Barabas 22:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Please have a look at the scope of commons again... Lycaon 22:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose As Barabas and also not good composition, only half of creature is visible on image. --Karelj 18:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral I find the crop a bit awkward. I would crop about one third on the right side to get rid of the out of focus area in the bottom right corner. I would also crop something of the upper background part. There should be enough resolution in this image. Chmehl 20:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination The flood of stars disturbed this nom (and others) ;-(, I'll try again later... Lycaon 22:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Withdrawn >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 08:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Swamp Milkweed Asclepias incarnata Flowers Closeup 2800px.jpg - not featured
- Info: Created, uploaded, and nominated by Ram-Man. -- Ram-Man 02:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Info: Swamp Milkweed (Asclepias incarnata) flowers.
- Support This is my favorite milkweed flower photo. It's got great composition, DoF, and high quality. It even has an insect. It's useful for illustrating a number of Wikipedia articles. -- Ram-Man 02:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- At f/13 @ 6MP, the DoF is already at a maximum. -- Ram-Man 11:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Image to be deleted, license not allowed on Commons. --B.navez 18:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination Apparently one panicky user is resulting in no one voting on this image, so I'll just renominate it again after this debacle is concluded. Thanks a lot, really. -- Ram-Man 12:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Withdrawn >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 07:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Hubble Interacting Galaxy NGC 6050 (2008-04-24).jpg - not featured
.jpg)
- Info: created by NASA - uploaded by White Cat - nominated by White Cat -- Cat ちぃ？ 10:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Cat ちぃ？ 10:44, 13 May 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 guidelines | 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, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- 1,052 × 1,052 is too small? -- Cat ちぃ？ 12:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- “Guideline: Images should have at least 2 real megapixels of information, for example, 1600x1250.” –Dilaudid 15:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- 1,052 × 1,052 is too small? -- Cat ちぃ？ 12:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Oppose- Unsharp Mww113 22:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Result >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 11:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Bath-Abbey02.jpg - not featured
- Info: created by Nikater - uploaded by Nikater - nominated by Nikater -- Nikater 06:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
{FPX} Oppose Very poor photographic quality (heavy artifacts and noise) -- Alvesgaspar 08:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)}}
- Support Removing template, I think that quality is not so tragic, size is OK and I like this image. --Karelj 19:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose The noise is indeed far too much, sorry. --MichaelMaggs 20:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Info: Noise reduced. --Nikater 20:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Very noisy, lots of posterization, little details. Sorry. Lycaon 21:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose It is a nice scenary when seen in thumbnail size and I like the relections in the wet road. However in preview and at full resolution I have to echo the criticism raised by other opposers concerning the overall image quality and noise levels, which is beyond repair. Also the crop at the upper edge is a little too tight for my taste. I suggest you geocode the photo. Adds value. -- Slaunger 21:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Quality way too low, distracting trees in front of abbey. Nice composition though. Freedom to share 14:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
1 suppotr, 5 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 07:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Libellula quadrimaculata - featured
- Info: created, uploaded and nominated by Böhringer 12:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Böhringer 12:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support nice --Mbdortmund 18:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support 2004 ! I hadn't a camera at that time --Richard Bartz 20:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral - Can't oppose because of the superb composition. But the image quality is far worse than comparable FP's -- Alvesgaspar 23:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support I had the chance to play around with a D7 once. Quite a nice camera. Freedom to share 07:40, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Simonizer 21:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
5 support, 1 neutral, 0 oppose >> featured -- Alvesgaspar 22:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Riviere Langevin Trou Noir P1440224-35.jpg - not featured
- Info: created, uploaded and nominated by David Monniaux -- David.Monniaux 16:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- David.Monniaux 16:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Composition does not work for me (lower left corner - the plants are quite disturbing and would need to be blurred out using a shallower depth of field) and the colours could use some work. Freedom to share 19:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Not bad image, but quality not enough, I recommend to enhance sharpeness. --Karelj 19:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Agree w Fts and on top of that the image has no non-trivial categories/is not included in any relevant galleries. Could benefit from geocoding. Lightning conditions not very attractive. What happened to the EXIF? -- Slaunger 20:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- There is no EXIF since the picture is a stiching. ;-) David.Monniaux 23:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- If it is a stitch I see why the EXIF is not there. The stitching job is well done by the way. Could you then please state explicitly some basic information such as: Camera/lens used. Shutter speed, aperture, ISO, no of images used, stitching software ... -- Slaunger 05:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- SupportExcellent composition and colours. Note falls are souring directly out from the cliff : this is not common.--B.navez 02:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Mbz1 03:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Overexposed (washed out). The subject is very interesting, so I am surprised, the image did not touch me emotionally. Barabas 23:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
3 support, 4 oppose -- not featured Alvesgaspar 22:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image: Assomption de la Vierge.jpg - not featured
- Info: created by Eric Pouhier - uploaded by Eric Pouhier - nominated by Eric Pouhier -- Eric Pouhier 19:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Info: -- White Balance calibrated on site Eric Pouhier 19:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Several problems, of which I will list a few
- The LHS/RHS crop is not balanced
- The perspective distortion is severe and distracting.
- The crop at the top is unfortunate as it cuts the arc - gives it a point and shoot character (which I know it isn't as you must have used a tripod with the shutter speed of 1.3 s)
- The image page description says it is in English but the text is French?
- The image is not categorized at all on Commons nor added to any relevant content page galleries
- Although the diffuse lightning gives many details in the photo (and the DOF is very good btw) it is also quite uninteresting IMO. Does not catch my eye.
- Sorry, -- Slaunger 20:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, I forgot. The orange glas candle light(?) is distracting. -- Slaunger 20:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support Solid, good technical quality, straightforward and illustrative. Freedom to share 14:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Lerdsuwa 18:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral High quality but composition ... -- Laitche 20:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Not interesting enough for a FP. Barabas 21:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support Really sharp and valueable.--Beyond silence 15:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose per Slaunger. Images should be categorized before they are nominated here. --MichaelMaggs 18:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
3 support, 1 neutral, 3 oppose -- not featured Alvesgaspar 22:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Mallard 080508.jpg - not featured
- Info: created by Anton Holmquist Soasta - uploaded by Soasta - nominated by Soasta -- Soasta 16:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Soasta 16:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Exposure could be better to bring out the details on the feathers. Freedom to share 21:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - I agree. Also the general quality is not enough -- Alvesgaspar 22:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
1 support, 2 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 22:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Spider and mites May 2008-1.jpg - featured
- Info: Two very different species of arachnids sharing a flower: a female Misumena vatia (Goldenrod crab spider) and some velvet mites. The largest mites are less than 1,5mm long. Created and nominated by Alvesgaspar 21:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Alvesgaspar 21:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support Where do you find all these amazing insects?--Mbz1 23:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support I suspect some staging, this pappus delicately put aside : the result is seizing. --B.navez 18:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- No staging, I would prefer the pappus not to be there :-) -- Alvesgaspar 21:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Böhringer 06:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support though I don't discern any 'insects' ;-) -- Lycaon 17:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Two different species of 8-legged insects is enough reason for a speedy promotion of the pic! -- Alvesgaspar 19:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Speedy Promote --Richard Bartz 21:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)- Support--Laveol 12:04, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support --MichaelMaggs 08:38, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
8 support, 0 oppose >> featured -- Alvesgaspar 22:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Hubble Interacting Galaxy Arp 148 (2008-04-24).jpg - not featured
.jpg)
- Info: created by NASA - uploaded by White Cat - nominated by White Cat -- Cat ちぃ？ 10:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Cat ちぃ？ 10:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose, unsharp and too small. No strong mitigating reasons; not even close to the quality of our existing astronomy FPs. --Aqwis 12:08, 13 May 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 guidelines | 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 12:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Result >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 23:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Arch.usa.arp.750pix.jpg - not featured
- Info: created by Jon Sullivan - uploaded by Liftarn - nominated by Barabas -- Barabas 18:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Info: While this is a lower resolution image, it is the best one available, clearly showing the scale of the arch with good lighting, i. e. the best composition. Barabas 18:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Barabas 18:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose, "good lighting"? No way. --Aqwis 19:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- It is not perfect lighting, ok? I went through dozens and dozens of pictures and most of them were taken with the arch side in shadow. Barabas 19:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
|
|
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because much to 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. |
Please read guidelines before submitting or assessing nominations. Thank you. Lycaon 19:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- I did read them, maybe you missed my comment above. I think the quality of the composition compensates for the size. Thank you. Barabas
- It is true that most of the pictures of the Delicate Arch have one side of the arch in the shadow but this is the cost of having a good (i.e. sunset) lighting and a nice composition with the La Sal Mountains in the background. See also the already featured picture
. Chmehl 19:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- I liked the one I nominated because there are people next to it. That gives an idea about dimensions of the arch. And lighting is also good. Thanks for your comment. Barabas
- It is true that most of the pictures of the Delicate Arch have one side of the arch in the shadow but this is the cost of having a good (i.e. sunset) lighting and a nice composition with the La Sal Mountains in the background. See also the already featured picture
- Oppose Angle. Mww113 23:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Result >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 22:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Female artistic nude.jpg - not featured
- Info: created by iryna stevens - uploaded by Yamavu - nominated by Yamavu -- Econt 14:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Econt 14:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Support, --Aqwis 14:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)- Ah wait, too small. Sorry. --Aqwis 14:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
|
|
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because too small -- Alvesgaspar 15:30, 14 May 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. |
- Oppose Good pic, but too small. --ShakataGaNai Talk 20:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Sorry because it only has 0.66 Megapixel instead of 2+, because the Flickr account where I got this one ain't a Pro account. Requested a bigger version from the creator, but for now the naomination might as well close. --Yamavu 09:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Result >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 18:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Tulips - OR.jpg - not featured
- Info: created by, uploaded by & nominated by ShakataGaNai Talk
- Support -- ShakataGaNai Talk 20:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Such a close up has to be crisp, and the species/cultivar has to be known. tulip is insufficient. Lycaon 20:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment well if you know, let me know. I certainly dont. --ShakataGaNai Talk 20:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose per Lycaon. --MichaelMaggs 20:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
|
|
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because with a subject that is an unidentified plant. Freedom to share 21:32, 14 May 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:White Flower Closeup.jpg - not featured
- Info:- Created By fmc.nikon.d40 on Flickr - uploaded by Mww113 - nominated by Mww113 -- Mww113 23:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Mww113 23:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Info: - Please notice that without a proper identification of the species the picture has little chances of promotion -- Alvesgaspar 23:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Regardless of the identification, the resolution is too low, it looks oversharpened at that, and there is some color fringing. It's at least somewhat detailed enough to be useful, but not enough for a FP. -- Ram-Man 00:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose DOF strange, also odd fringing. Also not 2Mpx. --ShakataGaNai Talk 07:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
|
|
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because too small and of insufficient depth of field Freedom to share 14:39, 14 May 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. |
Result >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 18:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image: Assomption de la Vierge.jpg - not featured
- Info: created by Eric Pouhier - uploaded by Eric Pouhier - nominated by Eric Pouhier -- Eric Pouhier 19:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Info: -- White Balance calibrated on site Eric Pouhier 19:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Several problems, of which I will list a few
- The LHS/RHS crop is not balanced
- The perspective distortion is severe and distracting.
- The crop at the top is unfortunate as it cuts the arc - gives it a point and shoot character (which I know it isn't as you must have used a tripod with the shutter speed of 1.3 s)
- The image page description says it is in English but the text is French?
- The image is not categorized at all on Commons nor added to any relevant content page galleries
- Although the diffuse lightning gives many details in the photo (and the DOF is very good btw) it is also quite uninteresting IMO. Does not catch my eye.
- Sorry, -- Slaunger 20:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, I forgot. The orange glas candle light(?) is distracting. -- Slaunger 20:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support Solid, good technical quality, straightforward and illustrative. Freedom to share 14:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Lerdsuwa 18:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral High quality but composition ... -- Laitche 20:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Not interesting enough for a FP. Barabas 21:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support Really sharp and valueable.--Beyond silence 15:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose per Slaunger. Images should be categorized before they are nominated here. --MichaelMaggs 18:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
3 support, 1 neutral, 3 oppose -- not featured Alvesgaspar 22:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Riviere Langevin Trou Noir P1440224-35.jpg - not featured
- Info: created, uploaded and nominated by David Monniaux -- David.Monniaux 16:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- David.Monniaux 16:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Composition does not work for me (lower left corner - the plants are quite disturbing and would need to be blurred out using a shallower depth of field) and the colours could use some work. Freedom to share 19:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Not bad image, but quality not enough, I recommend to enhance sharpeness. --Karelj 19:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Agree w Fts and on top of that the image has no non-trivial categories/is not included in any relevant galleries. Could benefit from geocoding. Lightning conditions not very attractive. What happened to the EXIF? -- Slaunger 20:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- There is no EXIF since the picture is a stiching. ;-) David.Monniaux 23:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- If it is a stitch I see why the EXIF is not there. The stitching job is well done by the way. Could you then please state explicitly some basic information such as: Camera/lens used. Shutter speed, aperture, ISO, no of images used, stitching software ... -- Slaunger 05:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- SupportExcellent composition and colours. Note falls are souring directly out from the cliff : this is not common.--B.navez 02:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Mbz1 03:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Overexposed (washed out). The subject is very interesting, so I am surprised, the image did not touch me emotionally. Barabas 23:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
3 support, 4 oppose -- not featured Alvesgaspar 22:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:JewliaEisenberg August2007.jpg - not featured
- Info: created by Asaf antman (Flickr) - uploaded by Bruce1ee - nominated by Bruce1ee -- Bruce1eetalk 07:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Bruce1eetalk 07:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Noisy, unsharp and showing posterization. Furthermore, as the file is at the lower size limit, improvement will be near impossible. Lycaon 07:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support Excellent photo, great lighting, could possibly use noise reduction, but I see nothing else wrong. JDiPierro 01:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Removing an FPX template does NOT mean removing a user's remarks!! — Lycaon 05:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry, not sharp enough for me, and the burnt-out forehead is too prominent. --MichaelMaggs 06:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - Nice expression, terrible quality -- Alvesgaspar 08:35, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 3 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 09:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Kaiseradler Aquila heliaca 2 amk.jpg - featured
- Info: Portrait of an Aquila heliaca.--AngMoKio 15:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Info: created, uploaded and nominated by AngMoKio -- AngMoKio 15:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- AngMoKio 15:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- CommentIt is a really nice image. May I please ask you why not to add it to this nomination? IMO these are very similar images of probably the same bird and one FP of it should be enough. Thank you.--Mbz1 16:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support Change of vote becase the second image of this bird was not featered and this image has IMHO good quality. --Karelj 16:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- You are mistaken. The image Image:Kaiseradler Aquila heliaca e amk.jpg was featured.--Mbz1 05:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- To both of you. I think it is a different composition and atmosphere in this pic. I also had your thought for a moment but then I remembered how many bees, hoverflies and wasps of the exact same species we have as FP already. So I see no reason not to nominate this additional eagle-pic. And in the end what is wrong about having several FPs of one and the same subject? You never know what kind of pic someone searchs and needs. And with FP we want to give a source for good pictures...at least that's how I think about it.--AngMoKio 17:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support I totally agree with AngMoKio. I wouldn't care featuring fourteen images of the same subject if they are excellent. This one is, in my opinion. --norro 18:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Extreme crop -- Alvesgaspar 23:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Laziale93 10:04, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support Schönes Porträt. Besser noch als das andere Bild (und das ist schon sehr gut) und somit auf jeden Fall featured-würdig. Ich geb dir völlig recht. Wenn ich dran denke wie viele Bilder von Insekten zwar mit guter Qualität aber nur mit mittelmäßiger Komposition gefeatured sind, dann macht für mich ein zweites gefeaturetes Bild von ein und demselben Vogel das Kraut nicht fett. --Simonizer 13:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support Solid, proper image of good, strong, powerful bird. Freedom to share 15:43, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support s.Simonizer --Böhringer 19:36, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support, it's very good pic. --Pauk 22:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Ack the above. Barabas 18:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose IMO the image should be added to other_versions of already feutured Image:Kaiseradler Aquila heliaca e amk.jpg. The image are of the same head of the same bird taking at the same day. I see no reason to feature a second image. Sorry--Mbz1 05:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- Hm...to be consequent you should start nominating a lot of insect FPs for delisting now. You are aware of that, right? And I really don't understand your reasons...what is wrong about having 2 different pictures of the same bird on the same day? How do you know that someone is not searching for a pic where the front of the bird is visible?! What is in your opinion the purpose of FP?! And if I might add that: To oppose because of those reasons says that you don't judge the photo itself but follow your own rules that don't exist in the FP criteria. --AngMoKio 06:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- You are right, I do not know, if somebody is or is not searching for a pic where the front of the bird is visible. That's why I suggested adding the image to other_versions of the aleady featured picture. If I'm looking for an image of a specific bird or animal, I'd rather go to category and see all images availabale.You are also right about insect images. There are many almost the same. I'm not going to nominate them on delisting because I'm afraid I will not succeed. IMO the more images of the same subjects FP has the less value each image and FP in general have. IMO the biggest purpose of FP is to educate, to introduce an interesting, high quality image to a Wikipedia reader and let the reader an opportunity to learn more about the subject.May I please ask you a question too? Why, when Karelj has changed his/her vote to support the image, you did not tell him/her that the other one got featured?
-
- Hm...to be consequent you should start nominating a lot of insect FPs for delisting now. You are aware of that, right? And I really don't understand your reasons...what is wrong about having 2 different pictures of the same bird on the same day? How do you know that someone is not searching for a pic where the front of the bird is visible?! What is in your opinion the purpose of FP?! And if I might add that: To oppose because of those reasons says that you don't judge the photo itself but follow your own rules that don't exist in the FP criteria. --AngMoKio 06:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Anyway, I believe this image would also get featured, so no worries. Thank you.--Mbz1 13:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Dear MBZ i am not permanently present on commons. I can't always check if someone misunderstood sth. Thank you. --AngMoKio 22:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- Support Great eyes. --Manco Capac 07:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose There is already one featured picture that is nearly identical in subject matter. As a matter of fact, I've often requested the delisting of duplicate images and am happy to support those delistings. As per Mbz1, this is a matter of the purpose of a FP, to feature the very best and to not allow duplicates. -- Ram-Man 11:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- This is not a duplicate. It is another picture. But it doesn't make sense to discuss as we have completly different opinions about FP. For me it is a source for the best pictures of commons. I don't see a reason why not all great pictures of bees, eagles, flowers or what ever should get featured. We are not only talking about the subject on the picture but also about different compositions. --AngMoKio 22:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
result: 9 support, 4 oppose >> featured -- Alvesgaspar 09:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Schloss Nymphenburg Munich.jpg - not featured
Alternative
- Info: created , uploaded & nominated by --Richard Bartz 17:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Info:The Nymphenburg Palace (German: Schloss Nymphenburg) is a Baroque palace in Munich, Bavaria, Germany. The palace was the summer residence of the rulers of Bavaria.
- Support --Richard Bartz 17:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support Is it real ? --B.navez 18:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support Nice.（＾＾）／ -- Laitche 18:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
-
Move Moved to the alternative(Edit 3). -- Laitche 07:26, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose, cyan colour cast. --Aqwis 20:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 1 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 09:04, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Edit 1 (centre) featured
- Info: With color correction as i was in a different color space
- Support --Richard Bartz 21:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support Even better.--Mbz1 21:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Support, better. --Aqwis 21:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)- Support great --Simonizer 22:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - Great quality but unbalanced composition with too much empty foreground. I would crop about 15% of it at the bottom -- Alvesgaspar 23:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- There are wonderful statues in the foreground which i wanted 2 give enough space. Otherwise this park is part of the whole complex and the picture would get this typical pano stripe shape which i dont like, but feel free to do another edit. --Richard Bartz 23:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Böhringer 06:04, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support difficult decision btw cropped and uncropped ...but the argument by Richard that the statues need space somehow convinced me. Though I normally am a friend of tight crops. --AngMoKio 14:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support Good, but could be a little better. The lighting is kinda flat a little bit of Curves would do nicely on the highlights. Plus the colors are kinda dull, I discovered a new method of increasing the saturation without screwing up the luminosity that I'm willing to share. Switch to LAB color, then increase the contrast (works best in CS3) for the A and B channels and switch back to RGB. Viola, increased saturation without all the problems of the Hue/Saturation adjustment. --Calibas 02:32, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Thermos 08:12, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Laitche 10:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support Excellent work Freedom to share 15:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Nice work, indeed. But wow is missing. 71.135.33.48 03:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
result: 8 support, 0 oppose >> featured -- Alvesgaspar 09:04, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Edit 2 (right) - not featured
- Info: Here is what I mean -- Alvesgaspar 08:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support Alvesgaspar 08:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Support, you're right. --Aqwis 12:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)- Comment A tighter crop by Alvesgaspar! ...alone this deserves a support ;-) --AngMoKio 14:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination Alvesgaspar 08:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
result: Withdrawn >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 08:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Edit 3 (alternative) - not featured
- Info: created by Richard Bartz, nominated by Laitche -- Laitche 07:22, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Laitche 07:22, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support, waiting for the next edit :p. --Aqwis 12:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination Thanks. -- Laitche 10:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
result: Withdrawn >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 08:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Triumph Tulip Tulipa 'Prinses Irene' Single 2859px.jpg - featured
- Info: Created, uploaded, and nominated by Ram-Man. -- Ram-Man 01:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Info: Triumph Tulip (Tulipa 'Prinses Irene')
- Support -- Ram-Man 01:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support Gorgeous colours, perfect composition, amazing depth of field. JDiPierro 01:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose I like washed out flowers at background and I love colors, but I do not like the front flower cut and IMO it is noisy. Sorry.--Mbz1 03:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- It's not even close to noisy. You're the only person I know who would look at the darkish corner of the image instead of looking at the flower. This was shot with a 6MP SLR with the lowest ISO setting. You can't get much better noise control than this. -- Ram-Man 03:51, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- " You're the only person I know who would look at the darkish corner of the image instead of looking at the flower. " RM.
Would it be the right thing to say that now you know the second person? :-)--Mbz1 14:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- " You're the only person I know who would look at the darkish corner of the image instead of looking at the flower. " RM.
-
-
-
- Support--Mbz1 15:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - Agree with Mbz1. Beautiful bokeh but unbalanced composition and poor image quality. -- Alvesgaspar 08:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support Am I the only one who first looks at the flower, then at the darkish corner? Freedom to share 15:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support Beautiful. I think it is the property of bokeh, not noise. --Lerdsuwa 17:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support ! --Calibas 01:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support Great composition, beautiful color, excellent detail on the tulip. Great work. --JaGa 07:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Interesting composition, but nothing wow or high value for FP. --Beyond silence 15:53, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose As Beyond silence. --Karelj 18:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose What Beyond silence said, plus what article would the picture illustrate? Don't get me wrong, I love the colors and congratulate the author with a wonderful capture. I simply think it does not fit FP criteria, that's it. Barabas 23:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- Well you think it doesn't meet the FP criteria but why don't you just read the FP criteria then you know for sure? Encyclopedic value or the usage of a picture in an article is not relevant here. --AngMoKio 06:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral I like the idea but the space on the left is a bit too big for me. I would prefer a slightly tighter crop. --AngMoKio 06:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- I chose this crop because it maximized the visual space. Anyone can crop for their own purposes, but you can't add back what isn't there. I'd be happy to do it if your vote made the different between a FP and not (which it is as I write this), but it would require a new voting period. So if this fails, perhaps I'll try a cropped version later, but no one will notice it way down here I think. -- Ram-Man 01:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support After days of ruminating... It deserves better than falling through. Lycaon 18:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support - wonderful piece of art - Peripitus 11:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support "wallpapered" -- User:Canislupusarctos18:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support Great balance. --Manco Capac 07:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
result: 11 support, 1 neutral, 4 oppose >> featured -- Alvesgaspar 09:07, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:GreatEgret Alligator.jpg - not featured
- Info: created, uploaded, and nominated by Justin DiPierro -- JDiPierro 01:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- JDiPierro 01:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose The image should only focus on one of them as otherwise it is very difficult to have them both in focus. Furthermore, there is some serious chromatic aberration on the bird. Freedom to share 15:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Composition. There is nothing to tie the two animal together to make the photo interesting. --Lerdsuwa 17:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support The egret and alligator together make it a very interesting composition.--Mbz1 19:28, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Unfortunate composition, not a very good DOF and then the disturbing CA that Fts mentioned. Lycaon 06:27, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose CA fringing visible even at thumbnail size...now if the egret was standing on the alligator - Peripitus 12:47, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose I don't like the composition; DOF-problems. --Mbdortmund 09:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral The composition is perfect: the triangle of bodies of animals, the twig that divides them. --AKA MBG 09:59, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Composition. –Dilaudid 16:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support Composition is very interesting, quality is good. However, focus is a problem. --Kimse 01:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
result: 3 support, 1 neutral, 7 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 09:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Brown Pelican Pelecanus occidentalis Wings 1918px.JPG - not featured
- Info: Created, uploaded, and nominated by Ram-Man 01:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Info: A brown pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis) drying his wings.
- Support -- Ram-Man 01:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support Solid and proper. Freedom to share 15:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - I don't like the extreme contrast between the subject and the background as if the photo were taken at night with a flash. And the tight crop. of course. -- Alvesgaspar 23:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- This was taken during the day with shade in the background. I think the contrast helps highlight the feather detail, which is the whole point, as opposed to this image of the same bird a year before. Personal preference I guess. -- Ram-Man 00:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Aqwis 17:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose medium sharpness and light. --Beyond silence 15:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose The extreme contrast bothers me. --MichaelMaggs 17:59, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support use a tad of noise reduction in the BG, though. Lycaon 19:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support Interesting and very detailed picture of the feather.--Kimse 01:24, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
result: 5 support, 3 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 09:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Red-necked wallaby442.jpg - featured
- Info: created by, uploaded by and nominated by Benjamint 01:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Benjamint 01:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support Nice catch. I like the way in which only the head is in focus. Freedom to share 15:51, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Lerdsuwa 18:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - The quality is excellent but wow is missing -- Alvesgaspar 23:04, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose per Alvesgaspar. Lycaon 06:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose per Lycaon --Richard Bartz 08:34, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support An excellent pic, I hope it has a chance under the domination of all these insects, flowers and bird lovers. --Taraxacum 12:04, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support Not bad! --Karelj 19:28, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support Great detail. --Manco Capac 07:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
result: 6 support, 3 oppose >> featured -- Alvesgaspar 09:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Lily-flowered Tulip Tulipa 'West Point' Flowers 2000px.JPG - not featured
- Info: Created, uploaded, and nominated by Ram-Man 02:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Info: Lily-flowered Tulip (Tulipa 'West Point')
- Support -- Ram-Man 02:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Very beautiful image, but noisy. Sorry. I will support the image, if the noise could be reduced--Mbz1 03:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- I never cease to be shocked at votes. If this is noisy, then we will have to require pictures from full-frame digital SLRs only or require images to only use the upper 75% of the tonal range. Of course you can see noise when viewing a 30+" magnification from 18" away! This is the pinnacle of extreme pickiness. And an "Oppose" vote at that, not even a "Neutral". Even you admit that it's beautiful, but the impossible quality standard takes priority. And I will *not* denoise the image, that's just totally rediculous. -- Ram-Man 03:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- "...but impossible quality standard takes priority." RM ;
"This is the pinnacle of extreme pickiness. And an "Oppose" vote at that, not even a "Neutral"." RM.
Well, I had some great teachers and you were one of the best. Thank you.--Mbz1 14:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- "...but impossible quality standard takes priority." RM ;
- Support You know what, if nobody, but me see the noise, it probably really is my extreme pickiness. which made me to oppose the image. Sorry.--Mbz1 15:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry, but I find the background too confusing, especially the other yellow tulips one of which confuses the outline of the main subject. --MichaelMaggs 06:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment It seems to have a red colour cast. --norro 08:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Lerdsuwa 18:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral - Can't oppose, as I find the composition of the two flowers superb. But the background is indeed distracting (BTW, what's wrong with denoising?) -- Alvesgaspar 23:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- It doesn't need it. -- Ram-Man 23:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Opposesorry, I have to agree with Michael Maggs. But there is no noise problem imho. --AngMoKio 11:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Just what AngMoKio said. Barabas 17:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral I like the thumbnail (nice composition), and compliment the quality. But I think there's too much stuff in the background. In particular, the unfocused yellow tulips on the right are distracting. --Kimse 01:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
result: 3 support, 2 neutral, 3 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 09:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Monarch Viceroy Mimicry Comparison.jpg - not featured
- Info: Images created by Ram-Man (left) and PiccoloNamek (right). Uploaded by Lokal_Profil (left) and Ram-Man (right). Composite created and uploaded by Ram-Man. 05:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Info: This image is a composite created for en:Monarch (butterfly) to explain Müllerian mimicry.
- Support We already have a similar standalone monarch featured picture, but we don't have a composite featured picture like this. Both images are at least decent quality, although I had to upsample the right image, so on its own it isn't FP material. Perhaps it isn't fancy enough (like a poster), but it's definitely useful and educational. -- Ram-Man 05:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support--Mbz1 14:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose I believe that for an FP composite, both images should be FP material, which they aren't (even if you look at size). We need to draw up criteria for such a type of image. Freedom to share 17:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Very useful yes. But not FP material in my view, as it's a simple concatination of two images, one of which is itself not up to FP standards. --MichaelMaggs 17:35, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support Good quality macro. Barabas 17:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support Nice. The one on the right though is not that great. --Kimse 01:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
result: 4 support, 2 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 09:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Kanton Zürich Detail DE.png - not fetaured
- Info: created, uploaded and nominated by Tschubby -- Tschubby 05:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Tschubby 04:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support Nice detail. --Beyond silence 15:49, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Very nice topographic map. The availability of a SVG file would have been more practical for translations, but the PNG without label is ok. Can you indicate the projection used for the map ? (I suppose it's UTM regarding the type of coordinates). I'm also very interested to know where you got the valuable information of the bathymetry. Sting 14:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - Just some short remarks. I find the level of generalization a little excessive for this scale (about 1:135 000) i.e., much more detail could be shown. For example, showing the contour lines would be nice. Also, area symbols (instead of point symbols) should be used to represent (at least) the major cities, as their actual limits are visible in this scale. And, of course, the map projection should be identified. -- Alvesgaspar 18:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose I am puzzled by the insistence that the drawing above (Image:Wikipe-tan full length.png) must be in SVG, but here it seems OK that this map is formatted in PNG. For translation and a number of other reasons, this map should be in SVG. My primary reason for a reluctant oppose, however, is that there is no "Wow" factor. It is most certainly carried out with a great deal of finesse and hard work, but there is no pizzazz, no insight. Finally, I believe that Alvesgaspar's comments, particularly concerning the major cities' actual limits to be a reason to oppose this as a Featured Picture. Madman2001 13:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
result: 3 support, 1 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 09:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Libellula quadrimaculata 3.JPG - not featured
- Info: created by Username - uploaded by Username - nominated by Username -- Böhringer 06:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Böhringer 06:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support --norro 08:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support Sauba --Richard Bartz 08:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support Schön umgesetzt. --AngMoKio 10:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support--Mbz1 14:04, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Compression artifacts.. on the legs for example.. sorry.. Yzmo 15:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral a bit noisy. -- Laitche 16:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support Although sharpness is slightly lacking, the wow factor more than makes up for it. --MichaelMaggs 17:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
result: 4 support, 1 neutral, 1 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 09:48, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Noise reduced version - featured
- Support Removed some of the BG noise. Lycaon 23:04, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support This version is really better, also bcs in the orignial version are some clonings and maybe also some dust spots visible that are now gone. --AngMoKio 23:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Laitche 07:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support --MichaelMaggs 08:37, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Alvesgaspar 10:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Laveol 15:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Karelj 19:30, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support es ist wirklich besser, Komplimet --Böhringer 20:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support Excellent work. Freedom to share 19:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Simonizer 21:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
10 support, 0 oppose >> featured
[edit] Image:Church of Šėta001.jpg - not featured
- Info: created by Matasg - uploaded by Matasg - nominated by Matasg -- Matasg talk 13:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Matasg talk 13:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Glow, noise, sky colour, perspective, and most importantly, the upper right corner. –Dilaudid 17:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Mww113 22:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- Comment please state reason for opposition as a courtesy to the author/uploader. Lycaon 20:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose I like the shot in general, but it looks like it was motion blurred. --ShakataGaNai Talk 07:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 3 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 11:59, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Bud syringa vulg.jpg - not featured
- Info: Buds of lilac Syringa vulgaris, East Bohemia, Czech Republic created by Karelj - uploaded by Karelj - nominated by Karelj
- Support --Karelj 19:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Interesting composition, but missing wow or high value for FP. Lycaon 20:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose -- As Lycaon and also for the poor exposure choice, resulting in a too short DOF -- Alvesgaspar 22:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose I'm not sure why the nominator opposed in this nomination, but in comparision, the DoF on this one is not enough. -- Ram-Man 05:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 3 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 12:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Galopprennen Guedingen.jpg - not featured
- Info: created, uploaded and nominated by Flicka -- Flicka 20:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I'm nominating this picture although there are large parts of overexposure (unfortunately the jockeys always wear these snow white shining trousers.. why don't they prefer a nice light brown or something like that?) The reason I think it's a good picture is the race situation and the leading horses "face expression". -- Flicka 20:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Too hard light resulting in overexposure, underexposure and hard shadows on the subject, and front horse is cropped. --norro 20:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Given the circumstances i think this is a rather decent photo (running horses aren't always that easy to get the right light on) but i think that it's a real shame that you have cropped the tale of the horse :( --Hebster 05:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
result: 0 support, 2 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 12:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Hubble Interacting Galaxy ESO 593-8 (2008-04-24).jpg - not featured
.jpg)
- Info: created by NASA - uploaded by White Cat - nominated by White Cat -- Cat ちぃ？ 10:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Cat ちぃ？ 10:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose, same as the rest. --Aqwis 22:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
1 support, 1 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 12:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Hubble Interacting Galaxy NGC 454 (2008-04-24).jpg not featured
.jpg)
- Info: created by NASA - uploaded by White Cat - nominated by White Cat -- Cat ちぃ？ 10:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Cat ちぃ？ 10:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose extremely noisy. Lycaon 12:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose, same as the rest. --Aqwis 22:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
1 support, 2 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 12:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Hubble Interacting Galaxy UGC 8335 (2008-04-24).jpg - not featured
.jpg)
- Info: created by NASA - uploaded by White Cat - nominated by White Cat -- Cat ちぃ？ 10:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Cat ちぃ？ 10:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose, same as the rest. --Aqwis 22:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
1 support, 1 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 12:04, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Hubble Interacting Galaxy NGC 6786 (2008-04-24).jpg - not featured
.jpg)
- Info: created by NASA - uploaded by White Cat - nominated by White Cat -- Cat ちぃ？ 10:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Cat ちぃ？ 10:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose, same as the rest. --Aqwis 22:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
1 support, 1 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 12:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Hubble Interacting Galaxy NGC 17 (2008-04-24).jpg - not featured
.jpg)
- Info: created by NASA - uploaded by White Cat - nominated by White Cat -- Cat ちぃ？ 10:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Cat ちぃ？ 10:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose, same as the rest. --Aqwis 22:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
1 support, 1 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 12:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Hubble Interacting Galaxy ESO 77-14 (2008-04-24).jpg - not featured
.jpg)
- Info: created by NASA - uploaded by White Cat - nominated by White Cat -- Cat ちぃ？ 10:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Cat ちぃ？ 10:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose, same as the rest. --Aqwis 22:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
1 support, 1 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 12:02, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Hubble Interacting Galaxy UGC 9618 (2008-04-24).jpg - not featured
.jpg)
- Info: created by NASA - uploaded by White Cat - nominated by White Cat -- Cat ちぃ？ 10:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Cat ちぃ？ 10:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose, noisy and unsharp. Not even close to the quality of our existing astronomy FPs. --Aqwis 12:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- No there are a lot of noise here that are not stars. /Daniel78 21:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- Oppose per Aqwis. Lycaon 12:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
1 support, 2 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 12:07, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Hubble Interacting Galaxy Arp 256 (2008-04-24).jpg - not featured
.jpg)
- Info: created by NASA - uploaded by White Cat - nominated by White Cat -- Cat ちぃ？ 10:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Cat ちぃ？ 10:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose, unsharp, not even close to the quality of our existing astronomy FPs, too much empty space. --Aqwis 12:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose per Aqwis. Lycaon 12:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
1 support, 2 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 12:07, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Hubble Interacting Galaxy NGC 6670 (2008-04-24).jpg - not featured
.jpg)
- Info: created by NASA - uploaded by White Cat - nominated by White Cat -- Cat ちぃ？ 10:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Cat ちぃ？ 10:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose, unsharp; not even close to the quality of our existing astronomy FPs. --Aqwis 12:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose per Aqwis. Lycaon 12:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose as per my comment below, wow factor would require that the "noise" that is stars be more aesthetically pleasing. -- Ram-Man 00:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
1 support, 3 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 12:06, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image: LA_Skyline_Mountains.jpg
[edit] Original - not featured
- Info: created by Navid Serrano - uploaded by Navid Serrano - nominated by Navid Serrano -- Navid Serrano
- Oppose It is a very attractive image when seen in thumbnail size. The lightning is very good and the camera location seems to have been pretty perfect. Line of sight was good, so good shooting conditions. However at preview and full resolution it strikes me as being very noisy and without much detail. I think you could have benefitted from taking several, zoomed images and stitch it all together afterwards. This will give you much more details. With care and skill a nocturnal LA panorama like this can be made. Unfortunately the camera EXIF is lost in the editing process. In such cases it is even more important to at least state the date the photo was taken in the date parameter and preferably state some core settings used when taking the photo (at what time of day, shutter speed, aperture, ISO setting). The image could benefit from geocoding - add value. Sorry. -- Slaunger 21:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose agree with slaunger, very noisy -- Gorgo 22:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Karelj 16:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support This is a rare and interesting perspective of Los Angeles. I am willing to give it thumbs up even though there is some noise. Barabas 21:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Far too noisy, and as the photographers states: reproducible (on a good day). Lycaon 06:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Noise and lack of sharpness. Mfield 21:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 3 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 22:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Alternative (right) - not featured
- Info: created by Navid Serrano - uploaded by Navid Serrano - nominated by Navid Serrano -- Navid Serrano
- Support --Nserrano 20:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Info: This is a retouched version of LA_Skyline_Mountains.jpg with better white balance and noise reduction to eliminate some graininess pointed out in the original version (I used Photoshop CS3).
- Info: To answer some questions about this picture (and the original version), it was captured December 10, 2007 in the mid-morning. This is a very difficult shot to capture because the conditions need to be optimal-- mainly because of the well known smog in LA. A shot like this has to be captured the morning after a heavy night storm (preferably on a Monday) to minimize accumulation of smog. The rain naturally washes away some smog and there is less smog early in the morning and early in the week (for obvious commuting reasons). In order to capture the LA skyline with the San Gabriel mountains, the shot can only be captured from Kenneth Hahn State Recreation Area (geocoding now added to both images), which is about 10 miles southwest of downtown. At that distance, the shot was captured with a 300mm telephoto lens (this particular shot was captured at 238mm). Exposure time was 1/200 at f/11, and 400 ISO.
- Comment Thank you for explaining these details. All these nice details should really go into the description field in the images. That is where they belong, as this is where people will look for them. -- Slaunger 20:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - Please put the alternative nominations inside the section of the original one, to facilitate reviewing and closing -- Alvesgaspar 19:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support This is a rare and interesting perspective of Los Angeles. I am willing to give it thumbs up even though there is some noise. Barabas 21:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - I agree this is an excellent composition and an original perspective of LA. But the quality is terrible. -- Alvesgaspar 23:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- "Terrible" is a subjective assessment. Can you provide a more objective reasoning? --Nserrano 00:44, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- There is heavy chromatic noise all over the image and no detail. Looks like it was upsampled -- Alvesgaspar 08:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose I am more postive now that I better understand that quite some effort has actually been put into taking the image under the best possible conditions. Unfortunately, the end result is still quite dissapoiting to me concerning detail level and photographis quality. That other pano I referred to earlier is just a very clear demonstration of that much better results can be acheived (albeit the latter has a too low vertical pixel resolution to be FP worthy). Sorry. -- Slaunger 21:03, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Noise has not improved (if not, has even gotten worse). Lycaon 06:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Noise and lack of sharpness. Mfield 21:20, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
2 support, 4 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 20:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Venidium fastuosum - not featured
- Info: created, uploaded and nominated by Laitche -- Laitche 18:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Laitche 18:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support I like the colors although a little bit more light would be perfect. --Manco Capac 08:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose The background is not neutral, as I'd prefer. The flowers of a different species are distracting. If the background were like the left side, this would be fine. -- Ram-Man 11:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination Thanks a lot. -- Laitche 18:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
result: Withdrawn >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 12:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Venidium fastuosum (white), Alternative - not featured
- Info: The same species, different colour. -- Laitche 19:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Laitche 19:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support --ShakataGaNai Talk 20:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination Thanks. -- Laitche 18:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
result: Withdrawn >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 12:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Trumpetcallsa.jpg - not featured
- Info: created by Norman Lindsay - uploaded by Durova - nominated by Durova. Restored version of Image:trumpetcalls.jpg. Durova 10:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Durova 10:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Question: I hate to ask, but is this really out of copyright? Regards, Ben Aveling 12:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Yes it is, but there is another problem. The image was nominalized a very short while ago, and failed, so... diego_pmc 13:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support--Mbz1 13:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose It is less than a month since this image was previously nominated and declined. See Commons:Featured picture candidates/Trumpetcallsa.jpg. --MichaelMaggs 17:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support Of great historical value, captures the Zeitgeist perfectly. Freedom to share 18:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose per MichaelMaggs and I also don't want to support war propaganda (although I appreciate that this image has some historical value). Lycaon 18:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- Sorry, I'll have to disagree with you here. This image is not here to be featured because it is 'war propaganda', as you call it. It is here to be featured because it is a valuable primary source. While I respect your stance on the subject, I will have to disagree with you. In my opinion, refusing to support war propaganda would be as if you would refuse to support a shot of Hitler because you disagreed with him. I disagree very much with Hitler and think that he was an evil man who never deserved the status of German leader and who led his country into disarray, but would support an image of him for FP if it was a valuable primary source. While I also acknowledge that you oppose per MichaelMaggs, I disagree that your support should be based on whether it is war propaganda or not. Appreciate the image on its value as a historical source rather than its context. Thanks, Freedom to share 19:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination Oops, forgotten I'd previously nominated.
Please excuse the mistake. Durova 07:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
result: Withdrawn >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 12:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:The teeth of Megalodon and great white shark.jpg - not featured
- Info: created, uploaded and nominated by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 20:06, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Info: A Megalodon tooth, two Great white shark teeth and the background images of Great white sharks for the composition. A surgeon took these great white shark teeth out of my leg after I was bitten by a shark few years ago, so please be gentle in your comments :-) Sorry. I found great white shark teeth at a local beach. The intention of the image is to show the difference in the sizes of the tooth of Megalodon to a current great white shark tooth. --Mbz1 20:06, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Would significantly prefer a single tooth put against a black background. (Or taken when still in the mouth of a shark) ;-) Freedom to share 21:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Much like great mess than some picture. --Aktron 22:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose maybe white background, black Megalodon tooth and white shark tooth in front (both pointing upwards) could be a quite nice picture. --Sarefo 23:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose I can't even figure out what I'm looking at. --ShakataGaNai Talk 23:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- I hoped you would like my background :-) Freedom to share, haven't you noticed that at three of background images the teeth are still in the sharks jaws? :-) I'll try to reshot at a better background, but thank you for all the opposes. I see the picture really produced some interest ( not everybody could get 4 opposes in few hours :-). Thank you!--Mbz1 23:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination
result: Withdrawn >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 12:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Male Mallard Headshot.jpg - not featured
- Info: created, uploaded, and nominated by JDiPierro -- JDiPierro 22:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- JDiPierro 22:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support Exposure could be a bit better, but the atypical composition appeals to me. It is slightly noisy (what was the ISO?), but I really like the background blur. Freedom to share 17:12, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment It was at ISO-1600, It was a bright sunny day but the lens I have is horridly un-sharp so I shoot it at high ISO to get the fastest shutter speed possible. I can't fix ISO without killing what sharpness there is so if anyone can, feel free to upload a different version (but remember to credit me :D). --JDiPierro 21:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- Question: Do you still have the RAW file? Freedom to share 11:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- It was, unfortunately, shot at JPEG compression. 67.240.35.101 19:23, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- But on a sunny day there is almost no reason whatsoever to use ISO1600. A fast shutter speed won't make a bad lens sharp, it'll only minimise camera shake. A bad lens is generally sharpest around f/8 and you could easily shoot at that at ISO 100. I see from the EXIF that you used f/5.6. That is going to contribute more to an image being unsharp than shooting at a slightly slower shutter speed. A rule of thumb is that you can usually shoot at around the focal length in 100th of a second shutter speed In other words, if you have a 300mm lens (assuming a full frame camera - multiply it by the crop factor of the camera if not), then you should be able to shoot at 1/300th of a second and get a sharp image. It all depends on how steady you can personally keep the camera though, and what you define as sharp. Use it as a guide though, and experiment. Diliff 22:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Not enough wow, overexposed and noisy. Barabas 22:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
2 support, 1 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 08:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Japanese Squirrel edited version - featured
- Info: created by Ma2bara - nominated by Laitche -- Laitche 06:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Info: Edited version of this nomination. -- Laitche 06:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support I think this squirrel is living in fairy tale.（＾＾）／ -- Laitche 06:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support I like the colours and the composition --norro 09:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support --AKA MBG 09:35, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support Perfect. --Taraxacum 12:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support--Laveol 12:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support--JDiPierro 16:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Böhringer 19:31, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support DOF could be better but the composition is very nice. --AngMoKio 19:42, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support --MichaelMaggs 20:22, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support Very nice colors. The focus feels a bit odd when viewed in fullsize. /Daniel78 00:15, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Karelj 19:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support Too cute. --Calibas 01:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Simonizer 21:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support. Super-belochka aka squarrel. :) --Pauk 07:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
14 support, 0 oppose >> featured -- Alvesgaspar 07:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:171 Magnolien.JPG - not featured
- Info: created by Haraldius - uploaded by Haraldius - nominated by Duchamp -- Duchamp 19:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Duchamp 19:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Not sharp, and the crop seems a bit tight. /Daniel78 21:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Mww113 23:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- Comment please state reason for opposition as a courtesy to the author/uploader. Lycaon 20:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Soft/blocky like it was camera phoned. Busy background. --ShakataGaNai Talk 07:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Such a nice picture! Unfortunately, it lacks quality --Kimse 01:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
1 support, 4 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 07:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Mrs. Herbert Stevens (Hybrid Tea)
[edit] Original (left) - not featured
- Info: created, uploaded & nominated by Laitche -- Laitche 20:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Laitche 20:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Lycaon 21:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support A little muted, but it's pretty good. -- Ram-Man 00:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Böhringer 06:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment The flower could be brightened up a little; it's rather too dark for my liking. --MichaelMaggs 06:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral agrre with MichaelMaggs --norro 08:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Dull lighting, no wow. Barabas 21:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose all: bland composition --JDiPierro 16:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Supporting edit 1. --MichaelMaggs 20:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Dull lighting, no wow. --Beyond silence 15:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
result: 3 support, 1 neutral, 4 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 09:06, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Alternative1 (center) - not featured
- Info: - Let's try with a little more light -- Alvesgaspar 10:50, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Better now -- Alvesgaspar 10:50, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support Any will do. Since the original has enough useful data to be trivially edited, I'd just as soon take that one since it is the original and doesn't look bad anyway, but it doesn't matter that much. -- Ram-Man 15:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support --MichaelMaggs 20:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Laitche 10:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose ALL. Come one, this is just a picture of a rose, with some distracting background, dull lighting, as someone have already stated, not that special to be a Featured Picture. Here is just an example of what I think is better work:
Barabas 23:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Info: - Please put your vote in each nomination, this one only applies here -- Alvesgaspar 23:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- I think if this flower's colour were yellow, they wouldn't support this pic. I mean the white is difficult to take as itself. :) -- Laitche 03:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- per Ram-Man. Lycaon 23:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
![[2]](http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Image:WMAP_Fig_1.jpg){kind=link}
![[3]](http://www.cdcc.sc.usp.br/cda/producao/2007-com-ciencia/eta_wfpc2.jpeg){kind=link}
_01.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
5 support, 1 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 19:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Have to agree with Barabas. QI for me. --norro 16:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Alternative2 (right) - featured
- Info: Alves's background + Laitche's foreground. :) -- Laitche 12:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Laitche 12:03, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support Any will do, as above. -- Ram-Man 15:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- per Ram-Man. Lycaon 23:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Taraxacum 07:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose A good, but not great capture of an ordinary subject, with some distracting background, dull lighting, as someone have already stated, not that special to be a Featured Picture. Here is just an example of what I think is better work: . On the other hand it does not cease to surprise me that 98% of rose pictures are worse, and most of them far worse. Barabas 17:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Böhringer 19:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support Reality factor is great. --Manco Capac 07:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
6 support, 1 oppose >> featured -- Alvesgaspar 19:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Have to agree with Barabas. QI for me. --norro 16:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:RyuichiSakamotoJI4.jpg - not featured
- Info: created by Joi - uploaded by Joi - nominated by Joi -- Joi 12:03, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Joi 12:03, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment The image needs to be categorized, and could also benefit from some short information about the person or a link to the article about the person on one or several of the wikipedias. /Daniel78 00:13, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Ryuichi Sakamoto - composer en:Ryuichi Sakamoto ja:坂本龍一 --Joi 04:03, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Good image, but not enough for FP. --Karelj 19:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Technically OK, but doesn't show anything of the ordinary and is only used on 4 pages outside commons. -Hebster 17:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Info: - Being used in an article is not a requirement for promotion -- Alvesgaspar 18:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - Nope but it's an easy way to "meassure" relevance or value (those two words are the words used the guidelines though i personally thinkt that interestingness; adopted from Flickr; is more convenient). How much this should weigh in compared to the technical aspects, must be an individual issue though. --Hebster 19:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Well if an image is used in a lot pf places it might mean it's valuable (but that's not a gurantee, it might be a crappy image just because no one has found the better one because that is uncategorized with a silly name or for other reasons), but the opposite is certainly not true. It can be an image that has just been uploaded and simply not being found by projects yet even though it might be extremely valuable and useful. Making an image a FP is actually a good way to get more usage of a good image. /Daniel78 19:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I really wasn't planning to start an discussion about weither usage should weigh or how to interpret it, though i think it's an interesting topic but this isn't the right place for it. Voting for FP images will always be based on a lot of subjectivity, because we have different focal areas. I would personally never support photos of flowers, because i find them incredible boring (this is not to offend anyone!), but - on the other hand - i won't oppose them either, because good flower photos - especially macro - can requre some skill and technique. My main contribution to commons are photos from my work-place or related to my work-place, because this put me in some uniqe situations, where i have the ability to contribute with photos, many people don't get the chance to shoot. When i opposed to this photo, it was because i thought it was a stright out-of-the-box portrait, with no particularity what so ever and i used the usage-count to emphasis this. Kind regards Hebster 05:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support Like it, but his right side of his hair doesn't contrast enough with the background (for me). --ShakataGaNai Talk 07:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support Because of the charismatic appearance. --Niabot 08:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
3 support, 2 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 19:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Romalea guttata - featured
- Info: created by Ryantwood - uploaded by Ryantwood - nominated by Laitche -- Laitche 16:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Laitche 16:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support, wow. --Aqwis 17:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Böhringer 19:32, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support and another good insect picture ;) Lycaon 22:52, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support nice shot - but are there some dust spots visible? (if yes they can get removed easily) --AngMoKio 23:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- Removed. -- Laitche 11:05, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support Beautiful. /Daniel78 00:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support --MichaelMaggs 17:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support very good --Richard Bartz 18:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support Well done. --Calibas 01:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support - Nice critter and good photo. A pity that its author only spent a single day and a couple of edits in Commons! -- Alvesgaspar 07:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Karelj 19:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support Great one ^_^ - Noumenon talk 08:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support. A nice Grasshopper! Why not feature pic? --Pauk 07:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
13 support, 0 oppose >> featured -- Alvesgaspar 19:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Leucanthemum paludosum.jpg - not featured
[edit] Original (left)
- Info: created, uploaded and nominated by Laitche 16:09, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Laitche 16:09, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Böhringer 22:06, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination --Laitche 15:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Alternative (center)
- Info: crop & clone out. -- Laitche 20:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Laitche 20:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination --Laitche 15:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Edit1 (right)
- Info: Edited by Fir0002 -- Laitche 04:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Laitche 04:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination I have nominated another version. --Laitche 15:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Withdrawn all >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 15:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Papilio bianor Raupe LC0134.jpg - featured
- Info: created, uploaded and nominated by LC-de -- LC-de 20:32, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- LC-de 20:32, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support Nice lighting. Freedom to share 21:43, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support - Crisp and well done. --- Anonymous DissidentTalk 23:31, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Not enough wow. Compare to a picture below (another nomination). Barabas 22:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support Nice Image Mww113 22:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Böhringer 19:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support Something new.--Mbz1 14:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support. Very well. --Pauk 07:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
7 support, 1 oppose >> featured -- Alvesgaspar 07:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Great grey slugs (Limax maximus) mating closeup 1.jpg not featured
_mating_closeup_1.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_mating_closeup_1.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
- Info: created by en:User:Spleines - uploaded to commons and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden 02:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Adam Cuerden 02:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Umnik 13:52, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Interesting behaviour, but not rare enough to overcome the technical issues, namely lack of sharpness, harsh flash and the brickwork. --MichaelMaggs 17:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: Image:Great_grey_slugs_(Limax_maximus)_mating.jpg is also possible, but, you know, it's not as pretty in the penile region. Adam Cuerden 18:39, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- ...Um, you know what I mean. Adam Cuerden 18:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: Image:Great_grey_slugs_(Limax_maximus)_mating.jpg is also possible, but, you know, it's not as pretty in the penile region. Adam Cuerden 18:39, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Very interesting, but... Barabas 17:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Definitely has a wow factor for me. Any technical flaws can be forgiven: a photographer has to be quick to capture this fleeting moment.;) MartinD 11:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support Very unusual image with big wow factor--Mbz1 12:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)05:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support. It's very interesting. --Pauk 07:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Unfortunate crop, flash and sharpness. Lycaon 22:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
_mating.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
5 support, 3 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 07:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:SanFrancisco from TwinPeaks dusk MC.jpg - featured
- Info: created, uploaded, and nominated by Chmehl 08:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support The San Francisco skyline seen from Twin Peaks just before sunset. In the background: The Bay Bridge leading to Oakland. -- Chmehl 08:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support, reminds me of why I don't like American cities, but it's a very good photo. --Aqwis 11:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support Solid, straightforward, detailed city pano. Freedom to share 14:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support What Freedom to share just said. --Hebster 17:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Urban 19:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose
PrettyRather static panorama featuring a common problem: Common problems: Panoramas frequently lack a central focal point. (Image guidelines). Barabas 02:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)- Well, for me the central focal point is the Market Street and the surrounding skyscrapers... Chmehl 06:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support Do you also have a twin peaks night shot? I was there at night and it was breathtaking...but I didn't have a tripod and tele lens with me :( --AngMoKio 11:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- No, unfortunately not. But maybe I am getting to San Francisco again this fall, then I will make a nightshot! Chmehl 14:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Böhringer 18:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support Wow, such details. --Kimse 02:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral opinion. Pic is a class! But there are very many pics of S-Francisco in Wiki. --Pauk 07:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
8 support, 1 neutral, 1 oppose >> featured -- Alvesgaspar 08:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:1545VC068a.jpg - not featured
- Info: created by Agência Brasil - uploaded by Tetraktys - nominated by Econt 22:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Info: - The nominator was asked to include some information on the girl of the photo and change its name. Alvesgaspar 23:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Econt 22:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose flat lighting caused by direct flash. Mfield 19:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
|
|
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because too distracted, low quality, noise. | 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 21:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose I don't think it's of low quality, but definitely distractive in the background. --Kimse 01:05, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose per Kimse, and I don't think it's noisy. -- Laitche 03:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Adriatic Cicada 01.jpg - not featured
- Info: created, uploaded and nominated by Honza Beran 19:52, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Honza Beran 19:52, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - Please identify the species. Without that information there is little chance of promotion. -- Alvesgaspar 20:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - Sorry for the missing information. The species is Melampsalta montana. --Honza Beran 20:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral Good photo but a bit noisy and a bit blurry. -- Laitche 05:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support ok --Böhringer 10:15, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Good available light picture. The noise should be removed, do you have a RAW file ? I could do it 4 ya --Richard Bartz 18:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose I'm not satisfied with the noise and quality. DoF appears a little bit on the low side too. This really isn't close to the standards of other similar types of photos. -- Ram-Man 11:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Thanks for the feedback. I close the promotion request due to DoF and noise. --Honza Beran 05:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Honza Beran 05:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment DoF and detail is ok. Its just the roughness which could be fixed. If you want 2 close the nom, please apply the {{withdraw}} template --Richard Bartz 08:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
result: withdrawn => not featured --norro 08:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Leucanthemum paludosum.jpg - not featured
[edit] Original (left)
- Info: created, uploaded and nominated by Laitche 16:09, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Laitche 16:09, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Böhringer 22:06, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination --Laitche 15:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Alternative (center)
- Info: crop & clone out. -- Laitche 20:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Laitche 20:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination --Laitche 15:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Edit1 (right)
- Info: Edited by Fir0002 -- Laitche 04:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Laitche 04:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination I have nominated another version. --Laitche 15:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Withdrawn all >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 15:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Eurasian Coot Fulica astra Richard Bartz.jpg - not featured
- Info: Eurasian coot of the crack family. Photograph by Commons photographer and commons master cloner, Richard Bartz - uploaded (a second time) by carol - nominated by carol -- carol 23:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- carol 23:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Poor clone work: too obvious repetitions of the gravel on the ground. Lycaon 06:05, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment What should i learn here ? Never talk big when you can't do better, regarding my comment on Alves's picture ? Sorry, this is totally KINDERGARDEN most notably when uploading a old version as the picture was fixed for a long time only 2 undercut my work 4 reviewing pictures in this list. Thank you. --Richard Bartz 08:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- I withdraw this nomination As the author i dont want this picture being nominated for FP --Richard Bartz 11:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Withdrawn as a courtesy to the photographer. --MichaelMaggs 20:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Girgentana-Ziegen
[edit] Original (left) - not featured
- Info: created & nominated by Böhringer 19:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Böhringer 19:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support Nice composition, dof could be better. Freedom to share 20:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support - Incredible composition, making us forgive the high ISO artifacts. Next time use ISO 100, you really didn't need that high sensitivity for his pic -- Alvesgaspar 20:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose overexposed -- Gorgo 21:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support - very good composition Stefdn
- Oppose Still, overexposed. It is also oversharpened. The last goat is out of focus, while it should be, technically. The most importantly, what is the value of this picture? Last, but not least, I think compositionally it is a mess. Nowhere enough wow too. Barabas 22:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- diese Ziegenart bewegt sich leider nicht im Goose-Step, sondern wie es scheint, chaotisch.
- Das Besondere sind die nach innen gewundene Hörner und die sieht man hier auf einen Blick.
- Diese Rasse war vom Aussterben bedroht
- das Bild hat einen Artikel: Girgentana-Ziegen --Böhringer 07:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Info: If i could have the orig RAW file i would do a restauration Richard Bartz
-
- Ich habe keine RAW Datei davon. Nur diese 1.Version (leider) Trotzdem Vielen Dank --Böhringer 18:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support Very cool, overexposed, so what? Jeblad 15:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
5 support, 2 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 22:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Edit 1 (right)
- Info: - Gorgo is right about the overexposure, part of the goat's hair is burned. But this is such a delicious composition... I think this edit is a little better -- Alvesgaspar 22:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support - Alvesgaspar 22:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support hatte leider aus Versehen die ISO 400 eingestellt. Die Überarbeitung ist sehr gut, Danke --Böhringer 07:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, I can't read German... -- Alvesgaspar 07:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- He wrote that he accidentally switched to ISO 400, that the new revision is very good and want 2 thank you for that. --Richard Bartz 09:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, I can't read German... -- Alvesgaspar 07:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- danke Richard --Böhringer 18:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
* Comment Will support this, per Alvesgaspar's opinion. I just have to decide between versions. --Thermos 13:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose while this edit is better, it's still overexposed -- Gorgo 01:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Taraxacum 07:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support Adequately solid image. Freedom to share 15:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Cluttered composition and overexposed shot. Very cute goats, though. Barabas 17:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support I like the composition. How did you get the goats to pose for you like that? Chmehl 19:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- I've called them :-) --Böhringer 20:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Thermos 07:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support--Mbz1 03:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support. Right pix better tham left. --Pauk 07:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support Vassil 22:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
9 support, 2 oppose >> featured -- Alvesgaspar 22:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Galopprennen Guedingen Edit.jpg - not featured
- Info: created, uploaded and nominated by Flicka -- Flicka 17:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Okay, so what's your opinion to this edit? No crop, but I'm not sure if the exposure is better. -- Flicka 17:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support I like it.--Mbz1 16:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support - Because of the feel of action and the expression of beasts and humans, and despite the obvious purple fringing and less-than-optimal composition -- Alvesgaspar 22:38, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose I love the capture and ack Alvesgaspar in this regard. It is a pity that it was overexposed. And shades are underexposed. The latter could be fixed by levels, I suppose. Barabas 20:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
2 support, 1 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 22:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Cymbidium Clarisse Austin 'Best Pink' Flowers 2000px.JPG - featured
- Info:Boat Orchid (Cymbidium Clarisse Austin 'Best Pink') flower chain. Created by Ram-Man - Uploaded and nominated by Lycaon 22:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Lycaon 22:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support It's pretty nice. ;-) -- Ram-Man 00:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support - Excellent composition (not too tight, this time...) -- Alvesgaspar 07:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support Beautiful composition ^_^ - Noumenon talk 07:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support very nice composition. --AngMoKio 11:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support Wonderful composition and good quality. Can the metal thingy on the right hand side and in the background be cloned away? --norro 12:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose License not allowed on Commons --B.navez 18:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support very nice composition. --Böhringer 18:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Simonizer 21:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support Very good choice for the DOF. --Chmehl 18:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Honza Beran 17:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
10 support, 1 oppose >> featured -- Alvesgaspar 22:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Ass.jpg - not featured
- Info: created by Titus36 - uploaded by Raul654 - nominated by Econt 01:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Econt 01:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Not wow. Barabas 02:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support Nice ass. --Calibas 04:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Nice ass but too small. -- Laitche 05:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Definitely a nice ass, but the photo is nothing of the extrodinary. --Hebster 05:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral it is just too small - but it is a great high-key shot. --AngMoKio 06:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
{FPX} Oppose much too low a resolution. --MichaelMaggs 06:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, there is already a support vote -- Alvesgaspar 07:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- So there is. Apologies. --MichaelMaggs 21:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, there is already a support vote -- Alvesgaspar 07:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support Delight for my eyes. --Karelj 18:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose I agree with opposers, the ass needs to be larger. /Daniel78 21:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Lacks... WOW! Mww113 22:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Nice picture, but way way too small. --ShakataGaNai Talk 07:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support Very nice High Key image. --Donarreiskoffer 08:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Question: Can we delist this image, please? It is not safe for work. Barabas 02:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Such are the perils of free speech. What's wrong with naked people anyway? I'm sorry that your culture shuns nudity but Wikimedia isn't censored. --Calibas 04:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose With open content entry pages like this FP-voting-project, it is always potentially NSFW. This photo has just as much "right" to sit here 5/9 days as any other and should it be an FP that's also just in the nature of this system. Hebster 05:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Question: NSFW?? What about Not Safe for School?? Think of the children!! ;-) What if some kid opens FPC in the middle of his AP CS class? Freedom to share 05:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- So what if they do? The teacher is responsible for the education of the child. Its a naked figure, thats all. You'd find them in a sex education class too, probably. Diliff 21:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - This is not the first time the pic is nominated (may be at en:wiki?). It is a very good image but really too small. Anyone interested in asking the model for taking a larger res one? -- Alvesgaspar 07:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Better say: If anyone dare to ask ;-) BTW: The pic is FP on de:wiki. --AngMoKio 08:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Who took this photograph? Who first uploaded it to Commons? Who nominated it? The first line of this nomination says " Info: created by Raul654 - uploaded by Raul654 - nominated by Raul654 -- Econt 01:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)" but all three pieces of information appear wrong or misleading. Fg2 21:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Info: - You are right, even the authorship is wrong! I just left a message to the nominator -- Alvesgaspar 08:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose --Very nice lightning and smooth texture. It's a pity the picture is so small. Sting 11:41, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
4support, 1 neutral, 10 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 22:51, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Hubble Interacting Galaxy NGC 6240 (2008-04-24).jpg - not featured
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg)
- Info: created by NASA - uploaded by White Cat - nominated by White Cat -- Cat ちぃ？ 10:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Cat ちぃ？ 10:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support, better than the rest. --Aqwis 12:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose suboptimal quality. Lycaon 12:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose The image looks noisy. Even if this is legitimate subject matter, the point is that it APPEARS to be noise. We can't just go around featuring every NASA picture, so we have to consider them relative to each other. This one doesn't have the aesthetic appeal required for a FP. -- Ram-Man 00:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
2 support, 2 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 22:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Globe panorama03.jpg - not featured
- Info: created by Gadl on Flickr - uploaded by Abdominator - nominated by Gusme -- Gusme 12:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Gusme 12:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose There are much better shots that use stereographic projections. I recommend nominating one that is of higher quality. Freedom to share 15:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support I like it, unusual and nicely done. --Kimse 01:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose While it is unusual and visually pleasing, I am not sure what is the value of the image. Also, clouds seem to be overexposed. Barabas 20:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
2 support, 2 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 22:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Iridescent Glory of Nearby Helix Nebula.jpg - not featured
- Info: created by NASA - uploaded by White Cat - nominated by White Cat -- Cat ちぃ？ 16:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support 16,000 × 16,000 image of Helix Nebula. (286MB TIFF version) -- Cat ちぃ？ 16:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
{{FPX| it is [[:Image:NGC7293 (2004).jpg|already featured]]}}Lycaon 17:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)- Support I removed the notice. Can we just re-upload this image as a new version of Image:NGC7293 (2004).jpg ? or something? Bigger is better. --ShakataGaNai Talk 17:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
.jpg)
- Oppose it is already featured. Lycaon 17:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment it is not good practice to remove other people's comments or opposition, even when you remove an FPX template!! Lycaon 19:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Hey, the template said "remove this template if you object"... so I did. If thats a problem, I suggest someone modify the template to read differently. Otherwise, I didn't remove anything else, hell I even left your sig. --ShakataGaNai Talk 20:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support The previously featured image has lower resolution. For astro images more resolution is very welcome. /Daniel78 21:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Although this version has much higher resolution, I find the already featured picture of this nebula much more spectacular. Linking the two pictures would be good. Chmehl 05:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- They can both be featured... :/ -- Cat ちぃ？ 16:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- We don't typically feature more than one image of the exact same subject (where exact same = same basic composition/content). An image must contain something of substantially different value for it to also be featured. For example, this and this are both featured picture caliber images, but since they show the exact same butterfly pose on the same kind of flower, they are not sufficiently different for them to both be featured. Contrast this with this and this featured picture of the same subject but with a totally different presentation. QIs can have multiples, but not FPs. -- Ram-Man 03:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- They can both be featured... :/ -- Cat ちぃ？ 16:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose. I agree with that the current featured picture of the same basic subject just looks more spectacular. Resolution in this case is an insufficient reason. -- Ram-Man 03:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
3 support, 3 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 22:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Simple CV Joint animated.gif - featured
- Info: Animation of a Simple Constant Velocity Joint, created and uploaded by Pwld, nominated by --norro 16:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support Let's see how this animation pleases your eyes. --norro 16:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support Goes round and round and round... Its hypnotic. Is it really a "picture" tho, being an animation. I know we had animated gifs that got featured status before. Maybe this process should be called "Featured media candidates". Just a thought. -- Cat ちぃ？ 16:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- That would mean we could nominate sounds and video also, I think that needs a separate area. Simple animations like this is more close to an image. /Daniel78 21:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support Very nice! --Karelj 18:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Böhringer 18:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose you should find a way to make the axles visibly turn. Lycaon 19:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose per Lycaon, maybe some cogwheels at the end of the axles? Chmehl 19:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support Agree with Lycaon, but it's for me no reason to decline. Perhaps a thin black lengthwise line on the axles, which turns with them, will do it? -- MJJR 20:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support Would be nice to have the axles turn but it still makes sense to me. --Calibas 23:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support I rarely know how to vote on these things, but this is a very clear example of what it represents. -- Ram-Man 00:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Alvesgaspar 07:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment If i find some time I'll make visible axles rotating. -- Pwld 14:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support as in de:WP:KEB ;-) -- smial 15:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support--Mbz1 14:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
10 support, 2 oppose >> featured -- Alvesgaspar 22:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Rope-03235.JPG - featured
- Info: created by Nevit - uploaded by Nevit - nominated by Dilaudid -- –Dilaudid 17:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support –Dilaudid 17:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Not bad image, but for me not enough for FP. --Karelj 18:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Böhringer 18:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support it's different... Lycaon 19:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support I like the composition and colors. Chmehl 19:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- MJJR 20:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Simonizer 21:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support Creative. --Calibas 23:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support How could I not vote this way? -- Ram-Man 00:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support Very shiny. --ShakataGaNai Talk 07:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Econt 14:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support --MichaelMaggs 20:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support Very original. Congratz. -- Slaunger 22:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support Nice idea. --Manco Capac 08:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Thermos 19:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Pauk 11:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Aldaron 02:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
16 support, 1 oppose >> featured -- Alvesgaspar 22:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Turtle Lunch.jpg - not featured
- Info: created by jurvetson on Flickr - uploaded by FlickrLickr - nominated by Duchamp -- Duchamp 18:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Duchamp 18:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Excellent! Mww113 23:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose The focus is off. I'd like to see the focus on the strawberries and the face, which is the main subject of this image. Instead, the focus point is largely on the shell of the turtle. It's also slightly overexposed. -- Ram-Man 00:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Ack Ram-Man. Freedom to share 06:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support Interesting --Kimse 01:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose per Ram-Man. --MichaelMaggs 18:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
3 support, 3 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 22:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:ColapteryxVirgo.jpg - featured
- Info: created, uploaded and nominated by Sanchezn -- Sanchezn 19:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Sanchezn 19:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Yes it's true, but I choose to give the full size picture, even if with an half sized one the quality could seem better (now if someone needs a scaled down version he can do it by himself). Sanchezn 22:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Iam not talking about the noise. Iam talking about the dust spots. You can clone them out easily without scaling the picture down --Simonizer 07:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Yes it's true, but I choose to give the full size picture, even if with an half sized one the quality could seem better (now if someone needs a scaled down version he can do it by himself). Sanchezn 22:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support Ok now. Great picture --Simonizer 16:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support, there are indeed quite a few dust spots. --Aqwis 22:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support Mww113 23:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- This is a 10 mPix picture, and at 3 megs, it's probably been compressed with quality setting slightly above 90. Benh 06:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- OOps sorry, apparently, Lycaon compressed it to 3Megs. Benh 08:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Calibas 03:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Great insect picture -- Alvesgaspar 07:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support Spots (and noise, btw) gone. Lycaon 12:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks Lycaon (for the support of course, what else? :-)) Sanchezn 15:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Böhringer 14:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support The picture was taken in such an acrobatic way ;) I'd say the NR by Lycaon has removed a bit a tiny details on the "body", but overall it's probably better this way. Benh 15:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support --MichaelMaggs 18:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Honza Beran 17:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Richard Bartz 11:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
12 support, 0 oppose >> featured -- Alvesgaspar 22:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Champs-061101.jpg -- not featured
- Info: Champs-Élysées, created, uploaded and nominated by Pp2007upload fixed by --norro 14:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Low quality, nothing special or spectacular (I took a similar picture a year ago) Luctor 22:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Quality is too low for what is pictures. Additionally: a bit noisey & I think the contrast should be higher - the clouds are kinda... Bla. Otherwise nice shot. --ShakataGaNai Talk 06:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Nice idea, but it would more effective if done at night imo (can you go up the Arc de Triomphe after sunset? Also, the technical quality is inadequate and imo there is too much sky in the photo. Freedom to share 19:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
0 support, 3 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 20:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Domestic Cat Enjoys Her Rest.jpg -- not featured
- Info: created by ml01172 - uploaded by ml01172 - nominated by ml01172 -- Ml01172 23:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Ml01172 23:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose While I am a fan of turning Commons into "Catmons", At least 50% of the picture is on the dark side. Also there is ghosting on the whiskers. --ShakataGaNai Talk 06:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose --norro 08:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Lovely! But I'm afraid that lighting and composition are below FP standards. -- MJJR 20:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
1 support, 3 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 20:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] IMAGE:Libellula quadrimaculata 4.JPG - not featured
- Info: created by Username - uploaded by Username - nominated by Username -- Böhringer 21:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Böhringer 21:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
1 support, 0 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 23:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Scaphidium.quadrimaculatum.jpg - not featured
- Info: created by Sarefo - uploaded by User:Sarefo - nominated by User:Sarefo -- Sarefo 18:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support just checking if this pic is good enough for fp, and if not, to get a feeling of why not :) -- Sarefo 18:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - Because the image quality is not good enough: flash highlights and unsharpness -- Alvesgaspar 00:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose It's fairly noisy (did you use a high ISO setting?). For FP status, the image should also be put into the proper category. --MichaelMaggs 18:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- the noise is due to my playing around with RAW settings (newbie in this regard), it's actually iso100. i don't put species pics into cats, i prefer putting them into gallery pages, and categorize these. --Sarefo 21:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
1 support, 2 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 23:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Wikipe-tan full length.png
[edit] Original .png (left) - not featured
- Info: created by Kasuga - uploaded by Kasuga - nominated by Kasuga -- Econt 15:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Econt 15:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Why PNG? It can be rendered from SVG within split seconds by the mediawiki software at any time. --norro 17:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose --ShakataGaNai Talk 20:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- Comment please state reason for opposition as a courtesy to the author/uploader. Lycaon 20:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
1 support, 2 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 5th day). -- Alvesgaspar 19:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Edit 1 .svg (right) - not featured
- Info: created by Kasuga - uploaded by Editor at Large --Econt 15:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Econt 15:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support Otourly 18:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support --ShakataGaNai Talk 20:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose, nothing special. --Aqwis 21:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose. "Nothing special". No "wow" factor. Madman2001 13:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I am puzzled by the insistence that this drawing should be in SVG, while the map below (3.47 Image:Kanton Zürich Detail DE.png) has escaped any opposition due to its format. Madman2001 13:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose As above. --Karelj 15:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Too self-referential. --MichaelMaggs 18:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
3 support, 4 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 21:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Flore de Bercy 9.JPG - not featured
- Info: created, uploaded and nominated by Romanceor -- Romanceor 21:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Romanceor 21:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - Too dark, harsh shadow on subject, poor general quality (artifacts and noise) and unbalanced composition. Sorry, but I don't understand how this picture could be promoted to QI-- Alvesgaspar 07:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support --ShakataGaNai Talk 06:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose It's not a terrible image, and the exposure/composition choice are very stylistic. The noise isn't that high due to the SLR choice and perhaps noise reduction software, but overall it is just a little too dark for me and I don't think it is "wow" enough. -- Ram-Man 05:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose As Alvesgaspar. --Karelj 18:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
2 support, 3 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 21:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Nephila clavata May 2008.jpg - not featured
- Info: created, uploaded and nominated by Laitche -- Laitche 16:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Laitche 16:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Böhringer 19:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose --ShakataGaNai Talk 20:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- Comment please state reason for opposition as a courtesy to the author/uploader. Lycaon 20:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support It's pretty. It is mostly stylistic for me, but it does have sufficient content to be useful. -- Ram-Man 03:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Beyond silence 20:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Not enough wow. Plus, the whole subject should be in focus. Barabas 20:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
4 support, 2 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 21:50, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Ha1000 2007090501.jpg
.jpg)
- Info: Ara macao - created, uploaded, nominated by Hamilton Furtado -- Hamilton Furtado 22:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Hamilton Furtado 22:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Sharpness and grain should be better. Tail cropped. --B.navez 06:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Please rename the file. –Dilaudid 08:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- Rename is pipelined. Lycaon 08:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose The frontal flash has made the image look very flat. --MichaelMaggs 18:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
1 support, 3 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 23:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:P5170352.JPG - not featured
- Info: created, uploaded and nominated by RevolverOcelot -- RevolverOcelot 00:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support RevolverOcelot 04:58, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Please rename the file. –Dilaudid 08:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- Rename is pipelined. Lycaon 08:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Yeah: I usually rename files after processing 'em through CS2; this one came straight from the camera to the wiki, so like an idiot I forgot to change the name. As Lycaon said, that's being taken care of by a better Wikimedian than I... RevolverOcelot 15:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Question: Would it be fair to reupload it with a different name? 71.135.33.48 03:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
1 support, 1 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 21:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Avondrood.JPG- not featured
- Info: created, uploaded and nominated by Bthv -- Bthv 07:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- Info: Beautiful Evening Afterglow in the Netherlands.
- Support -- Bthv 08:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
|
|
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because small and not sharp | 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 09:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Result >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 21:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:London-Mounted-Boxman.jpg - not featured
- Info: created by Aldaron - uploaded by Aldaron - nominated by Aldaron -- Aldaron 02:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support A vivid version of a classic subject.-- Aldaron 02:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose The headless horseman? If this is a detail shot of the breastplate it would be better of in portrait orientation. As it is it just feels wrong, the sword is clipped on the left and there's unneeded space to the right. Awkward composition. Mfield 03:17, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose The cropping seems awkward, per above. The description of the image does not match the image — describing an image of the guard, whereas the image seems to be a detail shot of the breastplate(?). The coloring is very good, though. G.A.S 05:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose It must be some joke, isn´t it? --Karelj 16:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Well, painters I know liked the composition, but I see the points (all valid). How about this? -- Aldaron 22:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination Aldaron 22:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Withdrawn >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 23:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- I really like the picture. 71.135.33.48 02:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Bar-headed Goose - St James's Park, London - Nov 2006.jpg - not featured
- Info: created and uploaded by Diliff - nominated Chesnok 20:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Chesnok 20:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support Gordo 09:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose No wow factor.--Mbz1 12:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Agree with Mbz1. High encyclopaedic value though. QI for me. --norro 20:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Focus on the head is inadequate in addition to the other problems mentioned. -- Ram-Man 05:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support I like it. --Kimse 04:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose ISO 1600 gives pretty high noise. --MichaelMaggs 18:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
3 support, 4 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 22:41, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Bandeiras06052007.jpg - not featured
- Info: created by José Cruz - uploaded by Dantadd - nominated by João Felipe C.S --João Felipe C.S 21:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support Amazing view. João Felipe C.S 21:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose This nomination was declined less than a year ago. Lycaon 21:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- And how long until it can be attempted again? Never? A year? -- Ram-Man 03:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- There is no time limit that I know of, but the image has not improved meanwhile and was not withdrawn at that time... Lycaon 16:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- In the last nomination someone voted against the image because they didn't think national flags should be featured. IMO, that's an invalid way to vote because the rules say nothing about banned classes of images. Remove that vote and it is one vote away from a support. That's close enough to merit a second try. In this case, you are voting simply because it was going to be reattempted? I don't consider that to be much of a reason. You should at least judge a picture on its own merits I think. This will likely fail much more conclusively this time, but at least the reasons for its failure will be stated. It should be given a chance to fail conclusively -- Ram-Man 00:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Fair enough. I still do think national flags should not be featured. Furthermore, the crop is kind of spoiling the image. Lycaon 18:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- In the last nomination someone voted against the image because they didn't think national flags should be featured. IMO, that's an invalid way to vote because the rules say nothing about banned classes of images. Remove that vote and it is one vote away from a support. That's close enough to merit a second try. In this case, you are voting simply because it was going to be reattempted? I don't consider that to be much of a reason. You should at least judge a picture on its own merits I think. This will likely fail much more conclusively this time, but at least the reasons for its failure will be stated. It should be given a chance to fail conclusively -- Ram-Man 00:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- There is no time limit that I know of, but the image has not improved meanwhile and was not withdrawn at that time... Lycaon 16:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- And how long until it can be attempted again? Never? A year? -- Ram-Man 03:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support for now. July of last year is quite a while ago, even if it wasn't a complete year. The original nomination never garnered a large number of votes anyway, so I don't see a problem with trying it again. I specifically disagree with the idea that we can't feature a national flag. If it's a good picture, let's feature it. Even if we had a featured picture for every country's flag (unlikely of course), that still isn't a problem. -- Ram-Man 03:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose While its nicer than "flat" flags, this is a little overkill on the motion --ShakataGaNai Talk 06:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- I like the idea but don't like the cropped flagpole, so Neutral for now. --norro 08:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC) Btw: I don't see any problem with featuring photographs of national flags.
- Oppose I don't like the left part with the flagpole either. It makes the image seem tilted and a bit messy. Also if the image is borderline FP (due to last oppose) I prefer to not have it FP. /Daniel78 09:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support--Laziale93 10:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose for the same reason as last time. The image hasn't changed. --MichaelMaggs 17:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support--Econt 20:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose per Daniel78 -βαςεLXIV™ 12:59, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose overkill in motion... Bthv 09:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
4 support, 5 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 22:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Winter in Brazil edit.jpg - not featured
- Info: created by Mauricio Mercer - uploaded by Vassil - nominated by João Felipe C.S -- João Felipe C.S 22:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- João Felipe C.S 22:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose still too low DOF. Additionally, low quality and little details. Lycaon 22:24, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Info: - This picture was nominated in September last year -- Alvesgaspar 22:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Same as last time. --MichaelMaggs 05:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose low DoF --Richard Bartz 17:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
1 support, 3 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 21:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Gabala lake.jpg - not featured
- Info: A lake in Gabala district of Azerbaijan. Created by Grandmaster - uploaded by Grandmaster - nominated by Grandmaster -- Grandmaster 09:41, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Grandmaster 09:41, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose This lacks wow for a FP. The sky is flat and uninspiring. The reflections are the main nice touch, but they are too minor overall. Even at normal viewing magnifications, I can see color fringing in the trees. -- Ram-Man 02:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
1 support, 1 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 18:10, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Taxi and Monuments on Whitehall.jpg not featured
- Info: created by Aldaron - uploaded by Aldaron - nominated by Aldaron -- Aldaron 21:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support Unusual composition that's not the typical London photo.Familiar London landmarks juxtaposed: the ubiquitous heroic military statue, the imposing government building facade, the rushing Hackney cab—and the varied (and often surprising or mysterious) tokens of history ("The Women"). -- Aldaron 21:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
|
|
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because too small, 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. |
Lycaon 22:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Result >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 22:29, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Visita di Papa Benedetto XVI a Genova - 2008-05-18 - Primo piano di Benedetto XVI.jpg - not featured
- Info: created by Username - uploaded by Username - nominated by Username -- Dongio 23:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Dongio 23:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose This is a fine capture. However, there is no wow. Also, technically, the angle is not the best, the lighting is dull; it is unfortunate that the hand overlaps the face, and I would much preferred people in background to be more isolated from the subject. I perfectly understand that the photographer perhaps was not free to choose the angle and lighting, but still, those are not strong points of the image. Those are just technicalities, the main reason is "wow". Barabas 23:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Some postprocessing could help and I could maybe support a colour-corrected version. I really hope that we manage to get a portrait of such a great man featured. Imagine the value! (He is quite a good writer, too) Freedom to share 06:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose I don't like the guy with the cyborg eye in the right upper corner. Lycaon 09:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Exposure --βαςεLXIV™ 11:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose, composition. --Aqwis 15:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Somehow he looks demonic --Richard Bartz 15:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- Usually or just on this photo? Remember the headline "Wir sind Papst!"? (forgot which newspaper, same one who once wrote "Wir sind Weltmeister!". Freedom to share 16:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- "Wir sind Papst" was the headline of Bildzeitung at 20. April 2005 --Richard Bartz 17:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- Yeah, I heard about that. I vaguely remember Das Bild. (Sorry, didn't go to Germany for some time) Still don't see what you find demonic about him though. Is it the man or the shot? Freedom to share 19:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- There is no need to know this newspaper. This world would be at least a bit better without such newspapers. --AngMoKio 20:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
1 support, 4 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 21:57, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:A rainbow over Bridalveil Fall seen from Tunnel View in Yosemite NP.jpg
[edit] Original - not featured
- Info: A rainbow over Bridalveil Fall seen from Tunnel View in Yosemite National Park flows from a U-shaped hanging valley that was created by a tributary glacier
- Info: created, uploaded and nominated by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 22:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Mbz1 22:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose noisy sky, rest of image suffers from a lack of detail for a landscape shot - for example none in trees at all. Mfield 22:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- The discussion about the quality of the image is moved 2 here--Mbz1 01:19, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Mfield's comments. -- Aldaron 23:16, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Just a nice vacation snap.--Dany3000 07:37, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- There's no such thing as a snap with mannual settings and tripod.--Mbz1 12:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Too low qual for a landscape. --ShakataGaNai Talk 21:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination
Withdrawn >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 22:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Edit
- Support Any better?--Mbz1 02:39, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination
Withdrawn >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 14:07, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Dempsterhighway.jpg
- Info: created by