Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/October 2007

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search


This is an archive for Commons:Featured picture candidates page debates and voting.
The debates are closed and should not be edited.


Contents

Image:VFT ne1.JPG, not featured[edit]

Venus fly trap

  • Pictogram voting info.svg InfoClose-up of the trap of the carnivorous Dionaea muscipula, showing the trigger hairs. Used on some 30 pages in 16 projects. Created by NoahElhardt - uploaded by NoahElhardt - nominated by NoahElhardt 00:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --NoahElhardt 00:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not bad, but DOF a bit low, the composition not makes wow for me. --Beyond silence 11:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
    • While I agree about the composition, the depth of field is about as good as its going to get: the shot was taken at F4. All the important features, including every trigger hair, are in focus. --NoahElhardt 13:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Sorry about the DOF mistake - somehow switched F-stop directions in my brain. --NoahElhardt 18:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Karelj 16:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Doalex 16:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)doalex
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose DOF. Dori | Talk 04:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Using a stop of f4 is bound to result in a very shallow DoF. It would have been better to use a much smaller aperture and to have supported the camera on a tripod. --MichaelMaggs 15:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Shallow DOF. --Digon3 talk 19:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 19:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:USA 10654 Bryce Canyon Luca Galuzzi 2007.jpg, featured[edit]

Thor's Hammer formation in Bryce Canyon National Park

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by LucaG 19:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Thor's Hammer formation in Bryce Canyon National Park. Southwestern Utah, USA. --LucaG 19:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose That element in the left part of the image, it looks like one rock is glowing... Otherwise it is good image. --Aktron 20:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question What element do you mean? Sorry, I can't understand. --LucaG 21:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great (again)!. Lycaon 21:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great color (the green sets off the rock wonderfully), great composition - I see no "glowing rock" either... JaGa 02:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support no question --Simonizer 06:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice view, light, sharpness. --Beyond silence 08:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Urban 12:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --MichaelMaggs 15:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I forgot to support, sorry :) Benh 17:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Malene Thyssen 17:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support How did you avoid overexposure in the sky? --Digon3 talk 19:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Before the shot I aimed a little higher to have half sky and half hoodoos, metering pattern with the bright sky and the shadow part both on sensor I set the exposure, then I recomposed. The whole works on my tripod to extend DOF with f/11. --LucaG 06:31, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks, if every FP came with an explanation of how the shot was made that would be a great learning experience for us all. Dori | Talk 23:50, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice. - Ceridwen 20:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support FP!! -- MJJR 20:42, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Wow. Humina. Doo-dle-doo 23:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support ----Amrum 09:40, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Leafnode 09:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Böhringer 15:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Jollyroger 12:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--A great image of a very beautiful placeMbz1 13:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC) Voting time is allready over --Simonizer 19:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
result: 16 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 19:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:London 360 from St Paul's Cathedral - Sept 2007.jpg, featured[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created and uploaded by Diliff - nominated by LucaG 21:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support as nominator. I'm not an expert about panos but this one really impressed me and the wow factor is 100% --LucaG 21:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Impressive sharpness ! How many cranes in the picture ? Vassil 23:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great pano. Dori | Talk 04:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Wow --Simonizer 07:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Absolutely outstanding! - gobeirne 08:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Technically impressive... I wonder what kind of machine Diliff uses to compute this picture ; 3x17 12Mpix pictures, that must require a lot of memory, especially during the blending process... Unless Diliff scales his pics down before stitching them. Lots of details... lots of cranes too (unfortunately). I noticed several stitching errors which makes me believe this might be a little too much pictures for the result. Still, I think it's a great picture overall ! Benh 09:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support One of most wow photos that I have ever seen! May the overexposed parts can be fixed. --Beyond silence 11:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support : je crois qu'il va être difficile de faire mieux. Thierry Caro 12:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I agree. Superb. --MichaelMaggs 15:42, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Despite the stitching errors. --Digon3 talk 19:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Impressive picture. I like the difference with the light of the day and the shadow (I'm not sure it's understandable ^^'). Ceridwen 20:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Here is my guess : light comes from one side, therefore on a 360° pano it lightens the buildings on a half of it and casts shadows on the other half, hence the difference you talk about. Actually, I was even wondering how Diliff managed to handle the difference of contrast so well. Benh 21:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral please have a look at [1]--Hendrixeesti 08:18, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
    And...? I've checked it and it's terribly overexposed, also made during not so good weather, because of what is dark and gloomy (but maybe this is how a picture of London should look like...? ;) ). --Leafnode 09:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Dongio 14:41, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great!!! --elemaki 19:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tone 13:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Wow!!! Sanchezn 20:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support impressive! --Leafnode 09:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- MJJR 20:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It´s absolutely perfect! One of the best pictures I ever saw! --Lucas Löffler 00:30, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I need a wall-sized monitor after seeing this! Suggestion: Add geodata to the image page. Adds value. -- Slaunger 06:12, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Out of principal. I don't expect my vote to have any effect on the nomination, but I think that Diliff should at least have done an effort to fix the many stitching errors that are scattered all over the image. Lycaon 12:46, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support As a Londoner I must say that that is one of the best pictures Ive ever seen! Nothing but respct is due for that amazing shot! --James.h.floyd 01:48, 21 March 2008(GMT)
result: 19 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Simonizer 19:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Lily Lilium 'Citronella' Flower 2578px.jpg, featured[edit]

Short description

Edit to remove other flower
Edit to remove other flower without disturbing skies so much.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info The genus Lilium are herbaceous flowering plants normally growing from bulbs, comprising a genus of about 110 species in the lily family, Liliaceae. As shown a Lily Lilium 'Citronella'
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created & uploaded by Ram-Man nominated by --Richard Bartz 23:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Impressive picture, superb colors --Richard Bartz 23:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Good colouring but unbalanced composition - Alvesgaspar 00:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - It is not only the presence of the other flower but also the tigth and assymmetrical framing which make the composition less good - Alvesgaspar 07:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great pop, but not too much, great color JaGa 02:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Obviously. FWIW, I cropped it as such to keep it from being symmetrical and centered, which some people like, some don't, apparently. -- Ram-Man 02:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I know some people don't like removing elements from images, but this could look better with the other flower removed I think. Here's my quick attempt (someone could probably do a better job). Dori | Talk 04:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Well done :) Can you please add a retouched picture template on this edit, and i will support that version, too --Richard Bartz 13:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Beautiful composition, colours, light, sharpness! --Beyond silence 08:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I was about to nominate this one when I saw it at QI, but was (a bit) annoyed by the background. I like the colours and details. I first agreed with Alvespaspar on the composition issue, but after a try to remove the right part, I think it's much better this way. Benh 11:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Lovely colours. I actually like the composition - the empty blue space adds to the contrast and makes the flower all the more beautiful. Doo-dle-doo 23:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
result: 6 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 19:49, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Edited Version, not featured[edit]

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment In spite of two facts (1, that I got really bored reading all of the guidelines about FP and images in general; and 2, I could only see two of the four gray circles drawn in the test SVG), if the edited version is going to be used, I have what I think is a better editing of it. The version displayed here has swirls of blue where the unwanted flower parts used to be. There seems to be nothing in the guidelines about how to manage an opinion and image upload of this nature. I am actually worried about undue retribution if I happen to touch the wrong contributors images. What to do? carol 14:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I would say reupload it to replace the version I uploaded. Leave the licenses as they are, and that should be all I would think. Dori | Talk 15:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't know if the image is better without the stuff, but at least the blue swirls are gone. Sorry Dori, I didn't look at who made the edits. carol 15:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't think removing is needed. --Beyond silence 16:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
result: 0 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 19:49, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Hallelujah! I now pronounce you....jpg, not featured[edit]

The newlywed and the brother in law

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Flickr_upload_bot - uploaded by Flickr_upload_bot - nominated by Dongio --Dongio 13:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Dongio 13:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Malene Thyssen 17:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like the pathos. --LucaG 20:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Lovely image. The preacher is very slightly out of focus, but not enough to detract from a wonderful photo. Adam Cuerden 20:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The composition is what does it for me. Doo-dle-doo 23:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Definite focus problems (the right figure) and no wow whatsoever for me. Crop? Composition? -- Lycaon 08:53, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it's a problem the righ figure out of focus, he isn't on same plan, he is in second plan (excuse me for bad english :-) --Dongio 10:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Love is wow ;-) -- Slaunger 21:19, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support impressive --Karelj 22:08, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support cool --Richard Bartz 10:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - I like it too, despite the obvious technical flaws (focus, shadows, noise in background). Most of the charm is given by the expression of the preacher, who is out of focus by the way... Alvesgaspar 21:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice, but definitely has many technical flaws. --Leafnode 09:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Opposeper Lycaon --Mbz1 15:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As Lycaon and I also do not like the lighting. --Digon3 talk 15:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Lycaon Tbc 16:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, sorry. composition --Jollyroger 12:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Terrible. --Dezidor 13:30, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose while the focus isnt a big issue the composition disassociates "Dave" from the event, while the couple are central to the event the preacher/minister/celebrant should still be a apart of the event. Gnangarra 07:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
result: 9 support, 8 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 19:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Cachoeira Véu da Noiva.jpg, not featured[edit]

Waterfall in Rio de Janeiro

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by User:Vittau - uploaded by User:Vittau - nominated by User:Vittau --Vittau 19:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Vittau 19:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Overexposed sky and water. --Digon3 talk 20:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose ack Digon3 Lycaon 20:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose ack Digon3 --Leafnode 06:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 20:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:177715main image feature 832 ys full.jpg, not featured[edit]

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info The seven original Mercury astronauts participate in a U.S. Air Force survival training. Created by NASA - uploaded by startaq - nominated by startaq --startaq 15:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Image quality isn't too good, but it's a fantastic picture. --startaq 15:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Lestat 19:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose aberrated colors. -LadyofHats 15:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 20:04, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:QG-EB.jpg, not featured[edit]

Head Quarter of the Brazil Army

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created and nominated by Alex Pereiradisc - falaê 01:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Alex Pereiradisc - falaê 01:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Underexposed, unsharp, and noisy in the darker areas. --Digon3 talk 13:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose agree with digon3. a bad composition too-LadyofHats 15:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as above --Leafnode 06:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 20:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:P1000279.JPG, not featured[edit]

The Washington Memorial

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Eric Imhauser - uploaded by Eric Imhauser - nominated by Eric Imhauser -- Eric Imhauser 21:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Eric Imhauser 21:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment bad filename --Simonizer 22:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Grainy at full view, bad filename. Nice shot though, Eric, thank you. Neutrality 05:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Bad filename, composition uninteresting. Image page should say where it was taken - is it at the Washington Memorial (?) or is its subject the Washington Monument? Doo-dle-doo 20:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Need more value for FP, noisy. Sorry, at first you may take a try at Commons:Quality images candidates! --Beyond silence 20:46, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I dislike this composition, noisy picture. --Egg 11:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 20:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Absolute palais du rhin 01.JPG, not featured[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Jonathan M - uploaded by Absolutecars - nominated by Absolutecars --Absolutecars 20:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Absolutecars 20:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The super-dark tree on the left is distracting and the image could use a slight counter-clockwise rotation. I'd support this as a QI though. Calibas 04:34, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as Calibas --Jollyroger 11:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I agree with Calibas Mayaboy 22:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC) sockpuppet. Lycaon 22:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as above --Chrumps 21:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Dezidor 13:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 20:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Centaurea sadleriana-1.JPG, not featured[edit]

Pannonian Knapweed

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by Beyond silence --Beyond silence 14:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Beyond silence 14:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Harsh lighting. --Digon3 talk 21:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Falcone 12:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC) sockpuppet. Lycaon 22:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nothing special. --Egg 11:26, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Composition, background, lighting, lack of wow. Lycaon 11:30, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
lol. --Beyond silence 11:54, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
No, seriously. Composition is quite centred and trivial, background is cluttered and a bit disturbing, lighting is harsh and even a bit overexposing and this leads me to a lack of wow. (I didn't mention the noise, did I?). Lycaon 12:01, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 20:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

image:samsoncj snail 07.jpg, not featured[edit]

Close up of snail taken in the hills of Torna Pune Maharashtra

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Cj.samson - uploaded by Cj.samson - nominated by Cj.samson --Cj.samson 13:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Cj.samson 13:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Glow on snail's body. Doo-dle-doo 19:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Interesting composition but quite poor DOF. Only the shell is focused. Alvesgaspar 21:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sharpness. Glow on snail's body. --Beyond silence 08:06, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Unfocused. --Egg 11:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As above. --Digon3 talk 13:43, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Very nice, but I don't like flash photos. Colors ar too much saturationly. --Mihael Simonic 08:38, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 20:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Papilio machaon caterpillar.jpg, delisted[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Very nice colors and composition but the whole caterpillar is Oof, doesnt meet the actual standards in my eyes (Original nomination)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist --Richard Bartz 11:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist Unsharp. --Beyond silence 11:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist per nom. --MichaelMaggs 12:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist Unfocused. --Digon3 talk 23:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist Agree with Richard --Simonizer 22:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist A wee part of the front of the caterpillar and of the straw might be well focused, but it is not enough. --Javier ME 21:59, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep --Dezidor 13:02, 29 September 2007 (UTC) Voting time is allready over --Simonizer 20:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
result: 0 keep, 6 Delist, 0 neutral => delisted. Simonizer 20:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Hoverfly03 crop.jpg, delisted[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Created and uploaded by User:Fir0002
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Wonderful colors, cute composition in thumbnail. The DOF and detail on the flower with the missing id is not great, the unidentified insect is not very detailed, too and slight blurred .. overall, the contrast/light/details looks very harsh for me, compared with the display quality of the insect on this older FP picture.
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist --Richard Bartz 12:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist Per nom, but mostly because of the contrast (or lack there of) between the subject and the background. --Digon3 talk 23:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist distracting background, harsh colours --Simonizer 22:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist Expose, detail. --Beyond silence 08:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist per nom -- Lycaon 09:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist per nom--Mbz1 22:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
result: 0 keep, 6 Delist, 0 neutral => delisted. Simonizer 20:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:XN Sympetrum sanguineum w prey 658.jpg, delisted[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Created and uploaded by Guido Gerding, original nomination
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info The image quality is very poor (extreme noisy). I know that the prey is a very interesting subject but i cant cognize what prey this is. Is it a tiny fish or larvae ? (Original nomination)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist --Richard Bartz 13:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist Extremely noisy. The bar is set pretty high now... --Digon3 talk 23:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist Terrible colours! --Beyond silence 08:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist per nom -- Lycaon 09:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist per nom--Mbz1 22:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist per nom -- Slaunger 20:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist --Dezidor 13:02, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Thanks for listing this as featured picture for such a long time! Regarding the prey it would help to look at the description page of the image. No one has to puzzle about it. --XN 02:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
result: 0 keep, 6 Delist, 0 neutral => delisted. Simonizer 20:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Chicago Downtown Panorama.jpg, delisted[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info low size and resolution, quality not up to date (Original nomination)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist --Simonizer 13:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist per nom --Richard Bartz 13:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist Poor resolution. --Beyond silence 16:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist Should be at least 800 px high, stitching errors. --Digon3 talk 19:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist per nom -- Lycaon 09:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist agreed. -- Slaunger 20:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
result: 0 keep, 6 Delist, 0 neutral => delisted. Simonizer 20:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:A Study in bronze I by Frederick Monsen.jpg

Image:Tiled roof in Dubrovnik.jpg, not featured[edit]

Tiled roof in Dubrovnik (Croatia)

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded & nominated by Beyond silence --Beyond silence 10:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Beyond silence 10:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This, I feel, is a bold attempt. I like the simple, almost minimalistic composition, limited colour choices and textures of the tiles. Very interesting and valuable image of objects we encounter every day. Freedom to share 15:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I don't think there is enough wow for this to be a FP. I also do not like the color of the sky. --Digon3 talk 01:28, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose nothing special but I'm impatient to see the frontage for a second chance--Doalex 08:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose sorry, i don't feel it. --AngMoKio 20:32, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I'm predisposed to like such images usually (like the texture) but there is harsh contrast on the tiles, the sky is on the verge of overexposure and has a "weird" color, and it's tilted CCW (judging from the cross). Dori | Talk
Why so improtant the sky is? Weird colour? --Beyond silence 09:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't like the color as it doesn't look realistic. A polarizer would probably bring out the deeper blue without reducing brightness too much (although in this case that might actually help with the high contrast issue as well). Dori - Talk 13:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Dori. Sorry. --MichaelMaggs 12:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Pictogram voting delete.svg --Beyond silence 14:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

result: Withdrawn => not featured. Simonizer 19:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Edited, not featured[edit]

Tiled roof in Dubrovnik (Croatia)

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded & nominated by Beyond silence --Beyond silence 14:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Beyond silence 10:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I like the tiles, but there are marks on the sky. Vassil 19:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC) It's a new edit now. Vassil 17:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, but I don't see how this can be called "most valuable picture from all others". --Leafnode 07:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like the tiled roofs of Dubrovnik. Vassil 20:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose sorry i am still not convinced of the composition. ...but i like it when people experiment with compostions. I also have the feeling that in the edited version the roof seems to "glow" a bit. The sky around the roof is a bit brighter than in the rest of the picture ..or are my eyes tricking me?! --AngMoKio 21:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, but I don't think it was enough. I still see the cross as leaning, the contrast is still pretty high, and now the roof has a halo effect (no trick AngMoKio). Dori - Talk 02:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Don't you think contrast is high at noon sun? --Beyond silence 10:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes it is (I'm not saying it's unrealistic), but it's unfortunate. I think it would have come out better early in the morning or sometime in the afternoon. Dori - Talk 13:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 19:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Vue en montant à Vallonpierre.jpg, not featured[edit]

Vue en montant à Vallonpierre

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded by Berrucomons - nominated by Benh
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The kind of scenery I always try to catch, not as beautifuly though :) -- Benh 17:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Jeehaa, i love the alps --Simonizer 17:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC) I have been a little fast with my support vote. I didnt recognize the CA in the snow areas. If this is corrected i will change to support again --Simonizer 09:27, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral The background seems unfocused, could you try and downsample? --Digon3 talk 19:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- MJJR 20:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It seems that the image is either i. not sharp or ii. upscaled. I think that it is the latter and we would need to nominate the original version. Freedom to share 21:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Strong colour fringing along upper mountain edge, particularly on left side of the image. There is a danger of mountain pictures being too easily accepted as having wow factor without sufficient consideration of technical and composition qualities. I would judge this image as being rather below the bar for each, regrettably. A nice enough photo though. --MichaelMaggs 21:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Agree with MichaelMaggs. All we have to do is to open the image in full resolution. Alvesgaspar 22:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Piffle. This shot is gorgeous and well-balanced. JaGa 05:18, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose ack MichaelMaggs despite definite wow. Lycaon 08:50, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 2 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 20:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Edit,featured[edit]

downsampled version

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and edited by Berrucomons I did not nominate this picture because of technical imperfections. Apparently opposed voters agree with me on that. This downsampling is still a rather large picture, and looks more sharp at full resolution. Berrucomons 09:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I support this one too of course Benh 20:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tone 12:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Both of the problems I mentioned above are still evident, I'm afraid. Sorry. --MichaelMaggs 21:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral There is still CA at the snowborders --Simonizer 22:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - That was a huge downsample, it would be preferable to start with less extreme measures. But the resulting image is technically good enough in my opinion, the purple fringing is minimal - Alvesgaspar 10:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I am not very good at editing. I can manage things like levels, shadows/highlights, etc. but when it comes to CA, fringing or sharpness enhancement, I often am too heavy on the filters and make artifacts. Berrucomons 07:21, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Better. --Digon3 talk 15:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Looking at this makes me feel like I'm standing there. Calibas 04:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Better indeed. Lycaon 12:35, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support of course JaGa 17:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Simonizer 20:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:PanoMontBlancHDR.jpg[edit]

1Panorama of Mont Blanc 2edited version

  • Edit 1
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info This panorama has an amazing quality, but we have to be patient and get it opened in full resolution. I'm afraid the "mountain bar" has been put quite high recently. Created and uploaded by Nicolas Sanchez, nominated by Alvesgaspar --Alvesgaspar 10:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Alvesgaspar 10:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose While the building at the right looks good as a thumbnail it looks ugly at full res and shows entirely different colours, detracts from the composition. Would support a cropped version. Freedom to share 12:19, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Sure, the building is not in the best condition, but it gives the picture a sense of scale. So keep it! Great panorama --Simonizer 13:05, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Crop out the black thing on the left side and I will support. It is a very good panorama, what camera did you use to take this? --Digon3 talk 13:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I know... I tried to crop more, but I want to see the beginning of the mountain just above this rock. I think the beginning of the mountain is more important than this rock. Maybe I can clone this out ? Sanchezn 13:38, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I use a canon EOS 400D with a 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM lens (here 17mm, 100ISO, 1/400 and f/8). The panorama is a HDR (3 different expositions) of 3 pictures stitched with hugin. Sanchezn 14:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Otherwise I will get scolded 8:-) Benh 20:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 20:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Edit 2, featured
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info I already did. --Digon3 talk 13:55, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • thanks, I'm not good for this. Sanchezn 14:05, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Digon3 talk 13:55, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good job of buffing out the black thing. What did you use? Doo-dle-doo 14:32, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Beyond silence 15:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg QuestionWhy is there no information on the creation of the picture? E.g. number of photographs in the composition? Lycaon 16:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • It's modified on each description. Thanks for your question. Now you can change it on "Support" :-) Sanchezn 17:57, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support thanks ;-). Lycaon 18:17, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Alvesgaspar 18:49, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --LucaG 20:50, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support as well --Simonizer 11:41, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Otherwise I will get scolded 8:-) Benh 20:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Tone 12:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I suggest adding some geodata including a heading to the image page. Increases value. -- Slaunger 20:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • That's done. Sanchezn 21:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Excellent. -- Slaunger 22:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- MJJR 21:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Leafnode 07:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Wonderful. --Egg 12:02, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 20:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:PigeonMonceau.jpg, not featured[edit]

Pigeon

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment How far away were you from the pigeon? I can't believe you took this at 55mm. Dori | Talk 17:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Are the pigeons where you live shy? In Oakland, California I feed them by hand. Calibas 18:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I was like 2m or 3m away from it, I don't quite remember... but pigeons aren't that scared of people. Also, you might want to know I own a Canon EOS 400D, which has a 1.6 factor cropped sensor, therefore the equivalent focal in 35mm world would be 88mm. Benh 20:35, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks. This time the question had to do with detail at that distance rather than the subject flying away. Where I am sometimes you have to be careful not to step on them. Dori | Talk 21:41, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Pigeons are beautiful animals, too bad people don't notice because they're so common. Calibas 18:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose There isn't composition, high value. No wow --Beyond silence 12:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I saw a scene like that before, I swear it was the same pigeon and same stone (wonder how they got to Warsaw :) ), but before I took out my EOS 350D it flew away... This is a nice, proper, image and I like the way in which the pigeon almost seems to be part of a statue. Freedom to share 15:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • didn't I tell you I went to Warsaw ? no that's not true :) but I wish I could Benh 20:43, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Vassil 19:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Very nice technical quality, but the composition is not sufficiently interesting to make the photo truly outstanding for me, sorry. Side question: Has the background been postprocessed heavily? For me it looks somewhat posterized or artificial... -- Slaunger 20:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I didn't postprocess this file, I used a large aperture (see EXIFs). Benh 20:43, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
      • OK, thank you for clarifying that to me. -- Slaunger 22:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Sanchezn 20:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • On ne dira à personne que je t'ai supplié de voter pour moi ;) Benh 20:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- MJJR 21:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral good quality but composition is a little bit boring --Simonizer 21:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Agree with Simonizer. I don't like both the platform in the foreground, which looks dull, and the backgroud, a bit distracting - Alvesgaspar 21:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose ack Simonizer - messy backgound. --Leafnode 07:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Good technical quality, but the composition suffers for the fact that the bird is centred.--MichaelMaggs 21:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Well focused, sharp details. --Egg 11:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose ack Leafnode Lycaon 12:33, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
result: 9 support, 6 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 20:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Steenbrugge Grafmonument 02.jpg, featured[edit]

Bruges (Belgium): detail of a tomb at the Steenbrugge Cemetery

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by MJJR - uploaded by MJJR - nominated by MJJR -- MJJR 20:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- MJJR 20:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It is a pity the statue is very dirty. Besides that I like the photo very much. -- Slaunger 21:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
    • It's a detail of a 19th century tomb - so, the spider webs and dead leaves add to the sadness expressed by the statue... -- MJJR 19:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
      • OK, sounds reasonable. -- Slaunger 19:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great portait of statue! Nice shadow, and composition. --Beyond silence 23:03, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support J'aime beaucoup ! Tellement bien qu'on voit hélàs la saleté... c'est l'inconvénient des très bonnes optiques ;) Benh 20:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question Enige info over de kunstenaar beschikbaar? Lycaon 20:53, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question - Vocês os dois estão a falar de quê? - Alvesgaspar 21:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Eu inquiri sobre o artista :-)) Lycaon 23:11, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Good questions! The statue is part of the monumental tomb of the sculptor Hendrik Pickery (Bruges, 1828-1894) and later on also of his son Gustaaf Pickery (Bruges, 1862-1921) who was a sculptor too. One might expect that the son could be the artist who made these nice sculptures on his fathers tomb. Strange enough, I can not find any evidence about that... Here is still some investigation to do for an art historian! -- MJJR 18:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Dead leaves and spider webs belong to the subject... Vassil 19:43, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support But how about adding those valuable additional details to the image page? It adds to the value of the photo IMO. -- Slaunger 19:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Information is now added to the image page. -- MJJR 20:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Excellent! -- Slaunger 22:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - but some kind of HDR would be nice to "uncover" dark parts of this photo --Leafnode 07:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support leaves, dirt, spider web are part of the subject. Romary 09:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 20:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Doužnjek3.JPG, not featured[edit]

Hand made in Lipovci, Slovenia

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Janeznovak - uploaded by Janeznovak - nominated by Janeznovak --Janeznovak 06:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Janeznovak 06:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Unfortunate lighting, not sharp, noisy, no English description and not (properly) categorized fixed it myself. Lycaon 12:30, 29 September 2007 (UTC) . Lycaon 12:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I translated description to english --Mihael Simonic 17:24, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, but I think as Lycaon --Mihael Simonic 17:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I like the lighting, but I have to agree with Lycaon on sharpness and noise, also it does not seem properly centered. I don't think that pictures need to retain the 3:2 aspect ratio as out-of-cam. --JDrewes 20:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose ack Lycaon --Leafnode 07:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose dislike the lighting, overexposed and underexposed areas . really noisy-LadyofHats 15:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support nice hand-made straw lamp -- Pinky sl 16:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Voting the technique, not the object. Per Lycaon. --Jollyroger 11:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured --Simonizer 21:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Young night heron.jpg, featured[edit]

Young night heron (Nycticorax nycticorax) taken at Lake Merritt in Oakland, California

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Calibas - uploaded by Calibas - nominated by Calibas --Calibas 18:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Calibas 18:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very nice detail. Would you mind telling me what lens you used (specific model) and at what distance you took the picture? Also did you use manual or autofocus? I was out today trying my 70-300mm on birds and I couldn't get close enough to get that kind of detail, plus focus wasn't all that great (manual was somewhat better surprisingly, but still pretty bad as this was the best I could muster). Dori | Talk 19:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I used the 70-300 IS USM for this picture, was about 5 ft (1.5m) away and used autofocus. This was at a bird sanctuary in Lake Merritt where people normally feed the birds so these are pretty much tame. I actually had to back up to get the shot. Calibas 03:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Excellent! -- MJJR 19:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support it must have been his 70-300 IS as written on his user page. I also have this lense and i love it :) --AngMoKio 20:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Excellent sharpness! At 300mm, IS or not, tripod or not, an outstanding picture like this you don't get from just releasing the shutter! --JDrewes 20:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Though I would like to see a picture of the whole bird - Alvesgaspar 20:41, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support ! - Benh 20:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --MichaelMaggs 21:24, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Wow. --Digon3 talk 23:34, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Holy cow that's sharp JaGa 00:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Razor-sharp! --LucaG 19:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Wwelles14 19:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I join the choir of supporters -- Slaunger 19:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Leafnode 06:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good --Richard Bartz 13:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Böhringer 15:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Chrumps 21:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Mbz1 03:18, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Sharp details. --Egg 11:55, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This is probably one of the sharpest photos I have ever seen. Doodle-doo Ħ 15:48, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Going against the tide here but oh well. Poor composition (body cut off too much - too much empty space top of image which could have been better used to get more body). Noise at full res. Not sharp at all. Seriously, i can't belive the comments this is getting praising its sharpness - have you looked at it full res? It's not sharp at all!! And compared to images like that taken by Diliff etc it baffles the mind that it is being hailed as "razor sharp" etc. Please ppl look at it full res! --Fir0002 www 01:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
    • While I'm not making the claim that it's razor sharp, saying it's not sharp at all is ridiculous. Calibas 01:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Sheesh. Yeah, I second the motion - you're going a bit overboard with the condemnation there, Fir0002. It's a striking, beautiful, sharp picture, and frankly I like what the blue in the background adds to the shot and wouldn't want it cropped. Not being Diliff isn't a justification for Oppose (yet). JaGa 22:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
      • No I stick by my comment - it isn't sharp. I'm not saying it's blurry but It's not sharp. And I wouldn't have brought this up except for comment such as "Excellent sharpness", "Holy cow that's sharp", "Razor-sharp!", "Sharp details." and even "This is probably one of the sharpest photos I have ever seen"!! Look at least on this image full res: Image:Young night heron temp.jpg and please don't tell me that those areas show exemplary sharpness. Image:Young night heron downsampled sharpened.jpg shows much better sharpness but even that I wouldn't go overboard from. With regards to composition - that too I think can be improved, the bg is nice but less cutting off of the neck at the bottom would be far preferable to the empty space up top. --Fir0002 www 00:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
        • Your work on it is an improvement, but you could've made your points without being so condescending. "Not sharp at all!!!" is a little over the top, don't you think? Your Oppose statement didn't have a friendly "I think this could be improved" tone to it; it had a harsh "I can't believe everyone likes this sucky picture" tone. But it isn't too late to make amends :) How did you sharpen it, and how did you decide how much to downsample? JaGa 01:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
          • It might have been over the top, but conversely IMO so is "Holy cow that's sharp" et al - which was really what I was responding too. I apologize if any offence was taken from my comments, however as I've mentioned elsewhere I've felt for some time now that standards were slipping a bit on commons and since no one else seemed to have commented on my concern (in fact a large majority were quite the opposite) I felt it was necessary to come out somewhat strongly. I do think it's a nice picture, however, and I need to tread carefully here so I don't (re?)offend the photographer, I don't think it's quite FP level and certainly not (again IMO) worthy of the level of support it got. I sharpened by applying a smart sharpen to the full res pic with a fairly large radius (~2.5px from memory) and then applying another finer sharpen a sharpening script I have (the core sharpen resulting from unsharp mask at ~1.0px). I didn't choose the downsample amount for any particular reason other than it was fairly substantial (~50%) and is what I downsample my images to --Fir0002 www 03:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
        • I think we've firmly established that sharp is a relative term : ) . Thank you for the comments I will keep them in mind. Calibas 03:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  • If we have to consider perfect sharpness (especially on bird subjects), I'd have to go with Mdf's shots, and this one is on par with them. Maybe not the sharpest, but sharp enough for FP all the same. Dori - Talk 02:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes Mdf has some terrific shots - I recently discovered another bird photography, en:User:Wwcsig who also takes superb bird shots --Fir0002 www 03:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Satisfies my criteria. Walter Siegmund (talk) 02:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC) Voting time is allready over --Simonizer 21:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
result: 20 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured --Simonizer 21:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:The Great Wave off Kanagawa.jpg, not featured[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Image:Tsunami by hokusai 19th century.jpg was successfully nominated (see nom) as a featured picture in January 2005. Since then, a newer, much higher resolution image of this artwork was uploaded, overwriting the original version. Meanwhile, on the talk page there were numerous comments that suggest it be renamed. The file name is incorrect. This is not a tsunami. Also, had a request to do so. We now have Image:The Great Wave off Kanagawa.jpg, which is appropriately named. The colors in "The Great Wave" are also slightly different. In my opinion, Image:The Great Wave off Kanagawa.jpg is by far the better quality version (and correctly named). I suggest we delist Image:Tsunami by hokusai 19th century.jpg (see delist request), and making Image:The Great Wave off Kanagawa.jpg the featured picture. -Aude (talk | contribs) 19:36, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support ---Aude (talk | contribs) 19:36, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support suggestion. This is an admirable masterpice (though not a tsunami, for sure)! - Alvesgaspar 20:37, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
    • After the comments below - Alvesgaspar 22:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--MichaelMaggs 21:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Javier ME 21:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Mbz1 22:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Fg2 22:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support and delist the other. --Digon3 talk 23:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Please be aware of the discussion at Image talk:The Great Wave off Kanagawa.jpg. There may actually be different versions of this print. The version here is not from the Met, but not sure where it's from. The en:The Great Wave off Kanagawa article and this link explains something about the different versions, [2] suggesting the Met version is a "copy". Also, that the final print had more "stunning use of color," possibly this version. I don't know. Don't know how authentic this version is. Also, maybe the Met copy is an older copy? don't know. But not sure where the final print is. Would be great to figure that out, and sort out confusion. I'm trying to get input from Japanese users who might know more. -Aude (talk | contribs) 01:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment This version is apparently a print from a different woodblock (different cloud and sea-spray detail) than the 'Hokusai' woodblock that is part of the Monet woodblock collection - the existing FP appears to be (in detail if not colour) from the Monet woodblock. Anyone any info about the authenticity of the Monet bookblock, or info about the origin of the print depicted here? (maybe it would be nice to ensure our FP is the authentic version ;-) --Tony Wills 02:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
The Monet collection has one of many impressions (the technical term) of the original print, as do The British Museum, Louvre, Met and many other collections. The other picture is a different print, a copy from 100 years later. Johnbod 12:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
The British Museum and Metropolitan Museum of Art versions appear to be prints from the Monet woodblock. --Tony Wills 02:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Impressions of the same woodcut. The actual printing woodblocks (one per colour) vanished long ago. Johnbod 12:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I'm tempted to make my own prints from this. Calibas 03:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The less-bright image is a C19 original, the brighter one a C20 reproduction, made from scratch using the same techniques, but different. We would not dream of making a copy of a Rembrandt by a painter a century later a featured picture, and we should not make this one. I think most people commenting above are not aware they are supporting what might harshly be called a fake. Btw, someone has incorrectedly added the narrative from the copy, explaining it IS a copy, to the file for the original - see the history. Also the licensing must be regarded as dubious. The original uploader, who I think knows what he is talking about, says it was made ca. 1930, by unknown craftsmen. The designer, Hokusai, certainly died a long time ago, but as their copy is created from scratch, I would imagine there is a copyright in the re-cutting too. Johnbod 12:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Reproduction or not the colors are so much better than the original. I'll renew my support if we can confirm this isn't copyrighted. Calibas 00:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Agreed. Make sense of Johnbod's comments and I'm in. I love the work. JaGa 16:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose For not the first time, I am very bemused that people are willing to vote images as being 'amongst the most valuable on commons (or wikipedia for that matter)' on the basis of some idea of perfection, rather on the actual value of the image. Surely a copy of the original is of more value than a reproduction (just as well you guys don not deal in antiques :-) --Tony Wills 12:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Look how badly the sky is done on the fake one compared with the original. Nice picture bur original obviously holds more value. - Moravice 20:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Though I'm not an antique dealer ;-), I agree with Tony on this one. Lycaon 23:01, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose an image of the original with its flaws is better than an image of a copy(fake), what ever the reason we shouldnt be promoting fakes as our best work. Gnangarra 07:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
result: 5 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured --Simonizer 21:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Kamienczyk Waterfall 2005-08.jpg, not featured[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by JDavid - uploaded by JDavid - nominated by JDavid --JDavid 20:09, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --JDavid 20:09, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very nice image. Galileo01 20:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Overexposed sky and water Lycaon 20:38, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Ack Lycaon. --Digon3 talk 23:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Very nice image in overexposed sky and water --Mihael Simonic 18:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Lestat 19:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose ack Lycaon --Leafnode 06:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured --Simonizer 21:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Canada provinces evolution.gif, featured[edit]

Canada provinces evolution

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Golbez - uploaded by Golbez - nominated by White Cat -- Cat ちぃ? 15:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Cat ちぃ? 15:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very cool! JaGa 15:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Symbol support vote.svg Support This is a fantastic, useful and valuable animation. Good technical quality and a clear purpose and useability make it a definite featured picture. Freedom to share 15:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question I find that it is a very good animation. But, is there a good explanation for selecting grey, pink and light brown as the main colours? In my opinon they do not look very good together. Admittedly, I do not have the perfect alternative suggestion readily available, but how a about using a pale red, pale blue and pale yellow or other more 'pure' colour combinations? But again, I like the animation, and it is good way to illustrate the timeline of the provinces in Canada. -- Slaunger 19:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Explanation: I started making locator maps using pale pink and bright red. Then when I had to include foreign areas, I started using brown. When I started doing this, I used brown for territories and decided to go with a neutral gray for foreign areas. I'm not justifying it, but you did ask for an explanation. ;) --Golbez 05:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Thank you for the explanation, it was an honest one ;-) I have thought about it, and I think the colours selection has to be improved to make it FP worthy. Sorry -- Slaunger 20:33, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very nice. --Karelj 20:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -LadyofHats 15:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Mbz1 17:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --MichaelMaggs 21:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Though I am with Slaunger on the colors. --Digon3 talk 15:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Oh Canada. Doo-dle-doo 20:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Poromiami 6:03 3 October 2007 (CEST)
result: 10 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 19:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Zinnia elegans with Bombus 01.JPG, featured[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created and nominated by Simonizer 21:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Simonizer 21:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Benh 22:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Python 13:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Böhringer 15:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Mbz1 16:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Lovely composition and colors --LucaG 19:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- MJJR 19:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --MichaelMaggs 21:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Digon3 talk 23:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I agree with LucaG Vassil 08:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Perfect composition and gorgeous colours. Pity that you couldn't negotiate a better DOF (I know, they are restless creatures) - Alvesgaspar 15:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good composition and colours. The right green part could be trimmed. --Egg 11:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Basik07 20:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Sergey kudryavtsev 06:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC) Voting time is allready over --Simonizer 19:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 19:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Moesel avondschemering.jpg, not featured[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by User:Jellobie - uploaded by User:Jellobie - nominated by User:Jellobie A picture of the riverbank in Bernkastel-Kues (Germany)--Jellobie 19:48, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Jellobie 19:48, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Unfocused, poor composition. --Egg 11:00, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It is unfocused and unsharp. It is a very beautiful picture otherwise and I like the mood. --Digon3 talk 13:47, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info The focus is in the water. User: Jellobie
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose composition --Leafnode 07:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (Rule of the 5th day) --Simonizer 21:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Iceberg with hole.JPG, not featured[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg InfoIcebergs around Cape York,Greenland. Created,uploaded and nominated by Mbz1 --Mbz1 16:49, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Mbz1 16:49, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The composition is very static (subject in the middle of the frame; I am not certain that an iceberg warrents such a static composition. Technically it's sharp and well-exposed, and the result is very pleasing. Rama 17:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Thank you for the comment, Rama.I guess I know what you meant under static composition. You wanted the iceberg to be out of the middle of the image. Right? Well, the picture was taken 2 years ago, long before I ever went to Wikipedia and to learn that the composition looks better, if the main subject is not in the middle. I'm afraid I tried to put all my icebergs in the middle of my images back in 2005.--Mbz1 17:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support A crop on the left would improve it, but it's a very good picture anyhow. Vassil 19:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Looks tilted, sharpness, uncomposed. --Beyond silence 19:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting delete.svg Thank you, Vassil
result: withdrawn => not featured --Simonizer 21:21, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Tsunami by hokusai 19th century.jpg, delisted[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info The file name is incorrect. This is not a tsunami. There are comments on Image_talk:Tsunami_by_hokusai_19th_century.jpg that suggest it be renamed, and had a request to do so. We now have Image:The Great Wave off Kanagawa.jpg, which is appropriately named. Also, I see that the "renamed" file is actually a newer, higher version, overwriting the original version of "tsunami". The colors are also slightly different. In my opinion, Image:The Great Wave off Kanagawa.jpg is by far the better quality version (and correctly named). I suggest we delist Image:Tsunami by hokusai 19th century.jpg, and making Image:The Great Wave off Kanagawa.jpg the featured picture. (see nom) -Aude (talk | contribs) 19:32, 23 September 2007 (UTC) (Original nomination)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist per Johnbod. This is better than a reproduction, but the low resolution here does not make this a featured picture. -Aude (talk | contribs) 01:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist - Agree. Please refer to the new FP nomination above - Alvesgaspar 20:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist but new picture has to go through the proper FP procedure!!. Lycaon 20:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist As above comments. --Javier ME 21:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist Fg2 22:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist per nom--Mbz1 22:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist As above. --Digon3 talk 23:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist as this is not a great-quality scan. But nb the other is a different woodcut, a modern reproduction of the Hokusai using newly-cut blocks. I don't believe this should be an FP on grounds of lack of authenticity, and misleading people. Johnbod 13:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep Until a better version of this image (not the later reproductions) is found (renaming of this one would be appropriate meanwhile). I am bemused that people are willing to vote images as being 'amongst the most valuable on commons (or wikipedia for that matter)' on the basis of some idea of perfection, rather on the actual value of the image. Surely this copy of the original is of more value than a reproduction (just as well you guys do not deal in antiques :-) --Tony Wills 12:14, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep per Tony Wills - Moravice 20:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep like Tony I find that an image of the original is more important then copies/reproduction images Gnangarra 00:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist Size is obviously a problem, neglecting the other issues. -- Ram-Man 02:17, 4 October 2007 (UTC) Voting time is allready over --Simonizer 20:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
result: 8 Delist, 3 Keep, 0 neutral => delisted. Simonizer 20:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Phalaenopsis (aka).jpg, delisted[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info half-dead the most common orchid at a white paper. I really do not like the image(Original nomination)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist --Mbz1 22:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I 'm not sure how it passed in the first pleace. Please look at the original nomination.--Mbz1 23:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
    Rising standards :) It was pretty sharp at that time, but I'm glad I didn't vote support. Also note what the requirements were [3] Dori - Talk 03:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeSymbol oppose vote.svg Delist I agree, yuck! -- Slaunger 20:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
    • I believe the votes here should be not "oppose", but "delist" or "keep".
      • You're right. Corrected! -- Slaunger 22:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist Calibas 00:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist --Dezidor 13:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist The resolution is too low for such a common flower. -- Ram-Man 13:10, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
result: 5 Delist, 0 Keep, 0 neutral => delisted. Simonizer 20:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Vitruvian.jpg, delisted[edit]

Vitruvian Man

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info No the sufficient quality, Now, best here:Vitruve: (Original nomination)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist --Luc Viatour 06:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist better version available --Simonizer 08:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist Obviously this has been superseded. -- Ram-Man 11:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist Superseded. --Digon3 talk 11:43, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist size --Beyond silence 12:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist per nom. --MichaelMaggs 12:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
result: 6 Delist, 0 Keep, 0 neutral => delisted. Simonizer 20:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Albert Harris - Coconut shy B.jpg, delisted[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info size (Original nomination)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist --Beyond silence 12:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist Ding ding ding, too small. Doo-dle-doo 19:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist Size --Simonizer 21:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep - Charming picture, excellent colouring - Alvesgaspar 21:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist I can't see any reason why it was ever featured --Roger McLassus 08:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep I really like the composition. Another case of changing standards I guess, and I wonder what will happen when we have 100Mpx cameras (probably all current FPs will be delisted as too small). Dori - Talk 03:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist This is just too small. -- Ram-Man 21:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep Meets my standards, should remain featured. Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC) Voting time is allready over! --Simonizer 20:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
result: 5 Delist, 2 Keep, 0 neutral => delisted. Simonizer 20:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Combat-de-phelsumes-sur-un-bananier.JPG, featured[edit]

Phelsuma laticauda during a fight

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by Thierry Caro, in the hope that it will please you --Thierry Caro 11:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Thierry Caro 11:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose don't like the composition, and find the background (on the left) rather annoying -LadyofHats 15:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment That's because the picture was taken in a urban environment, which makes it even more interesting to me. Thierry Caro 15:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportNice details. You could see the teeth of the gecko.--Mbz1 16:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Karelj 21:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good details. --Egg 11:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Disturbing background could have been avoided. Lycaon 12:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I think that a version cropped to show just the bananier and the geckos (geckoes?) would be a better candidate. Doodle-doo Ħ 21:41, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support nice catch ! and good quality overall. Benh 22:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
result: 5 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Thierry Caro 15:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Cloître des Archevêques (Narbonne, 11).JPG, not featured[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded, nominated by Florent Pécassou 08:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Florent Pécassou 08:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose overexpose. --Beyond silence 08:52, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose same reason as Beyond silence. -- Cecil 08:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose overexposed, poor composition, terrible chromatic aberration --Leafnode 11:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As above, also a bit of a tilt. --Digon3 talk 15:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Nuvola apps important yellow.svg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because overexposed and is not of high enough technical quality Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

--MichaelMaggs 17:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as Beyond silence --Chmee2 12:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Barn wind turbines 0504.jpg, featured[edit]

Barn wind turbines

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Dori - uploaded by Dori - nominated by Digon3 --Digon3 talk 01:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Digon3 talk 01:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Lacks the crispness I expect of an FP candidate. Also not enough wow for me. Lycaon 12:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportI like for the mysterious machine into the barn.--Doalex 17:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Karelj 22:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral without the grey buildings at the right side it would be great --Simonizer 08:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Value, composition, no wow. --Beyond silence 12:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like the contrast between the old barn and the turbines. Vassil 19:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It is an interesting shot, but no wow here, sorry. -- Slaunger 20:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I don't see this kind of subject often and it's nicely taken. Good to me :) Benh 20:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Thanks for the nomination Digon3. These barns have a lot of character and I liked the juxtaposition of old and new. It's tough to find good subject in rural illinois (unless you like corn fields). Dori - Talk 13:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I love the subject and the composition, but the image is a little soft. On the other hand it is quite large so a sharper downsized version should be possible. That would get my support.--MichaelMaggs 21:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
result: 6 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral => featured --Simonizer 21:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Edit[edit]

Barn wind turbines

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Dori. Cropped and down sampled version of the above. Dori - Talk 22:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Dori - Talk 22:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like the contrast between the old barn and the powerplants. The picture is much better without the distracting grey buildings in my opinion --Simonizer 07:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I agree. I'll cancel my vote for the first version if this one gets enough supports. Vassil 08:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The composition is better on the other. --Beyond silence 10:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Digon3 talk 15:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose For the same reasons as above... -- Slaunger 20:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Benh 20:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
result: 5 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (other version has more support) Simonizer 09:22, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Waterloo.JPG, not featured[edit]

Battle of Waterloo

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Pixar - uploaded by Pixar - nominated by Pixar --Pixar 11:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Pixar 11:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -LadyofHats 15:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not too sharp, there is some noise, but valueable. May I support if you improve on photo. --Beyond silence 16:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)Symbol support vote.svg Support excellent composition --Beyond silence 19:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Mbz1 17:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support very good timing --Karelj 21:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support An excellent composition. --MichaelMaggs 21:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Vassil 08:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Nice, but cropping kills. --Jollyroger 11:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Good picture, but neither the composition (cropped man at the left), nor the lighting convince me. --Tsui 19:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I have the same feeling. The cropped man at left ruins a very fine composition Alvesgaspar 21:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As Tsui. --Egg 11:47, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Technical issues (mainly noise) and composition (crop). Lycaon 12:26, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose compositon --Leafnode 22:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
result: 7 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 09:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Waterloo1.JPG, not featured[edit]

Battle of Waterloo

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I think you use too hard the reduction, some detail lost. --Beyond silence 19:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As Image:Waterloo.JPG and some details lost. --Egg 11:50, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose even worse. Lycaon 12:27, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
result: 0 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 20:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:USA 10096-7-8 HDR Antelope Canyon Luca Galuzzi 2007.jpg, featured[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created & uploaded by LucaG nominated by --Richard Bartz 12:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This is great because of the comparison of the sizes. --Richard Bartz 12:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Much better than the other three of the same subject. --Digon3 talk 13:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Yeah its the best so far --Richard Bartz 13:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The Antelope Canyon cat specified on the image page does not exist. I suggest adding the image to the existing Antelope Canyon gallery page instead and remove the catlink. This gallery has 15 other photos of the same subject, and personally I think that this recent FP of Antelope Canyon has more wow to it concerning colours and light, although it may not have the same technical quality as Lucas FPC. -- Slaunger 20:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Done. --LucaG 22:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -LadyofHats 15:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support top --Böhringer 15:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Nice image, but I do not feel that using a person to express the sheer size of them is useful. I feel that the photo would be much better without a person, as, like any work of art, it would leave the viewer wondering about the size of them and would make them more scalable and universal. So. imho, I feel that the person is a distraction. Freedom to share 16:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Beyond silence 16:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Beautiful shot. Love the color and texture. JaGa 17:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Vassil 17:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Alvesgaspar 19:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- MJJR 19:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I was about to nominate it :) Benh 19:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The presence of the person really makes this shot. --MichaelMaggs 21:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Before spotting this person I was sure it was shot of some kind muscle tissue :-) --Leafnode 06:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Simonizer 17:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support perfect shot --Jollyroger 11:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support bombastic. __ ABF __ ϑ 14:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Lovely composition and light. --Egg 11:42, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Er Komandante (messages) 01:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The presence of the person is in my opinion very useful. Not seen every day. ---donald- 13:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Remarkable achievement considering the brightness range. Walter Siegmund (talk) 03:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Poromiami 6:03 3 October 2007 (CEST)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Basik07 20:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Sergey kudryavtsev 06:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
result: 22 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Simonizer 09:25, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Human skeleton front en.svg, featured[edit]

female skeleton

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by LadyofHats --LadyofHats 15:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info this is the front view of a female skeleton. i will also nominate the back view, even when i like to see the both images as one. the svg file of both convined would be too big. One of the main advantages of this diagrams is that each bone is done independently. --LadyofHats 15:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Beyond silence 16:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Ditto. JaGa 17:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Mbz1 17:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Benh 20:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --MichaelMaggs 21:33, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --LucaG 22:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Digon3 talk 23:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Luc Viatour 05:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Leafnode 06:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --WarX 16:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC) to small fonts, should be at least 150% of used size
    • done -LadyofHats 18:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Symbol support vote.svg Support --WarX 16:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC) Thanks ;)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Doo-dle-doo 20:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question and Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The terms used seems to be a mixture of Latin and English. Why not use an English only or Latin only terminology or make a version for each of the two languages. See also my elaborated comment for the back view above. Oh, and by the way, is there a point in using different colours (blue or red) for the lines that point out the bones in the skeleton? There may be an obvious explanation, but apparently I am not smart enough to figure it out, and the image page does not help me. -- Slaunger 21:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • red is for single bones and therefor singular names. blue stands for groups of bones, like by example the skull wich is a name for a group of bones. As for weather the names languages and wich names where used, well i believe that comes from my sources. if well all of them seem to be mixed in someway. the printed reference i have is in german/latin, my online references are mustly english/latin. where i must notice that there is not an agreement in wich terms should apear, while some make mention of things like eye sokets, false ribs, 1st and 12 rib, Angulus arcus pubis, and even every skull bone mention independently. i desided to reach a middle point in wich i mention the bones or main bone groups with more often apearing name for them. if you would have a look on the english wikipedia you would realise they have the same problem when talking about the human skeleton. this is also why i didnt made a numbered version but instead uploaded a version without labels. so that eachone could edit the file to adapt it to their actual needs-LadyofHats 21:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your reply to my lengthy comments and questions. In any case I suggest you add the colour legend explanation to the image page description as it helps understanding what is going on. I also understand that the mixed-language terminology is due to mixed sources. Considering that FP is for the-best-of-the-best (and the illustration in itself is of very high technical quality IMO), it would be really nice if an anatomy-proficient person could help correct/double-check the terms for consistency. -- Slaunger 22:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support see the other one. __ ABF __ ϑ 14:05, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Well done encyclopedic illustration. --Egg 11:41, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Dezidor 13:00, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Please state a reason for opposing in courtesy of the nominator. -- Slaunger 13:26, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Reasons and comments same as those I've stated for the accompanying illustration. Shushruth 16:54, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info- i was out for the weekend and couldnt do this before, but here it is. i removed the cartilage and extended the rips lines, even when i am not really happy with it crossing the other lines , it now points the first and the last rip -LadyofHats 10:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Good work - Alvesgaspar 07:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support: Excellent! --Harris Morgan 21:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC) Voting time was allready over --Simonizer 09:28, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
result: 15 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 09:28, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Human skeleton back.svg, featured[edit]

back of a female skeleton

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created ,uploaded and nominated by LadyofHats --LadyofHats 15:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Beyond silence 16:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice work. JaGa 17:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Mbz1 17:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Benh 20:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --MichaelMaggs 21:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --LucaG 22:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Digon3 talk 23:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Luc Viatour 05:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Leafnode 06:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --WarX 16:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC) to small fonts, should be at least 150% of used size
    • done-LadyofHats 18:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Symbol support vote.svg Support Thanks ;) --WarX 16:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Man you're good! Doo-dle-doo 20:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question and Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Have any reviewers trained in the human anatomy double-checked the terms used in the figure? I am asking because I showed this figure to a medical doctor I know and trust to get an opinion, and the reaction was confusion and comments about inconsistent or truncated notation. Some terms are in latin, like Radius whereas others are in English, like Ribs. Another comment I got is that, e.g., Coccyx is a truncated name (I did not get what the full name is). Apparently such mixed terms and truncated names are not normally what is presented in textbooks or encyclopedias. I just checked my own Danish encyclopedia for figures of the skeleton and all the terms were (consistently) in Danish. I guess there must be English terms for all constituent bones as well? Therefore, would it not be more consistent to present either only English terms or only Latin terms? Perhaps one version for each language? -- Slaunger 21:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • the complete answer is in the front view discusion.-LadyofHats 21:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
    • and so is my reply. -- Slaunger 22:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support yeah, why not?! __ ABF __ ϑ 14:05, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Well done encyclopedic illustration. --Egg 11:41, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Dezidor 13:00, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Please state a reason for opposing in courtesy of the nominator. -- Slaunger 13:25, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Symbol support vote.svg Support -- I'm a physician and this is as good an illustration as I have seen in any of my text books. The mixture of Latin and English names is a fairly well accepted norm in english speaking medical schools, so it is not a bother. However, it does need to be pointed out in the accompanying text what the red and the blue lines represent. Just a couple of minor nitpicks
* Why are the costal cartilages the only cartilages labeled? It seems a little inconsistent if other cartilages that are prominently seen - like the acetabular cartilage for eg., are not labeled. However, naming all of them will make the picture too busy.
* Labels for groups of vertebrae span the whole length of the corresponding group. However, for the ribs, the label spans only 3 of them. I know it is intuitive that the other ribs are also, well, ribs... but it is still a nitpick.
All in all, an exceptional illustration. Hats off, Lady! Shushruth 16:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Now that it seems like a proficient person has checked the terms and commented in favor of the mixed notation. -- Slaunger 19:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info- i made the chages you requested-LadyofHats 10:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Good work - Alvesgaspar 07:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
result: 16 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 09:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Palais Luxembourg Sunset.JPG, not featured[edit]

Palace of Luxembourg, Paris, France

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created and uploaded by Benh - nominated by Sanchezn 20:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Otherwise I will get scolded :-) More seriously, I think it's a very good picture and it has a very good encyclopedic value. Sanchezn 20:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Actually, I was about to self nominate it after I saw the picture below. Nicolas insisted to do it himself. Following an advice from Alvesgaspar, I had some annoying part on lower right corner cloned out on this version. Benh 20:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Crisp, nice light and composition. But the 'under construction crane' is a real eyesore though in my opinion and kills the wow. A real pity as you had no influence on its presence (I suppose). -- Slaunger 20:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • No unfortunately (it's there on the below pic too :)), but I thought it wasn't that annoying. Nicolas is working on it right now to clone it out... I'm pretty much against this kind of manipulations though. Benh 20:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I understand your concern about the cloning. I have some reservations as well, but in this case it is perhaps OK since it is a fairly small object that needs to be cloned away in a sky region. Just remember to add the retouched template. Maybe you could nominate it as another edit to get some second opinions? -- Slaunger 20:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It's better without the crane. --Egg 11:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 09:32, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Edit (crane cloned out), featured[edit]

Palace of Luxembourg, Paris, France

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info After Slaunger's review, Sanchezn cloned out the crane behind the palace.
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The crane wasn't a FP-killer to me, but this is good too. JaGa 01:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Clone stamp KO's crane in 1st round! Nice picture and excellent clone stamping. Calibas 04:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Freedom to share 06:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Vassil 08:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nicely done, and sorry for the extra workload triggered by my pedantic review ;-) -- Slaunger 10:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good picture, full of atmosphère and ambiance agréable. -- MJJR 18:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Très fantastique. I think the crane really wasn't that big a deal, but this one does look that tiny little bit better. Great image. Doo-dle-doo 20:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support top --Böhringer 21:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose sorry to disagree, but the chopping out of the crane left some blurred part. I can see a vague halo where the crane was. Maybe a quality image, but it kills the FP --Jollyroger 11:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question I looked again carefully, and really don't see any kind of halo or whatever. Could you be more precise or eventually spot me the litigous area (coordinates or any other mean) ? If there really is something wrong, I'd like to fix, FP or not. Thanks. Benh 17:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I'm with Benh. I don't see a halo. And is the crane really an FP killer, even if it were never cloned out in the first place? JaGa 19:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I don't see any trace of a halo either. Concerning the question about the crane, I suggest you give a support vote to the original version, if you prefer the original. In that manner you can influence which version is the preferred one. -- Slaunger 20:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral for now. I like this composition and the quality is good. But I wonder if the colours could be a little more saturated. Alvesgaspar 21:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  • They could. I think however that this is true to what I saw. I prefer leaving the picture as it. It has undergone enough edits for now ;) Benh 18:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This version is good, i can't see any blur there. --Egg 11:39, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Basik07 20:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
result: 10 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Simonizer 09:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Jakarta old football.jpg, not featured[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Jonathan McIntosh - uploaded by Jonathan McIntosh - nominated by AngMoKio --AngMoKio 21:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment This picture was nominated in 2005 by norro but didn't get promoted. I really can't understand why - that's why i try it again now. This picture says more than thousand words. Great composition and quality. In my opinion it is really about time to get it into the FPs. --AngMoKio 21:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --AngMoKio 21:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose If it were more crisp, I'd be OK with the cut off head, but as it is it's more distracting. Also, I don't like the way the sun is falling on his face. Dori - Talk 02:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose it is too cropped for my taste Tbc 16:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I agree with the previous opposers. /Daniel78 23:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Unfortunate crop, overexpose sky. Lycaon 04:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Agree with AngMoKio. I think the crop is very appropriate here and does focus our attention to the ball. Benh 06:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I also agree with you :) A cropped upper part of a head is nothing unusual...a often used composition element. Normally I don't like centered main objects but here it really fits. It somehow represents to me "Look! This is how it is here." --AngMoKio 20:46, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The theme is captured in an impressive way, while not being depicted as a cliché. I don't mind the cropped head, the focus is on the ball. --Tsui 19:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
The ball is cropped too. Tbc 14:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Crop and use of horizontal rather than vertical format. --MichaelMaggs 21:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support A very good portrait - a boy and a football Gordo 09:53, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Cut off head. --Egg 11:34, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Dezidor 12:55, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
reason? --AngMoKio 15:02, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Alvesgaspar 19:08, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Mbz1 17:11, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --norro 22:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • You're entitled to your opinion (and I opposed this picture as well), but Commons is not Wikipedia's slave. It stands on its own merits. Dori - Talk 01:51, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Very true, Dori. If a picture is suitable for wikipedia article shouldn't be a reason here. Harris Morgan: Please read General Rules before voting: "This is not simply a repository for Wikipedia images, so images should not be judged here on their suitability for that project.". Furthermore if you check the usage of this picture you will see that it is used in wikipedias. --AngMoKio 08:14, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
result: 7 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 11:45, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Sorry: I have confused [4] Wikipedia's FP criteria with these. Apologies! I shall withdraw my vote. Harris Morgan 22:28, 6 October 2007 (UTC).

Image:South Central Farm 1.jpg, featured[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Jonathan McIntosh - uploaded by Jonathan McIntosh - nominated by AngMoKio --AngMoKio 21:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Another wonderfully composed photo by Jonathan McIntosh. --AngMoKio 21:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --AngMoKio 21:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I'd prefer a wider DOF, but I still like it. Dori - Talk 02:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Cute little kid with his beans... aww. Technically good. Doo-dle-doo 20:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Reluctant Symbol support vote.svg Support. DOF is shallow and BG is noisy (could the latter be improved a little without destroying the photo?), but I tend to believe the excellent composition mitigates for those technicalities. -- Slaunger 21:46, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Karelj 22:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Bad use of DOF and crop. Irrelevant description. Lycaon 04:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - The picture is cute but quality and DOF are not good enough - Alvesgaspar 10:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
The DOF is imo part of the composition. The face is out of focus and puts the hand even more into the foreground. The line from hand to face is from lower left to the upper right corner. The line of the tree in the background and the line of the white table cross behind the main object (the hand). Face and hands are both off-center (roughly on the 1/3 points). For me the picture is really amazing, although I doubt that the photographer thought of all those things while making the photo. --AngMoKio 11:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per composition. --Jollyroger 11:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great composition. Mayaboy 22:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC) sockpuppet. Lycaon 22:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I would be sad if this one gets promoted and not the one below (they share the same crop fault mentionned by some...) Benh 20:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Dezidor 12:53, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
reason? --AngMoKio 15:02, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
I don´t like it. --Dezidor 12:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Mbz1 17:10, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose: As I said below; I'm not knocking the quality of the photography but this image does not mean anything. --Harris Morgan 21:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC) Votingtime was allready over --Simonizer 11:48, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
result: 8 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 11:48, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Vasnetsov samolet.jpg, featured[edit]

The Flying Carpet, by Viktor Vasnetsov.

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info uploaded by Ghirlandajo - nominated by grendel|khan --12:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. Also note that it's already featured on en. --grendel|khan 12:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good detail. --Beyond silence 20:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Because it is relieving to see something completely different on FPC and because I like it. -- Slaunger 21:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Karelj 22:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice, you can see the brush strokes. Calibas 04:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Jollyroger 11:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Digon3 talk 15:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Mbz1 17:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support very good. __ ABF __ ϑ 14:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support good repro, though being featured on en is irrelevant on commons. Lycaon 12:21, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --WarX 16:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC) looks great on a wall ;)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I agree with Slaunger. Er Komandante (messages) 00:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 11:51, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Antelope Canyon Mittags.jpg, not delisted[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info This picture is full of atmosphere but very blurry. In the meantime Commons was fed up with much better pictures displaying the Antelope Canyon in a very excellent way (Original nomination)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist --Richard Bartz 13:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist Very regretably, it has been superceeded by three better versions. Technical quality aside I liked this the best. --Digon3 talk 14:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep I like the atmosphere and the composition. Quality is not great but i think still acceptable. I rather think this doesn't need to be a FP as it is maybe of a better quality but the compostion is quite bold. And that piece of sky is overexposed ...strange u didnt notice ;-) Resolution is also quite low. --AngMoKio 18:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep as AngMoKio. And I think we give too much weight to the technical aspects... (me the first !). Benh 19:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist Bad lighting, others better... Doo-dle-doo 22:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep Changed my mind, get rid of this one instead Image:Lower antelope 1 md.jpg. It is much worse. --Digon3 talk 00:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep I like the colours in this picture. It has a warm feeling. The entering of the light is pretty good to. User: Jellobie
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist --Lucas Löffler 12:26, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep --Dezidor 13:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist Low resolution, quality, and others are better. -- Ram-Man 18:35, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist Other ones from the series (like current POTD) are better. Dori - Talk 03:42, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep Basik07 20:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

*Symbol keep vote.svg Keep --Benhello! 12:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

    • Votes after the 10th day are not counted --Benhello! 07:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
5 delist, 6 keep --> not delisted --Benhello! 06:58, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Ant on mosshill02.jpg, delisted[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Created and uploaded by User:Fir0002
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Nice composition and colors. 85% of the picture is unsharp because of the bountiful use of DOF. The remaining 15% shows a unidentified, harsh lighted, overexposed and blurry ant. (Original nomination)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist --Richard Bartz 13:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist Expose, detail. --Beyond silence 13:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist Per nom. --Digon3 talk 13:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep I like the lighting, composition and atmosphere. Benh 20:44, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist Per nom. Lycaon 23:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist Per nom--Mbz1 13:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist Per nom. -- Ram-Man 21:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist Per nom --Benhello! 12:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC) Votes on or after the 10th day do not count --Benhello! 07:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
6 delist, 1 keep --> delisted --Benhello! 07:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:AiguilleDuMidiTM.jpg, featured[edit]

The lower platforms seen from the top of the Aiguille du Midi.

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by Nicolas Sanchez --Sanchezn 22:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I think it's a good picture, despite the cast shadows. --Sanchezn 22:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good light on main parts, great view to valley too! --Beyond silence 08:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Pudelek 08:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Mbz1 14:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The way in which the shadows force the eyes on a specific target is very good. Freedom to share 15:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --MichaelMaggs 16:50, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Bien sûr. Je veux rester ton ami. Benh 20:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support /Daniel78 20:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Chrumps 21:34, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Superb point of vue and good composition but poor lighting. The shadows kill the picture for FP IMO. Alvesgaspar 22:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Changed my mind, though I would prefer a more conventional lighting - Alvesgaspar 19:05, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Wonderful composition, the light leads the eye. --Egg 11:20, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I think the shadows make it better. --Digon3 talk 13:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I don't like lighting, but it's good enough for me --Leafnode 07:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Basik07 20:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support: Bellissimo! --Harris Morgan 21:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support the lighting makes it all the more dramatic --Benhello! 12:25, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. --Benchat 09:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Fog in San Francisco.jpg, featured[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Very delicate foggy solar coronae is seen over the statue of Ruy Diaz de Bivar inSan Francisco. Created ,uploaded and nominated by Mbz1 --Mbz1 16:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Mbz1 16:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Vassil 18:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Beautiful composition but poor image quality. Shouldn't be too hard to remove the noise from the background and improve the contrast - Alvesgaspar 18:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Thank you for the votes. If somebody could help me to improve the quality, please do. I'm not a very good with photo shops and besides I'm not sure I see the noise.--Mbz1 18:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
      • If someone could clean this up, and tell how they did it, it'd be great to learn from. I tried hitting it with Neat Image but couldn't get all the sky noise out. And I'd like to hear more about what's wrong with the contrast. BTW, Mbz1, where in SF is this? I used to work in SF. JaGa 18:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
        • Thank you for the comment and for working on the image, JaGa. The picture was taken at Legion of Honor. If you look at the cover photo of the article, the statue is on the right hand side of fine art museum, but it is not shown at the cover image.--Mbz1 19:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
      • If you took this using a Canon Camera and still have the original cr2(RAW) file I could happily help using Digital Photo Professional. Freedom to share 19:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
        • Thank you Freedom to share. I did take it with Canon and I do have original, but it was taken in jpg not in a raw format. Jpg format will not do it will it? Yet it is a very interesting information. I also have Digital Photo Professional from Canon, which I never use. I even did not know that one is able to reduce the noise with this thing. I guess I'm very laizy. Maybe next time, when the fog will be right, which is rather rare, I'll try to retake the image.--Mbz1 20:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
          • If you have the original raw file, your possibilities are almost endless as it has not been processed yet but is merely the light that fell on the sensor and was recorded. You can easily change things such as the white balance after a shot and brightness controls and noise reduction are significantly better that way. Note however that raw images take an immense amount of space, so be careful when shooting them that you have a large enough CF card. Also, Digital Photo Professional I do not think works with the EOS 300D, but it is a really nice program. So, next time you shoot, take raw and I do not think that you should be dissappointed. Freedom to share 06:16, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
              • Thank you,Freedom to share. I'll try next time.--Mbz1 14:08, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - I have tried to improve the picture, with poor results. It is possible to reduce the noise but the sky is already posterized and I was not able to improve the contrast without worsening other things. Alvesgaspar 22:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Thank you, Alvesgaspar. I wish I knew how I've got the noise in the first place. I've used ISO 100.--Mbz1 23:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I think the composition wins. Dori - Talk 01:17, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Its great anyway despite the noise. --Digon3 talk 01:48, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Great composition, but I think the photo don't present a subject valueable. --Beyond silence 08:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support A little noisy yes, but I think it's good enough anyway. /Daniel78 20:41, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportRomary 21:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too dark, too soft and I don't even like the composition, sorry. Lycaon 11:08, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Dezidor 12:54, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Snowwayout 20:30, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support excellent --Karelj 22:13, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Beautiful but not valuable. Also noise and poor composition. Acarpentier 03:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC) confirmed sock --Benchat 09:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
    • welcome back, Acarpentier.Glad to see you around--Mbz1 12:28, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


result: 9 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. --Benchat 09:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:LA MAGIE DES LANTERNES 3.jpg, not featured[edit]

Magic of Lanterns

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Acarpentier - uploaded by Acarpentier - nominated by Acarpentier --Acarpentier 16:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Night shot at ISO 1600 to make it possible. So it is normal that the grains are bigger. Acarpentier 18:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Acarpentier 16:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I love this picture, but there's just too much noise. JaGa 19:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I do not agree JaGa. Because of the nature of this picture, the noise is acceptable. The Subject is great. Mayaboy 22:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC) sockpuppet. Lycaon 22:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Terrible noise.--Beyond silence 07:41, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question You think some postprocessing could help. Is there a tutorial somewhere in wiki to do so with this kind of picture? Acarpentier 16:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice picture -- Pudelek 08:53, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great composition, great subject. And for the noise, if you were a photographer, you would know that you couldn’t do it better on a night shot. Falcone 12:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC) sockpuppet. Lycaon 22:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
No need to be snarky, Falcone. I know what ISO 1600 means. It's a great shot, but based on what I've seen here, I don't think people will vote for it because of the posterization. JaGa 15:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
I didn’t meant to be snarky or sarcastic in any way. I’m only judging this photography against basic constraint of photography. If people would never do so, it would mean that we could never appreciate pictures taken in that kind of environment, which would be regrettable. Falcone 16:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC) (warning: sockpuppet). Doodle-doo Ħ 22:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
May some postprocessing can help on it. --Beyond silence 13:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
No, it would affect the quality of the photography. I agree with Mayaboy, due to the nature of this picture the grain is totally normal. Falcone 14:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC) (warning: sockpuppet). Doodle-doo Ħ 22:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Overexposed (see the swan) and noisy - Alvesgaspar 16:41, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose ack Alvesgaspar. Lycaon 11:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice picture but noisy and a bit overexposed. --Egg 11:33, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I love the mood in this picture, but on the other hand i to believe it's overexposed and noisy. user: Jellobie
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I think, that quality is not so bad and composition and impression (WOW or how you call this) factor is great. --Karelj 22:11, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeOf ocourse honesty of a photographer is not one of the selection criteria, but still oppose for sockpuppet--Mbz1 01:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
This is ridiculous, there are no sockpuppet, read my talk.
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Poromiami 6:16 3 October 2007 (CEST) I love this one.
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support fantastic composition, definite wow factor present --Benhello! 12:28, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
result: 5 support, 6 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. --Benchat 08:59, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Wattled plover edit1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Senegal Wattled Plover, Masai Mara National Reserve

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Wwelles14 - uploaded by Wwelles14 - nominated byWwelles14 --Wwelles14 03:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Significant enough improvement to consider re-evaluation? --Wwelles14 03:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I don't think any amount of editing is going to fix this, sorry. Calibas 04:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Why? You oughtta give a reason. JaGa 04:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
The bird was originally underexposed, the detail has been lost. Calibas 04:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Sorry, but there is now significant noise in the feathers. Alvesgaspar 12:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose noise --Beyond silence 12:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose low Q --Richard Bartz 14:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Pudelek 00:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose To much manipulated. Falcone 12:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC) sockpuppet. Lycaon 22:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Basik07 20:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose hmm... just doesn't stand out at me --Benhello! 12:29, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. --Benchat 08:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Pāhoehoe Lava flow.JPG, featured[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info The tongue of advancing Pāhoehoe Lava flow at The Big Island of Hawai. The picture was taken from a helicopter. Created ,uploaded and nominated by Mbz1 --Mbz1 23:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Mbz1 23:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very nice. Can't imagine how difficult this shot must have been. Dori - Talk 01:16, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Unique situation. Nice shadow detail. --Thermos 04:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportVery nice! --Luc Viatour 07:44, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Oh, nice image. --Atoma 11:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --MichaelMaggs 11:16, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Cecil 11:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support HOT! --Richard Bartz 11:53, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Digon3 talk 13:14, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Thank you, everybody. I'm so glad you like the image. I feel kind of obligated to tell you more about taking of the image. I remembered how my other image (of Greenland's icebergs) taken from a helicopter was opposed and this time I decided to fly at a helicopter with no doors. There were no glass, no anything at all between all of me and the lava. I literally could have felt the heat and smell the sulfur, but these were not the biggest problems I had. You simply cannot imagine how windy it was. I've never experienced such a wind before. My other problem was that I tried to get out of a helicopter as much as seat belts allowed and few times I spoiled an image because my leg got under way as you could see here.
Hawaii lava flow.JPG. My other problem was that the weather conditions changed rapidly from the sun to the rain and I kept changing the camera settings all the time. As a matter of fact, when we were flying over the crater, I forgot to change the settings and overexposed the image. There were so much smoke in the crater that I probably could not shot a dicent image anyway. Still it is something to remember and here it isPu`u `O`o crater 2007.jpg.--Mbz1 14:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Scary - Alvesgaspar 16:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Simonizer 17:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Romary 20:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Cool... ehm I mean hot :) /Daniel78 20:34, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nahh, I am just kidding. Symbol support vote.svg Support of course. I suggest you add some geodata to the image page though. -- Slaunger 06:00, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Dark and beautiful. Vassil 10:17, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Simply amazing! --Egg 11:02, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Interesting image. Lycaon 11:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Excellent. Doodle-doo Ħ 13:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support my geological heart is applauding --Chmee2 13:21, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice! Calibas 04:22, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Wow! --LucaG 20:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I'm surprised by the consensus on this picture, which I don't find as "impressive" as other people do. I do support pictures which have some flaws when they are the best we have on their subject and when they are different from what we usually see (which is clearly the case here), but I find quality of the photo low enough (Also, point of view doesn't help to get an idea of where it comes from, the size etc.) to raise a few question marks, so two questions : Is it that uncommon to catch lava on Haiwai or is it that difficult to perfectly get the shot in these conditions (whom I'm not quite aware of) ? Benh 21:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
    • So you support pictures that have some flaws, but you do not support pictures that have some flows. Just kidding. Thank you for you questions, Benh. You asked, if it is uncommon to catch lava in Hawaii. When we took the helicopter ride, we were told that it was the best show in 10 years. It is because most of the times lava in Hawaii is floating in tubes and the flow could be seen only, when it enters the ocean like at this my other image taken more than 2 years ago Lava enering ocean 3n.jpgor in small pools of lava here and there. The lava flow that is shown in the nominated image was generated by the eruption that has started 7/21/07 and continues up to now. The conditions are changing hourly as well as the weather. One could see the flow at 10 a.m, miss it at 11a.m, get canceled flight at 12 p.m. and see the flow again at 1p.m. The answer to your second question is: everybody here knows what a sloppy photographer I am. So of course I'm sure almost anybody could have done a better job than I did. The catch is just to be in a right place at the right time. That's why I try to take pictures of some unusual places or/and phenomenas just to get them FP status. If we were allowed to hike to the flow probably even I have taken a better image, but the flow area is clossed due to wildfire danger as you could see from this image: Lava wildfire.JPG. Btw I have updated the description and added information about the length of the lava flow.--Mbz1 22:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
      • Thanks for your detailed answer and for the update (although I wonder if this is only the framed part which is 2km long or the whole thing, sooorry ;) ). I wish I could catch situations as unusual as yours. Benh 21:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
        • It is the length of the whole flow. I'm sure one day you will catch something like this too and I'm sure you will take a much better image and you will post it to Wikipedia and it will become FP and my image will get delisted--Mbz1 00:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)22:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support unsharp, but I can overlook this flaw ;) --Leafnode 07:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I've visited Hawaii Volcanoes National Park a dozen times or so over the last twenty years without being present for an event like this one. Walter Siegmund (talk) 02:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Basik07 20:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support beautiful and stunning --Benhello! 12:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
result: 25 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. --Benchat 09:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Daniel's tomb dressing code wallpainting.jpg, not featured[edit]

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Pentocelo - uploaded by Pentocelo - nominated by Pentocelo --Pentocelo 13:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Pentocelo 13:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I don't know whether there is Freedom of Panorama in Iran for murals, but unless we can show that this is OK under local copyright laws I think it's likely to be deleted as a copyright violation. --MichaelMaggs 16:16, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - The waste baskets seem a little incongruous with the written pearl of morality wisdom. Speaking more seriously, I don't understand what is the purpose of this picture. Alvesgaspar 16:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I think it is a very interesting street scene of Iran. It shows how the "Muslim way of life" gets advertised there. Of course the woman fits there very well, dressed in the way the mural advertises it. So all in all a valuable photo, imho. I still have to think about it, if it is a FP. --AngMoKio 20:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Tilted, and not centered from POV (nice typo on the message though :). Dori - Talk 23:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
are you sure that it is tilted? --AngMoKio 10:54, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, about 0.6 degrees ccw by my measurement. Dori - Talk 12:35, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great compossition, especially with waste baskets --Karelj 22:20, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose tilt, composition (trash cans? Come on...) --Leafnode 07:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Poromiami 6:03 3 October 2007 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. --Benchat 05:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Noix recadrée.jpg, not featured[edit]

Noix arrivées à maturité, prête à être mangée

Can't you write a short English description? Thanks --Beyond silence 11:17, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support DocteurCosmos 12:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good lighting and excellent sharpness. Freedom to share 16:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I find this picture beautiful, it has a good quality and I feel it's informative. Benh 20:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support good picture. --Pinpin 21:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Good detail on the walnut but poor composition and framing. Some noise in the background. Alvesgaspar 22:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I dislike the composition and the blown reflection of the walnut fruit in the BG. Not enough wow IMO. -- Slaunger 05:53, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Reflections make the two nut husks look as if they are fused. (Tilted?) background is disturbing. Wow is lacking. Lycaon 09:01, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice composition Gordo 09:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Blown reflection of the walnut fruit and tilt. --Digon3 talk 13:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose nothing special --Karelj 22:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Composition and lighting, including blown highlights, not up to FP standards I think --MichaelMaggs 16:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Harsh lighing making overexposed and underexposed spots, no wow --Leafnode 07:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose unfortunately I just don't find any viewer impact in this picture --Benhello! 12:23, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
result: 6 support, 8 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. --Benchat 05:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Zanzibar 21.JPG, not featured[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg InfoA street in Zanzibar created , uploaded and nominated by Mbz1 --Mbz1 15:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Mbz1 15:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Interesting perspective, but there are no interesting subjects in this photograph and some distractions (the drainage pipe on the left) - Huskyoog.jpg Husky (talk to me) 22:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting delete.svg 

result: withdrawn => not featured. --Benchat 06:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Zanzibar 43.JPG, not featured[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg InfoThe kids in Zanzibar store. You could see their mother at back ground. Created, uploaded and nominated by Mbz1 --Mbz1 14:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Mbz1 14:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Some parts are overexposed and other underexposed. Tilt. Not impressive subject nor composition. --Javier ME 18:16, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
    • The tilt could be fixed. The subject of the image are kids and in my opinion they are very impressive as all kids are.In my opinion they (the kids) are exposed properly, but of course I share your concerns about over all quality of the image. The goal of nominating the image was to introduce some real life scenes of remote countries to FP collection. I do not think we have enough of these. Please notice, the image was not down scaled. It is how it was taken. I did not have enough memory cards on me and there was no place to buy one, so I did not use the highest resolution.--Mbz1 20:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I think the doorframe on the left is a bit distracting. /Daniel78 21:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting delete.svg You are right, Daniel78. Thank you.
result: withdrawn => not featured. --Benchat 05:56, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Walls of Dubrovnik-10.jpg, not featured[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded, nominated by --Beyond silence 14:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Beyond silence 14:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Lighting is either flat or underexposed, and there are black borders from when you tilted the picture (top right and bottom right). --Digon3 talk 15:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose not the best composition, imo --che 01:12, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose ack Digon3 and che --Leafnode 05:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Pudelek 10:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose also ack Digon3 and che --AngMoKio 20:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose poor light --Aqwis 11:56, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose sorry but lighting is wrong, a pity though as it is a great shot --Benhello! 11:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose far too snapshotty. -- RedCoat 10:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

pff Pictogram voting delete.svg --Beyond silence 12:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

result: withdrawn => not featured. --Benchat 06:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Diffraction pattern in spiderweb.JPG, not featured[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg InfoDiffraction pattern in a spiderweb. You could find the explanation to this phenomena here and here created, uploaded and nominated by Mbz1 --Mbz1 01:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Please notice the subjest is not a spiderweb, but Diffraction pattern in a spiderweb. If you click at the first link from Info, you could read why it is better to take such images out of focus. I've done more than this. The image shows different parts of a spiderweb with different ammount of out of focus volume in order to represent the subject better. In my opinion it is a very nice educational image and maybe a new topic for FP.--Mbz1 01:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Mbz1 01:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support That is definately fascinating, there is obvious scientific merit to the photo and the colours are especially vibrant because of the black background. --User: MarcusObal 02:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Poromiami 05:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC) Nice colours, but the quality is poor... Not FP material.
    • Could you, please be a litlle bit more specific and tell me what quality is poor. Thanks.--Mbz1 07:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice but, not fp focus and noise. --Beyond silence 08:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Oh, no focus you said. I wonder, if you've read and understood what I explained in my comment or you simply vote without understanding the subject?--Mbz1 12:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I understand you, may a better word is DOF. --Beyond silence 14:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Focus and DoF are related concepts, as DoF is a way to "measure" the amount of area in sharp focus. At this point there is no reason for confusion, as many reviewers interchange these concepts. -- Ram-Man 23:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Karelj 21:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Wow. Doodle-doo Ħ 22:03, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Very interesting phenomena. Support for the educational interest well captured and the composition which gives the photograph also an artistic interest. Of course, for those who search only a picture of a spiderweb, better for them not to vote here because it's not the subject. Bravo ! Sting 22:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - The surface of a CD is a much better depiction of this kind of phenomenon - Alvesgaspar 23:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Sure, yet the nominated image demonstrates the phenomena in the Nature. Just think about it!It was done without men involevement just by a spider, his web and the Sun. It is still not completely understood how it works with spider webs. That's why in my opinion it is much more interesting than the same phenomena seen on CDs surface. Besides I'm sure it will be very interesting for kids. One more reason in favor of this image - everybody have seen diffraction pattern in CDs, very few ever heard about diffraction pattern in a spider web. I'd like to thank everybody for the votes and comments--Mbz1 23:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Meets the criteria for value, but lacks sufficient quality (noise and focus). -- Ram-Man 23:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not valuable, low q, noise, out off focus. Acarpentier 02:46, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Welcome back, Acarpentier.Glad to see you around once again. Let's better not to talk about the value of the image, OK? Better tell us, if you got've any new "co-workers" so far?--Mbz1 13:44, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Hey I never leaved. ;) I think it's not valuable, if you dont want comments don't post. Please read the Guidelines for nominators. Acarpentier 21:45, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid you did not understand what I meant, when I said:"Let's better not to talk about the value of the image". The thing is that, if a person, who has no idea about the subject of the image,sees it for the very first time and even have not read the explanation, starts to discuss the image's value, this person looks laughable and ludicrous. For your info the subject of the image is studied by scientists around the world and people, who understand call the image remarkable and a very good example. Please notice I love, when I get votes on my images (opposes or supports). So, please do keep your opposes coming, but try not to be laughable and ludicrous .--Mbz1 01:27, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support albeit weak, but support because of real educational interest --Benhello! 11:54, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting delete.svg 

result: withdrawn => not featured. --Benchat 06:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Cathédrale Saint-Antonin de Pamiers (09).JPG, not featured[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by Florent Pécassou --Florent Pécassou 07:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Florent Pécassou 07:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose messy composition, disorted perspective, unsharp, noisy in darker parts --Leafnode 08:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose composition, geometric distortion, distracting cars - all in all no wow for me, sorry. -- Slaunger 20:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Poromiami 6:05 3 October 2007 (CEST) No wow.
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose geometric distortion -- Sergey kudryavtsev 05:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose geometric distortion --Benhello! 11:58, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 18:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:BajadaSocorro2006.jpg, not featured[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Traditional Catholic procession at the Canary Islands, Spain. Photo taken by Flickr user Mataparda- uploaded by Edub - nominated by Javierme --Javier ME 22:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Javier ME 22:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Pictogram voting question.svg QuestionCan you write an English description? --Beyond silence 19:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I've tried to improve the Spanish description, and to provide an English one. --Javier ME 18:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Non-pleasing background and a blown out sky. Lacks sufficient wow. -- Ram-Man 23:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose sorry but washed out sky and background detracts from subject. A pity it wasn't in nicer lighting --Benhello! 12:02, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per above. Washed out sky. -- RedCoat 10:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 18:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Comignevestiges.jpg, not featured[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by Florent Pécassou --Florent Pécassou 21:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Florent Pécassou 21:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, but a FP requires less harsh lighting and corrected perspective, at least. --MichaelMaggs 05:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Picture with harsh lighting and disorted perspective could be a FP, but only if it was on purpose, with satisfying final effect. I'd probably support this picture, if the perspective would be more disorted - that would look interesting. --Leafnode 06:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Harsh lighting. --Digon3 talk 14:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Shots like this crave fine details. Unfortunately this little point-and-shoot smudges out detail even in broad daylight. The bricks should be much sharper, but they just looked smudged. 80 ISO is just too high for a relatively large 7MP point-and-shoot. This is one of those cases where extra megapixels make the picture worse (because of increased noise). -- Ram-Man 23:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose unsharp --Benhello! 12:03, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 18:46, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:White Duck.jpg, not featured[edit]

White duck, Canada

Pictogram voting delete.svg Acarpentier 02:13, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Did you not mean as your other alias? Lycaon 13:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Is Falcone a sockpuppet? Wouldn't voting for your own image be in huge violation of the rules? Doodle-doo Ħ 21:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
I reserve my judgement until the current investigation into this matter has come to a conclusion. Lycaon 21:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
I dont know how you can come to a conclusion because there are my coworkers he he he. My talk here. Acarpentier 23:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
If Falcone wrote it himself, why did he put "as Falcone"? Calibas 01:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  • He just forgot who he was at the moment--Mbz1 16:58, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. See here for the details. Doodle-doo Ħ 11:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
What can I say: you are wrong, mixing thing, taking conclusion but I think you are missing judgement skills... anyway my image doesn’t worth being featured, that’s for sure. I’m withdrawing it. ;) Acarpentier 03:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Overexposed and crop is rather dull. Calibas 04:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Overexposed making the detail on the subject to be lost - Alvesgaspar 06:15, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Boring composition for my taste --Richard Bartz 14:03, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Overexposed and no wow factor. Doodle-doo Ħ 21:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Overexposed and sockpuppetry. --Digon3 talk 02:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Sockpuppetry is not good reason why to vote against. --Dezidor 12:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I believe it is a great reason.--Mbz1 12:58, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
But overexposure is, which is why I said both. :) --Digon3 talk 15:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose uninteresting, overexposed. --Leafnode 06:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I have a penchant for sleeping ducks :) --Benhello! 12:10, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
result: withdrawn => not featured  --Benhello! 12:16, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose nothing special and like Doodle-doo

Image:Crab spider ggp.JPG, not featured[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg InfoCrab Spider Misumena vatia is making his net created , uploaded and nominated by Mbz1 --Mbz1 13:50, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Mbz1 13:50, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, but the focus seems to be on the tip of the branch and not the very interesting spider. It also seems underexposed. --Digon3 talk 13:56, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
    • I wonder, if you've noticed that you could see some separate hair at a spider front leg? Do you believe, if a spider was not in focus, you'd be able to see them?--Mbz1 14:04, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Focus is indeed on the tip of the branch. And yes it is perfectly possible to see a hair on the front leg of a spider while focus is somewhere else. Everything nearing the focusing distance will seem focused but in most cases its not. If you look carefully you will see that the hair on the leg itself isn't sharp, while the tip of the branch is sharp. User:Jellobie
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Only the front leg of the spider seems to be in focus ;-) Lycaon 15:43, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Good composition, but the depth of field is too low. --Egg 18:09, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Dezidor 22:42, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Agree with Egg -- Falcone 01:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC) sockpuppet. Lycaon 22:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose There is already much better ;) Her: Misumena_vatia Featured --Luc Viatour 08:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
    • I agee, your picture is much, much,much better. The only reason I nominated mine for is because it seems to be the only picture on the Wikipedia, which shows a spider in process of making a net.--Mbz1 12:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Great shot - too bad it's so unsharp... --Leafnode 06:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Out of focus Acarpentier 03:18, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Come on, Acarpentier. "Out offocus" is nothing in comparisonOut of honesty.--Mbz1 16:50, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
    • You really can't take any criticism and learn from them don’t you? Anyway my vote here is on the work. You are mixing things together, I'm not. If you don’t want comments don't post. Please read the Guidelines for nominators. Acarpentier 21:54, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
      • You're right - I really do not want to learn from you.--Mbz1 02:47, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
        • Your overall attitude demonstrates your ability of thinking wisely. Keep the good work! I’ll stop interacting with you now; your comments are going nowhere. Acarpentier 02:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting delete.svg 
result: Withdrawn => not featured. Simonizer 18:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Corgi01.jpg, not featured[edit]

A corgi

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by Lucas Löffler --Lucas Löffler 00:09, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Lucas Löffler 00:09, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This type of objects—in casu furry animals—do not lean themselves to cutting out. The dog/background interface is very poor. Lycaon 08:50, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The background is distracting Gordo 09:48, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose like Gordo Unsigned vote by User:Chmee2 - Alvesgaspar 10:43, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Dezidor 12:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - I'd expect better lighting, specially with a domestic animal. --Javier ME 20:33, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The image quality was low even without the added background. Doodle-doo Ħ 21:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose bad cutout, nothing interesting --Leafnode 07:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 18:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Edit1, not featured[edit]

Edit1

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - I'd expect better lighting, specially with a domestic animal. --Javier ME 20:33, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose background, nothing interesting --Leafnode 07:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose anyone who has ever tried to get a decent facial portrait of a dog will understand the difficulty of getting this shot right, such a pity the quality couldn't be better as I am strongly leaning towards support but it's just not up to par --Benhello! 12:20, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
result: 0 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 18:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Fish from hawaii.JPG, not featured[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg InfoColorful Scribbled filefish, Aluterus Scriptus in Kona, Hawaii. Please notice this is an underwater(not an aqurium shot). Please make sure to see the image, which was taken a second later. The link is in description. Created, uploaded and nominated by Mbz1
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Mbz1 01:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I'm sure it's difficult to pull off, but the tail is cut off. I'd support the other version. Dori - Talk 02:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Thank you for the vote and the comment, Dori. I'll nominate the other version later. In my opinion the other version is more about eel than about fish. I saw many eels there, but I've seen only one such interesting(in my opinon) fish.--Mbz1 15:06, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Tail. --Dezidor 11:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose cut tail --Leafnode 06:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting delete.svg 
result: withdrawn => not featured --Simonizer 21:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Edit1, not featured[edit]

Scribbled filefish.jpg

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg CommentIn full resolution you could see the fish feeding on the sea grass.
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Mbz1 20:07, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Wow. Doodle-doo Ħ 21:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry it is too small, the fish as main topic I mean. Also not sufficiently sharp and unfortunately lit. Lycaon 21:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Nothing to be sorry about. Btw this "unfortunately lit" is due to Caustic, which is a very interesting subject on its own. There's nothing that could be done to avoid caustic in some underwater images. Still in my opinion FP has not nearly enough underwater images taking in a wild.--Mbz1 21:50, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Dezidor 11:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as Lycaon --Leafnode 06:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting delete.svg 
result: withdrawn => not featured --Simonizer 21:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

edit2, not featured[edit]

Scribbled filefish2.jpg

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Mbz1 00:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--carol because it is time for me to go on record supporting an image that is a few pixels short of the size requirement. Is there an applause icon? -- carol 02:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I would like to point out (not for the first time ;-) that there is no "size requirement", just a guideline :-) --Tony Wills 10:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This I like. Dori - Talk 03:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Size can (occasionally) be mitigated, this kind of unsharpness not. Unusual circumstances of taking a picture are very rarely enough to pass a picture of insufficient quality. "It is not because I had to climb the shaky crown of a tree to make a picture of a crow that the picture has more value than if I had taken it with a proper telephoto lens from the solidity of the ground." Lycaon 04:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
    • It is very strange you selected the example with a crow and with shaky crown and with the solidity of the ground. It sounded almost as you were going to support the image, which could not have been taken from solidity of the ground even with a proper telephoto lens :) In my opinion we should remeber that the nominated image is not of a common crow, but of a fish that I saw only this one single time after snorkeling for many hours in few oceans and seas. Besides I had no other choice as to swimm in rather shaky ocean, while the fish was swimming too (btw turning from side to side, as you could see from the other version of the image). I'd like to repeat one more time a quote from the selection criteria: A bad picture of a very difficult subject is a better picture than a good picture of an ordinary subject.. Besides I really believe that the nominated image is good enough in a thumnail and in full resolution too, which is 1632 × 1224 and is even a little bit bigger than the size requirements. One more thing with a crow example. It says:It is not because I had to climb the shaky crown of a tree to make a picture of a crow that the picture has more value than if I had taken it with a proper telephoto lens from the solidity of the ground". In my oinion the value of the image and image quality are two different properties of the image. The image could be of a great resolution and quality and have no value(I mean encyclopedic value) whatsoever. --Mbz1 04:42, 1 October 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
    • 'Unusual circumstances' (Lycaon) seems a strange phrase to use, the usual circumstances for taking pictures of fish is under water where they live, the only alternatives would seem to be pulling them out of the water or putting them in an aquarium. There does not seem to be a 'telephoto' lens type alternative. So the consideration is the difficulty of obtaining better shots in this environment - this is not a matter of choosing a better time or place or lighting conditions. The number of featured pictures taken in the sea appears to be two or three, I think one implication is that it is not as easy to photograph fish in-situ as it is to photograph a building, flower or insect. --Tony Wills 10:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Dezidor 11:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Interesting fish, but is it a FP...? --Leafnode 06:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Well in my opinion it is. It is rare to see a fish swimming on his side as this one does. This fact by itself is already add a value to the image. Besides the position of the fish allowed me to take a picture, which shows colors and the fish itself.--Mbz1 13:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Again, an unusual subject, but this isn't enough to me. I'm very sorry, but I can't support a picture of this quality at this resolution. This wouldn't be of much use if printed at a reasonable size. When a 10 mpix picture has this quality at real size, it can be saved by being scaled down, but here I feel the resolution was just to meet the guideline recommandations. Benh 21:49, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Your assumption about meeting guidlines are wrong. I do not do it with my images. I always upload the highest resolution. How you came up with 10 mega pixels number? It is a very wrong speculation.By the way I printed the image at my home printer 8*10 and it came out just fine. I do not mind, when my images are getting opposed. I do mind, when an opposser has no idea what he's talking about.--Mbz1 00:00, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Low quality, it could have been realy better with different settings Acarpentier 03:13, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Oh, I see you are familiar not only with sockpuppet, but also with underwater photography.--Mbz1 17:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
      • I think you have problem with me. Anyway my vote here is on the work. You are mixing things together, I'm not. If you don’t want comments don't post. Please read the Guidelines for nominators.

Acarpentier 23:18, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Once again you did not understand what I meant. The thing is that, if a person, discusses the changig of the settings for a point and shot underwater camera (which was used to take a picture), this person looks laughable and ludicrous simply because this peson has no idea, if the camera used allows the change of the settings. Well, for your information, it (the camera) does not allow to change the settings. Please notice I love, when I get votes on my images (opposes or supports). So, please do keep your opposes coming.--Mbz1 01:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  • My vote are on the picture and I make abstraction of the camera itself. Once again you are mixing things together. Try to be a bit more professional. Acarpentier 02:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support An exceptional picture --Tony Wills 08:36, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The quality is low and the resolution is not enough big to scale down. The composition is bad. Sanchezn 10:43, 6 October

2007 (UTC)

  • Next time I'll make sure to ask the fish to swimm in a better composition,but to tell you the truth I do not see anything wrong with this composition either.--Mbz1 18:16, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
  • What I dislike in the composition is the view from the top; In my opinion, a view from the side is really better. Don't try to talk to the fish, but be more patient, a good composition could append with a bit of chance. (please, use :*, ::*... instead of **) Sanchezn 23:28, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Thank you for explaing what you do not like about the composition. In my opinion your opinion would have been right in general situation, when a fish swimms on his belly, like they usually do. Here however I got a different situation. The wish was swimming on his side. In my opinion, if I took a picture from the side I would have got only a line of a fish instead of the whole body, as you could see at this image:Moray eel and fish.JPG, when the fish turned around. That's why in my opinion, a view from the top in this particular situation worked much better in order to show as much of the fish as possible.--Mbz1 01:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose IMO the photo has too many technical problems; I find the crop is too tight, it is not sharp which combined with a low resolution makes it hard to discern important details. For me, this kills wow. -- Slaunger 22:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting delete.svg 
result: withdrawn => not featured. --Benchat 06:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Monaco bus nr1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Monaco bus nr1

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Endlezz - uploaded by Endlezz - nominated by Endlezz --Endlezz 23:43, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Endlezz 23:43, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Background and composition. As the pic was taken in a slope, the bus looks tilted. Vassil 11:04, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Composition. I mean, it's the back of a bus. Doodle-doo Ħ 21:25, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Dezidor 12:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Wow, back of a bus. --Leafnode 06:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Clean tilted bus, not spectacular. --Javier ME 16:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Is this some new kind of joke? --Karelj 20:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Poromiami 6:11 3 October 2007 (CEST) Just a regular photo, nothing amazing.
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per above. -- RedCoat 10:19, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) --Benchat 06:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Wheelchair Racing Parapan 2007.jpg, not featured[edit]

Wheelchair racing at 2007 Parapan American Games, Rio de Janeiro

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Wheelchair racing at 2007 Parapan American Games, Rio de Janeiro, created by Marcello Casal Jr / Agência Brasil - uploaded by Redux - nominated by Javier ME --Javier ME 20:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The subject is interesting, the whole image is dinamic and the main figure is acceptable for an action picture.

-- Javier ME 20:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC) Edit 2 is more dinamic. --Javier ME 21:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Mbz1 21:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Unsharp, uncomposed. --Beyond silence 21:54, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It is a little noisy and a little blurry. You might try this GIMP script (or to follow the suggestions made in the comments); I reduced the size by 25% and the noise disappeared. Actually, just follow some of the instructions and don't use the script. The colors are already magazinesque! -- carol 08:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - The feeling of motion, the effort in the expression of the athlete and the colours compensate for the technical flaws. But I think the picture would improve a lot with a crop at left - Alvesgaspar 22:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Cropping the standing man off or keeping him? --Javier ME 22:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure. It would be nice to get rid of that figure too but maybe the crop would be too extreme - Alvesgaspar 07:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Agree with Alvesgaspar - crop at left would improve composition --Leafnode 06:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Karelj 20:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Dori - Talk 03:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Noise. Acarpentier 03:16, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Lycaon 19:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
result: withdrawn => not featured. --Pumpmeup 08:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Edit 1, not featured[edit]

300px|Wheelchair racing at 2007 Parapan American Games, Rio de Janeiro

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Cropping just one side, made it look too high, too square. I´ve cropped also the upper and lower sides. Does it look better like this? --Javier ME 20:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment -- the lights in the upper part of the image do not add much except for squarenes to the image. It would be better without them. -- carol 21:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
OK, I withdraw nomination of Edit 1. --Javier ME 21:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Edit 2[edit]

Wheelchair racing at 2007 Parapan American Games, Rio de Janeiro

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info photograph by Marcello Casal Jr / Agência Brasil - uploaded by Redux - nominated by Javier ME, cropped and reuploaded by carol
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- The bright light and the smeary empty space and additional stack of stadium lights did not add to the feeling of motion and this crop features the athelete (aka 'I got bored waiting for someone else to do this' uploading). -- carol 23:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Javier ME 21:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Unsharp too --Beyond silence 22:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I dont think you can fix... it will always affect quality. Acarpentier 03:16, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. --Pumpmeup 08:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Roue Tuileries Paris.jpg, not featured[edit]

Short description

Why would there be one ? Remi Mathis 15:04, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Il y a un loi bizarre en France que les bâtiments sont en copyright (je ne sais pas le mot en français, désolé), mais je ne sais pas s'il applique ici. Ce n'est pas vraiment un bâtiment, mais... Doodle-doo Ħ 15:35, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Because France doesn't have Freedom of Panorama. see Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Louvre 2007 02 24 c.jpg (and unfold the discussion at the bottom) for a discussion on this topic. En gros, les bâtiments en France sont soumis à droit d'auteur. ça n'est qu'après 70 ans après la mort de l'architecte que son image tombe dans le domaine publique. C'est pour ça qu'on ne peut photographier la pyramide du Louvre seule puis la diffuser. Dans le cas de la cour Napoléon du Musée du Louvre, on peut car une jurisprudence de la place des Terreau à Lyon (voir lien donné vers la page de la cour de Cassation) indique que lorsqu'on prend un endroit dans lequel se fond une oeuvre soumis à droit d'auteur, on peut en diffuser l'image. Cette roue n'a pas un caractère architectural ou artistique particulier, si bien qu'il ne devrait pas y avoir de problème de ce côté là. Benh 18:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality - but only if this isn't a copyvio. Anyone know for sure? Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I was wrong - noisy/overexposed. Also, potential copyvio... I will resupport if these problems are addressed. Doodle-doo Ħ 15:40, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • As far as I know there is no copvio over here. This apply to subjects which are remarquable in an architectural point of view or in a artistic one. Here this a very common wheel... Benh 19:03, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Hmm... the sky is still quite noisy and some bright parts are overexposed. Could anyone fix this? Doodle-doo Ħ 21:30, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support But it need at least English description. -- Sergey kudryavtsev 13:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
✓ Done in English, French and Italian. Remi Mathis 19:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Pictogram voting info.svg Info Thank you. I add a appropriate Russian description too. -- Sergey kudryavtsev 05:56, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Basik07 07:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
result: 3 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. (Consensus not reached) --Benchat 07:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC) 

Image:Crested tern444.jpg, featured[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by, uploaded by and nominated by --Benjamint 09:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Benjamint 09:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Vassil 10:09, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Great composition, quality ok. Alvesgaspar 10:25, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Lycaon 12:19, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Mbz1 13:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Thats pretty funny. Great composition. --Digon3 talk 13:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Sharp, cute, funny. Doodle-doo Ħ 15:41, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Javier ME 20:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I bet a picture of Ben taking this picture would have been just as funny :) Dori - Talk 03:58, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Wonderful colors. Calibas 04:14, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very good --Richard Bartz 13:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Wonderful... ! Benh 18:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Excellent! -- MJJR 19:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Leafnode 06:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Poromiami 6:13 3 October 2007 (CEST) Perfect.
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It's funny. -- Sergey kudryavtsev 13:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Jarvin 21:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Simonizer 21:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support good sharpness as well as good composition. — Manecke 09:59, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support as Manecke Chmee2 17:06, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support brilliant --Benchat 05:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Basik07 07:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 result: 22 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. --Benchat 06:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Superb Wren female444.jpg, not featured[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by, uploaded by and nominated by --Benjamint 09:33, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Benjamint 09:33, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Unsharp and a bit noisy. The exposure solution doesn't seem to be the best one as well as the lighting - Alvesgaspar 10:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too noisy for such a small picture. Resampling is not an option here. Lycaon 11:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Noisy. --Digon3 talk 13:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The background is noisy, and the tail and the bug are not sharp, but I think most of the wren is ok. Do yous see its body noisy? --Javier ME 20:18, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great picture. Most part of the subject of the photo is sharp and not too noisy. The colors are very nice too. Freestyle  nl (talk) 22:50, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The noise is largely in the background which is OK. --MichaelMaggs 05:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Good composition but too many technical problems. A good photo, but not sufficiently outstanding to become FP IMO. -- Slaunger 21:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It doesn't look right to me, probably due to issues mentioned. Dori - Talk 03:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Noise I can fix, but what in particular is wrong with the lighting and exposure? --Benjamint 12:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
result: 4 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. --Benchat 07:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Chýnovská jeskyně(4).jpg, featured[edit]

Inside of Chýnov cave

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Chmee2 - uploaded by Chmee2 - nominated by Timichal — Timichal 09:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support — Timichal 09:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Vassil 10:12, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like it. --Aktron 10:33, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good composition and light. --Egg 10:54, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Noisy unsharp image with a very confusing composition. Oh yes, and did I mention that I dislike national voting? An image has to be judged by its merits, not because it's made by your neighbour! Lycaon 11:13, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Interesting, stunning, "wow factor" composition and lighting. I love the exposure. Sure, it's slightly noisy, but what else would you expect in a cave? Freedom to share 13:20, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Not a national vote. As Freedom to share. --Digon3 talk 13:50, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Mbz1 13:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like it. --Dezidor 22:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Low quality image as per Lycaon --Fir0002 www 08:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The quality is not the best --Richard Bartz 13:58, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral - This is a very good picture though maybe not good enough to make a FP. I really don't think the technical flaws are that serious. My neutral vote has to do with the poor relevance (or "value") of the image, not compensated by an exceptional artistic quality - Alvesgaspar 22:50, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Jarekt 01:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Lycaon. Sorry. --MichaelMaggs 16:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral (can't think of smart national voting-related remark), so I have to agree with Alvesgaspar --che 00:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great texture and light. Every dark picture has some noise, it's normal. Metoc 12:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support verry nice image, of course featured. __ ABF __ ϑ 15:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Karelj 19:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Basik07 07:06, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 result: 13 support, 4 oppose, 2 neutral => featured. --Benchat 07:09, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:WashingtonMonumentWIthFlag.jpg, not featured[edit]

Washington Monument

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by uFu --uFu 22:53, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --uFu 22:53, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I don't like the composition and the image is quite noisy to boot. Lycaon 08:53, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This is a dramatic shot. Gordo 09:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As Lycaon said. --Egg 10:55, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as Lycaon --Chmee2 11:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like it. --Dezidor 12:56, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose no special composition and no WOW! --Lucas Löffler 13:09, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Lycaon, also the flag is cropped off. --Digon3 talk 13:48, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Mbz1 13:53, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose One the one side the perspective is rather spectacular (or it is just the sushi rumoring in my stomach), but one the other side is that the picture is really noisy, the white looks more like pink and the sky is in my opinion unnatural and uniform blue. -- Cecil 15:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info I could probably reduce the noise, at the cost of some sharpness -- would that help win some support?. The composition is as intended (including the flag extending out of frame), so that's really a matter of differing tastes. The colors seem to render correctly on my monitor (the primary red and blue in the flag look right), so I think the pinkish stone in the upper two-thirds of the monument is accurate as well. The sky really was very clear that day (it was freezing!). So overall, I think what you're seeing here is pretty close to what my eyes saw that day. Hope this doesn't sound overly defensive -- I'm certainly willing to fix this up if anyone has any suggestions. --UFu 18:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I really like the composition, but I don't like the DOF that much. Dori - Talk 19:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As Lucas, no special composition and not enough WOW! --Javier ME 20:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose terrible quality - CA, a lot of noise --Leafnode 07:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
result: 4 support, 8 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. --Benchat 06:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Edit 1, not featured[edit]

Washington Monument

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info I think this one has improved colors, and is less noisy. -- UFu 20:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose No special composition and not enough WOW! --Javier ME 20:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral can't decide... Composition is unusual, but is it a FP quality? --Leafnode 07:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I really have to sit on the fence here as the shot is fantastic but the quality is not --Benhello! 12:21, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
result: 0 support, 1 oppose, 2 neutral => not featured. --Benchat 06:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:RégionVenceFrance.JPG, not featured[edit]

Région de Vence, France

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by, uploaded, nominated by User:Gilbertus --gilbertus 14:32, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --gilbertus 14:32, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Insufficient wow to make up for overexposed sky. -- Klaus with K 14:47, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose overexposed sky Sorry, at first you may take a try at Commons:Quality images candidates!--Beyond silence 16:17, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose unfortunately the technical quality and subject matter are not up to par, sorry --Benhello! 05:22, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Overexposed sky. --Digon3 talk 21:35, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Nuvola apps important yellow.svg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because severely overexposed 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.

--Benchat 05:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

result: FPX => not featured. --Pumpmeup 09:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Tree Dragon444.jpg[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info everything by Benjamint 12:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Benjamint 12:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Mbz1 13:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Amazingly amazing ! Benh 17:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --MichaelMaggs 17:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Böhringer 21:56, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Richard Bartz 23:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Really sharp. --Beyond silence 10:35, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support fantastic picture --Benhello! 11:35, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Some disturbing oversharpening effects on the lizard (compare to this picture where only minimal sharpening was employed). Lycaon 12:32, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Jarvin 14:29, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Winiar 16:20, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great picture, great sharpness. I don't agree that it's oversharpened. --Aqwis 18:29, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good picture, it is slightly oversharpened though. Calibas 19:40, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice, all the lizard part are on focus. Bit sharpened but ok. Acarpentier 03:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Even if it is slightly oversharpened. --Digon3 talk 21:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Picture is generally OK, but the oversharpening ruined it for me --Leafnode 07:17, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Basik07 07:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  • if any of you happen to be over Qic way... [5] --Benjamint 09:17, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Harsh lighting, going with another image above. Dori - Talk 02:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
result: 15 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral => promoted on 18 October 2007 by benjamint444 -- Bryan (talk to me) 19:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Amalfi coast sunset.jpg, not featured[edit]

Amalfi Coast sunset

Nuvola apps important yellow.svg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because very unsharp and noisy, and overexposed in parts 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.

--Benchat 06:06, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

result: FPX => not featured. --Pumpmeup 06:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:DSM beach.JPG, not featured[edit]

Dares Salaam beach

Nuvola apps important yellow.svg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because very noisy and tilted. 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 13:43, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

result: FPX => not featured. --Pumpmeup 09:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Walls of Dubrovnik.jpg, not featured[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded, nominated by --Beyond silence 14:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Beyond silence 14:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not very good lighting, seems flat. Also would be a lot better without the tourists. --Digon3 talk 15:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose common summer trip photo --Leafnode 05:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose without the tourists it would be a good composition. With them it really looks a bit like a snap shot...though it maybe isn't --AngMoKio 20:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose not sharp enough and the tourists are too close --Aqwis 11:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Agree, it looks too much like a random tourist snapshot. /Daniel78 09:42, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think, but there isn't meaningful to continue. Pictogram voting delete.svg --Beyond silence 10:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

result: withdrawn => not featured. --Benchat 06:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:PeñadeBernal.jpg, not featured[edit]

The monolith of Peña de Bernal, in Querétaro, Mexico.

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by Poromiami --Poromiami 05:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Poromiami 05:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Low sharpness, fog. --Beyond silence 08:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose messy composition, compression artifacts --Leafnode 11:03, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As above. --Digon3 talk 15:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as above although if the same shot was taken sharper and with shot defects fixed it would be an excellent photo --Benhello! 11:45, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) --Benchat 06:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC) 

Image:Iceberg with hole near sanderson hope 2007-07-28 1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Iceberg with hole near Sanderson Hope, Greenland.

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Uploaded, created, and nominated by --Slaunger 07:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info I've seen several icebergs with a hole, but never one where the connecting arc looks so fragile as on this iceberg, which was spotted near Sanderson Hope on a boat trip between Kangersuatsiaq and Upernavik in Greenland. I am aware the photo has technical flaws and I wish there was some sort of scale on the photo. I estimate the peak of the iceberg extended about 35 m above sea level. Actually I have a whole series of photos of this iceberg from the time before it had the hole and until it broke in two, which I will upload shortly. That process took about a month. -- Slaunger 07:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral --Slaunger 07:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Pudelek 11:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Mbz1 12:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--69.51.160.104 15:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Votes from anonymous users do not count (psst.. do me a favor, logon and vote support again!!) -- Slaunger 15:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Looks tilted, low sharpness. --Beyond silence 19:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The tilt is now corrected, I had just noticed myself. Concerning sharpness, you are right it is not the best in some areas of the photo (one of the technical flaws I mentioned), and it cannot be fixed. However I did manage to remove some of the noise in the sky as well (another technical flaw). -- Slaunger 20:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Karelj 20:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Leafnode 05:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Sergey kudryavtsev 13:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Sorry Slaunger but photographic quality is not good enough. The picture has little detail, as if some extreme denoising tool were used, and the subject is not sharp. Also, the white balance seems off and the crop is too tight on the iceberg. Alvesgaspar 17:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting info.svg Info I certainly understand that viewpoint, and I agree to a great extend about the technical flaws you mention. I would like to mention though that I have not used any extreme denoising tool. I have applied a selective Gaussian blur with a pixel radius of three but I set the contrast threshold to a very low value such that I could not see any change in the detail level of the iceberg itself. This helped slightly on the noisy sky but not much. The main problem is that the right part of the iceberg is not sharp from the beginning. Actually, I have been surprised that there have not been more opposing votes until now due to these technical flaws. I guess what triggered my nomination was the nomination by mbz1 of a quite similar object below, and I thought lets have some hole-in-iceberg fun at FPC! Concerning white balance you may be right. I am not very knowledgable about this. How do you spot it and how does one correct it?-- Slaunger 19:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Thanks for your explanations. As for the white balance, that is a tricky business to spot. What we identify as "white" with our eyes may vary with the "temperature" of the light, which is related to the wavelenght spectrum irradiated by the light source. Light from daylight, sunset, tungsten bulbs, fluorescent lamps, flash, etc. all have diferent "whites" (temperatures), and are registered diferently by our cameras. The question is our brain tend to adjust automatically to those differences and put a tag of "white" in everything supposed to be white by its experience. Any standard image editing application has ways to adjust the white balance, normally through the "temperature". In your picture it may well be the case that the colours are accurately depicted, the problem is we (I ?) are used to see icebergs less coloured Alvesgaspar 09:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
    • And thank you for explaining me about the colour balance. I guess it is the bluish hue you have noticed? This colour actually represents quite well how many icebergs appears to the eye in most daylight conditions - at least with my eyes and my twisted brain ;-) -- Slaunger 09:48, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Unfortunately, I do agree with Alvesgaspar. This time, originality of the subject isn't mitigating enough to me. Benh 17:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Poor technical quality, sorry. -- Ram-Man 23:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Pictogram voting delete.svg I have reconsidered my nomination. On close inspection I find the technical quality is so low, that it would have been embarassing for me if it were featured. Thank you for the comments! -- Slaunger 07:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

result: withdrawn => not featured --Benhello! 12:08, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Deilephila porcellus 01.jpg, not featured[edit]

Close-up Deilephila porcellus

Nuvola apps important yellow.svg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because noisy and the subject is cut off 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.

--Pumpmeup 08:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Brown Rat.jpg, not featured[edit]

A dead brown rat

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info everything by Muhammad Mahdi --Muhammad Mahdi Karim 19:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Muhammad Mahdi Karim 19:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Alvesgaspar 20:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --AngMoKio 21:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Dongio 22:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Attack of the opposers with no reasons. :) Not up to FP standards. --Digon3 talk 22:16, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Crop is tight, poor contrast, dull colors, and it's a dead rat. Wait a while until it's writhing with worms and take another picture, macro if possible. Calibas 04:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per above --Pumpmeup 07:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Nuvola apps important yellow.svg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because meets none of the FP criteria 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.

--Pumpmeup 08:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Donkey 03.jpg, not featured[edit]

Donkey 03.jpg

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created & uploaded & nominated by Mihael Simonic
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Mihael Simonic 15:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose badly tilted (and no proper description). Lycaon 17:03, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Tilt. --Digon3 talk 21:52, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Nuvola apps important yellow.svg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because tilted, overexposed, no wow factor 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.

--Benchat 05:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

result: FPX => not featured. --Pumpmeup 09:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Edit 1, not featured[edit]

Donkey 05.jpg

Nuvola apps important yellow.svg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because tilted, noisy and overexposed 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.

--Pumpmeup 08:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Donkey 04.jpg, not featured[edit]

Donkey 04.jpg

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created & uploaded & nominated by Mihael Simonic
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Mihael Simonic 15:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Overexposed sky and tilt. --Digon3 talk 21:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Digon3. Lycaon 04:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose unfortunately taking a picture of a donkey isn't anything special --Benchat 05:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Nuvola apps important yellow.svg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because overexposed in parts, tilted image and no wow factor 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.

--Benchat 05:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Birth of black bee (Apis mellifera mellifera)6.jpg, not featured[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Abalg - uploaded by Abalg - nominated by CarolSpears --carol 09:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I thought it better to nominate this than to spend the time counting the hairs between its eyes. --carol 09:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Sorry Carol, looks nice in the thumbnail but the quality is poor in full size (noise, unsharpness). This is the kind of quality Commons FP has reached so far (please see also the other bee pictures of Richard Bartz) - Alvesgaspar 10:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Agree with Richard. Alvesgaspar -- Slaunger 05:46, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
... uuups that was not my vote, it was our highly respected Alvesgaspar's vote :) --Richard Bartz 21:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC) Thank you for pointing that out, Alves, ehmm, I mean, Richard. -- Slaunger 05:46, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Nuvola apps important yellow.svg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because noisy and unsharp when in full size. 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.

--Benhello! 11:37, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

image:2007bourdon.JPG, not featured[edit]

bourdon de face

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by pyjean - uploaded by pyjean - nominated by pyjean --Pyjean 20:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Pyjean 20:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - Yes, it looks like a bumblebee (bourdon) but the species should be identified, if possible. - Alvesgaspar 20:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Unsharp and poor angle --Aqwis 11:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Unsharp, dof. Sorry, at first you may take a try at Commons:Quality images candidates!--Beyond silence 15:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose unsharp and angle, sorry --Benhello! 11:40, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The bar for bug pictures is raised pretty high. --Digon3 talk 21:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Nuvola apps important yellow.svg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because Unsharp, no wow factor and at a poor angle 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.

--Benchat 06:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Tree Dragon Close444.jpg, not featured[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Benjamint 12:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This ones not sharpened--Benjamint 12:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I feel that there are too many pictures of the tree dragon or other reptiles coming from you at us at once. Sorry, but I can't judge with all of this material coming at me at once from the same author. They can't all be featured, you know. :D Where do you find the time to take all of these photos while being a yr 11 student? I don't mean those comments negatively, just wondering. :D Freedom to share 15:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I just had two weeks of holidays when I had some spare time.
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I'm withholding my Support since you already have another pic of this guy, which is a shame because I like this one better. Maybe you could put this pic next to the one on the log and let people choose a favorite. JaGa 17:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Technically good but the composition is not to my taste --Richard Bartz 17:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting question.svg Question How do you think the composition could be better? (Not criticizing your comment, just wanting to learn) --JaGa 19:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  • You need a pinch of fortune that everything is set perfectly, especially in nature photography. Thats why i often say "unfortunately" :) --Richard Bartz 20:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Lighting a bit too harsh, centered composition not the greatest. Dori - Talk 02:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Ok, your right, I feel like I'm putting to much stuff up at the moment and they would probably do better if they were spread out a bit. I wasn't entirely happy with the composition but the quality seemed so good. Pictogram voting delete.svg benjamint
result: withdrawn => not featured. --Pumpmeup 07:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Dead rat blood.JPG, not featured[edit]

A dead brown rat with blood

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment You got something against dead rats? I dont think your reason is valid! Muhammad Mahdi Karim 18:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I have nothing against dead rats, i'm quite sure a FP could be made about the subject, but this isn't one. The composition is not interesting, other elements in the picture are distracting, the light is not good, etc. Sorry. Huskyoog.jpg Husky (talk to me) 23:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Composition, Crop. -- Acarpentier 19:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeSymbol oppose vote.svg OpposeSymbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Trolling Candidate --libertad0 ॐ 19:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC) Only one vote per user, please ;-) --Richard Bartz 23:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This is really disturbing. --JaGa 20:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment That what makes it a FPC. It makes one stare, frightened, amazed. I just wanted to point out opposition should be made with suitable reasons. Unfortunately, I do not see this. Muhammad Mahdi Karim 20:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment no, theres a difference between shocking and disgusting --Pumpmeup 07:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose harsh light, distracting metal tin, boring composition --Simonizer 21:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose ack User:JaGa. — Manecke 21:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose ack JaGa. --LucaG 22:21, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I have nothing against dead rodents. It would be possible to make a great picture on this tearily situation. For me it seems like a unloving picture, similar like the traffic police showing victims. Why not take more exertion onto this? A dead rodent cannot run away, so you have all the time. Clear the scene by erasing the tin, kneel down and bring the camera curtly atop the floor and light the scene with a lighter (painting the light) during a long time exposition. You see the unisonous reactions on this picture which would make me sad if it was mine. Be creative and hit it up! --Richard Bartz 23:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment He he he, I agree on that one. You could also have moved it on a comfortable position, making a little romantic scenario or even make it wear a “I love New York” t-shirt or some other cool clothing... ;) Acarpentier 23:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - I do have something against a FP depicting dead rats, unless the image tells some kind of story, or shows something relevant, not present in a living one. Death creatures are not interesting per se - Alvesgaspar 23:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose tail is cropped --che 00:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per all of above --Pumpmeup 07:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Thank you Richard Bartz for your comments. It is with users like you who offer constructive criticisms that the world develops. Next time, I will keep in mind what you have said. For everyone else, thank you for voting. As per the comments of Richard, I withdraw my nomination.
result: withdrawn => not featured. ----MichaelMaggs 21:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Infermir.jpg, not featured[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Sunset Inferior Mirage. Please take a look how this sunset looked: Sunset inferio mirage.jpg created, uploaded and nominated by Mbz1 --Mbz1 15:01, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg CommentHave you ever seen a mirage of the setting Sun or the Moon or a mirage of torrential objects? I see them often and they are beautiful to see. For example, the sunset Sun in San Francisco is never round. It takes all amazing shapes and no two sunsets are the same. Today I'd like to offer to your attention the sequence of the most common inferior mirage. Sunset inferior mirage is common around the world, but not where I live. I see them only 2-3 times per year. The nominated sequence was taken in Hawaii, where I saw inferior mirage of the setting sun every clear sunset. Please notice that in order to see any mirage there should be something in the atmosphere between an observer and a mirage. That's why you cannot except the images to be as clear as of a normal sunsets. Still I believe the nominated image is very encyclopedic. Thank you.
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Mbz1 15:01, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • {{resolution is lower than 2 million pixels}}
    • The photos are impressionning, but the quality is not here... 6 pictures of poor quality don't makes one of quality!!! Sanchezn 21:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
      • cannot agree less. The pictures represent the shapes the sun takes during inferior mirage sunset. Putting 6 images in one image is the only way to show the different shapes in the same image. I'd like to remind you the one of criterias for selection: A bad picture of a very difficult subject is a better picture than a good picture of an ordinary subject. The nominated image is a very good quality image. It is as good as it gets with mirages.Well, I assume that Sanchezn saw and photographed many mirages himself and knows what he's talking about complainong about the quality of the image.
        • I'm sorry, I won't heart you. When I say 6 pics of poor quality don't make one of quality, I would rather used "resolution" instead of "quality". You're true, I don't know how it's difficult to photographs the sun; I never tried because I haven't the appropriated lens. I see on other photos of the same subject taken by you that you use a 300mm lens, maybe it's not a sufficient focal length for this type of picture. Sanchezn 22:11, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
          • There's nothing to be sorry about. In my opinion the resolution of the image was enough to show the shapes of the sun, but, if community disagree, it is fine with me. I could have posted a higher resolution image. As a matter of fact I did upload it already, but then I decided what for? Probably the bigger zoom would have done a better job, but I have only a bad mirror lense with 500mm. I'm not sure I'd like to get a better lens just to make an image FP. After all quite a few of my sunset mirage images, taking with 300mm lens, were published at NASA sites.Btw looks like it did automatic update of the nominated image because the new image I uploaded had the same name. So now we do have a higher resolution image.--Mbz1 23:01, 30 September 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I think this would be much better as an animated GIF of the sequence. Doodle-doo Ħ 21:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I agree, this would be much better as an animated GIF. --Digon3 talk 02:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The original image was 3Mpixel, the new version is 7.5Mpixel, the {{FPX}} is factually incorrect. I know it has been withdrawn, but I vote in support of it anyway. :-) --Tony Wills 07:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Thank you, Tony. I believe that if nothing else at least the sequence deservs its day in court.--Mbz1 12:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
      • don't forget the black bands... Sanchezn 18:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose For the reasons I explained on top. I have nothing to do with 3 or 7.5 Mpixel, there is 6 pictures, each occups 20% of the surface => 6 pics < 1.6 Mpixel, and visibly the new version is only a scaled and smoothed version (I prefer the previous version). Sanchezn 18:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
      • It is not 'six pictures' it is one composite image (do you care how small the components that are glued together to make a panorama are?). We are evaluating a single image illustrating a natural phenomena, not component parts. If you wish to complain about large blank areas etc that's another matter, but the image in question indeed meets arbitrary size demands. --Tony Wills 20:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Please take a look at this image Total lunar eclipse august 28 2007 edit.jpg or maybe you would like to calculate how megapixels a fly takes on this image Hoverfly03 crop.jpg. What I'm trying to say is that in my opinion we cannot apply megapixels requirements to the subject of the image.In my opinion it is wrong.--Mbz1 19:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
      • Thank you for you comments, everybody. Please notice that even, if I'm to do the animation the resolution of it will be lower than 2 megapixels, or the quality will be lost.I'm afraid it is how it goes with taking pictures of sunset sun. I cannot use any filter and I'm not sure I'd like to spoil my sensor and demage my eyes with a bigger zoom. Let's say I nominated this image Sunset inferio mirage.jpg. It is inferior mirage sunset scenery. Still the sun is relatively small. --Mbz1 19:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
        • I see that having different opinion than your is forbiden. For the moon, I'm sorry but I think the quality doesn't come from the photographs but from the composition. Behind shooting, he does a great job to put them all together, there is a big value added. On your picture the composition is bad, the photographs are not aligned (on QIC, some people oppose just because a tilt of less than 2°)... For the fly there is no problems, there would be if he put 6 pictures together to make a bigger one. Sorry again for having an opinion different of your. Sanchezn 20:49, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Sure you could have a different opinion(s). Nothing is forbiden at Wikipedia. One could talk about the subject that he has never seen not only in real life, but not even in pictures. One could change opinion in every comment from resolution to quality to composition and so on. Am I allowed to have my own opinion too? Thank you. So, in my opinion FP have lived for many years without displaying sunset mirage and it will live for many more years without it just fine. On the other hand my sunset mirage pictures are all over the NET, at least one was published in a magazine, so the people, who are interested in mirages would be able to find them.I really cannot care less, if the image is to pass, or it is not, yet in my opinion the image should not have been FPX. It was my last comment for the nomination. Thank you, everybody --Mbz1 22:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)Mbz1

Symbol support vote.svg Support For an encyclopedia images like these can be priceless. I hate making the argument that utility is more important than beauty but, as I already mentioned, these images are for encyclopedias. Calibas 03:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Six very similar pictures, why? Maybe greater time distance between snaps could help...? --Karelj 20:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
    • !!?? It's a time sequence showing very clearly the progression of the phenomena. --Tony Wills 22:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
      • Thank you for your question, Karelj. I believe it was my fault. I see mirages relatively often and sometimes it is hard to look at the image with the eyes of a person, who sees a mirage for the first time. I should have explained better what is inferior mirage and where to look for changes. Inferior mirage of the setting sun looks more or less the same in different sunsets. The initial part of an inferior mirage sunset, which is shown in the nominated image is the most interesting part in my opinion. After 2 Suns (a lower one and an upper one) get together nothing much happens. Sometimes in the very end of inferior mirage sunset, you could see a very rare and very beautiful green flash Inferior Mirage green flash.jpg. Mock mirage sunsets are different. No 2 sunsets are the same and no 2 shapes of the same sunset are the same as you could see from this Mock Mirage Sunset Sequence--Mbz1 22:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Bad quality. Sure is valuable for the encyclopedia, but not featured. Acarpentier 03:10, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Have you opposed all my images yet, Acarpentier? Please make sure do not miss one and remember in a worse case scenario, you could always ask for help from one of your "clones - co-workers".--Mbz1 16:55, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
      • I think you have problem with me. Anyway my vote here is on the work. You are mixing things together, I'm not. If you don’t want comments don't post. Please read the Guidelines for nominators. Acarpentier 23:16, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting delete.svg 
result: withdrawn => not featured. --Pumpmeup 08:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Dresden-Fuerstenzug2.jpg, not featured[edit]