Commons:Featured pictures candidates/candidate list

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

Image:Strix-varia-005.jpg[edit]

A barred owl (Strix varia) cropped version

Original version (left) - featured[edit]

banned template replaced - Alvesgaspar 22:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]
23 support, 0 oppose → featured Roger McLassus 18:32, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cropped version (right) - not featured[edit]

2 support, 5 oppose > not featured Alvesgaspar 15:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Aranjuez JardinParterre FachadaOrientalPalacio.jpg - not featured[edit]

Eastern façade of the Royal Palace from the Parterre's Garden of Aranjuez (Spain) 

Day 7: 1 support (nominator), 5 oppose → not featured Roger McLassus 09:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Image-Jezioro Mały Jeziorak w Iławie3.svg - not featured[edit]

Short description

  •  Info Map of Small Jeziorak Lake and center of Iława (Featured on Polisch Wikipedia) created by Marcin n® ☼ - uploaded by Marcin n - nominated by Marcin n® ☼ --MARCIN N 20:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --MARCIN N 20:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment What are the units in the distance scale? What is the principal scale of the map? Where is North? Not all the cartographic symbols used in the representation are identified in the legend. The image seems too small to be useful as a real map. -- Alvesgaspar 23:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose - lettering too small to read comfortably at full size. - MPF 13:27, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
     Comment - Yet another unfounded comment, since with SVG, full size is not defined. Please read article about en:SVG! ♦ Pabix ℹ 15:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
     Comment - "Please read article about SVG" - read it, and don't understand about 98% of it. One thing it does say, is that "The use of SVG on the web is in its infancy" . . . in other words, you can't expect most people to be able to resize it, because their computers are too old to have it on. If I try clicking on the pic to see it full size, I just get a warning about an unknown file type, that may harm my computer. I'm not willing to take this risk. - MPF 21:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
     Comment - We know the format is scalable. But how to make the image bigger in this context, to facilitate the evaluation? And how to scale it to adequate size in other Wikipedia projects? I tried to download and convert the image with CorelDraw and failed. -- Alvesgaspar 15:53, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    There're several tools wich may help you. If you use Firefox you may try this extension so you can pan an zoom SVGs directly from the navigator. Francisco M. Marzoa 00:28, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Opera navigator fully supports SVG, otherwise, and you can edit the image in software like Inskscape. ♦ Pabix ℹ 07:35, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support ♦ Pabix ℹ 15:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral I need "Guidelines for evaluating SVGs" Francisco M. Marzoa 00:28, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose A static map like this one shouldn’t be scalable: if you reduce the scale, the lettering and other cartographic symbols might become illegible and the image crowded; if you enlarge it, you are suggesting a precision (and accuracy) that the map doesn’t have. Note that topographic maps of the same region, but with different scales, have different detail and symbology (different levels of “generalization”, as cartographers say). For this particular map I suggest the following improvements: (i) make it non-scalable; (ii) state the scale of the map; (iii) indicate the direction of North; (iv) draw and graduate one parallel and one meridian (or suggest them) so that we know where in Earth this place is; (v) improve the legend so that all symbols used in the map are explained (railroads, road tags, etc.); (vi) make the neatline (the exterior line that frames the map) more sober. Good work! -- Alvesgaspar 08:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment There is something important I forgot to say: the map is beatiful and nicely done. But beauty is not enough, in this case, to being really useful and reach FP standards. -- Alvesgaspar 13:10, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- Lerdsuwa 09:09, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose not all symbols are explained in the legend, no arrow that indicates north, no distance units used in scalebar. This map just does not satify some basic cartographic requisites. Tbc 11:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Indicates north there is on the down in Legend. What symbols aren't explained in the legend? Marcin n® ☼ 12:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
The railroad and the footpath nearby the water (if it is a footpath) for example. Now I took a second look a few other things struck me: first, the roads are digitized as polygons and not as line elements (there are indeed some arguments why in some situations thsi is preferred, but not for the purpose of this map). For example: the road Narutowicza, Mickiewicza, the railroad, ... gets wider and smaller. It would surprise me if the roads really do this, it looks more like sloppiness to me (just like the footpath that leaves the grass on the right). Also the polygons are not "snapped" to one another (look at the orange building/grass contact zone in the lower right), that will create small meaningless polygons that will be clearly visible at full zoom (definately in svg). Please do not interpret these comments the wrong way, they are meant to be constructive. The map is good, but really should not be a featured one. Tbc 13:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured Roger McLassus 08:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Palladio-La-Rotonda.jpg - not featured[edit]

La Rotonda by Palladio

Noise reducted, not a candidate per se
3 support, 6 oppose → not featured Roger McLassus 06:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:PalmyraPanoramaZoom.jpg - not featured[edit]

forgot that --Digon3 21:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
banned template replaced Roger McLassus 07:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Day 7: 1 support (nominator), 10 oppose → not featured Roger McLassus 09:07, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Metrioptera roeselii Female.jpg, not featured[edit]

Short description

Ich würde nie einen Fuß oder Fühler ab-oder anschneiden. Aber von der Qualität her könnte es hinkommen :) Pass auf mit deinem Support, das Bild ist nicht besonders groß (853 × 1280). --Makro Freak talk 21:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Es ist ein Irrglaube, zu glauben dass abgeschnittene Teile des Hauptobjekts ein Fehler sind....das kann Teil der Komposition sein. So sehe ich das hier. Was die Größe angeht...das kann ich hier übersehen. --AngMoKio 21:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Haha! Ich sprach ja auch nur von | mir . --Makro Freak talk 21:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hallo, ich bin der Autor des Bildes. Habe das Bild in besserer Auflösung eingestellt und das alte ersetzt. Ich kannte die Anforderungen nicht. JuliusR
Willkommen bei den FPCs. Mit dem Bild machst du einen schönen Einstand hier. --AngMoKio 16:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
what do you mean by strange axis?--AngMoKio 18:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seem that the grashopper toppling backwards, like drunken. --Bergwolf 21:12, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
:-) I see what you meen. But that was the way it was sitting there. Anyway I am happy for any fair comment to help me sharpen my view. JuliusR
Thanks! The exposure data is right. It was a cloudy day with no wind and I did some experiments with my new remote control for the camera. I took about 10 pictures with different exposure settings to see how they come out. This one was the best. JuliusR 10:53, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 7 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. --MichaelMaggs 17:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_pictures_candidates/candidate_list&oldid=6533665"