Commons:Kandydatury do grafik na medal

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository

Jump to: navigation, search
Prezentacja grafik kandydatów w innych językach:

Alemannisch | Asturianu | Česky | Dansk | Deutsch | English | Español | Suomi | Français | Galego | Italiano | 日本語 | Lëtzebuergesch | |Молдовеняскэ | ‪Norsk (bokmål)‬ | Português | Polski | Română | Русский | Shqip | Српски / Srpski | Svenska | Українська | 粵語 | ‪中文(简体)‬ | ‪中文(繁體)‬ | +/−

Shortcut: COM:FPC Na tej stronie prezentowani są kandydaci do wyróżnionych grafik (na polskiej Wikipedii "Grafika na medal"). Zwróć uwagę, że nie jest to samo co Grafika dnia, która jest inną forma wyróżnienia.

Aby obejrzeć archiwum poprzednio nominowanych grafik, przejdź na stronę: Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log.

Istnieje także chronologiczna lista wyróżnionych grafik. Zobacz także: Kandydatów do grafik wysokiej jakości oraz Okiem fotografów.

Skip to current candidates Skocz do kandydatur do przyznania medalu
Skip to current delist candidates Skocz do kandydatur do odebrania medalu

[edit] Formalności

[edit] Nominacja

Jeżeli uważasz, że znalazłeś/aś zdjęcie lub stworzyłeś/aś grafikę, która może być uważana jako wartościowa, z odpowiednim opisem i licencją, przekopiuj nazwę grafiki w to pole (zawierając Image: prefix), po tym jak tekst będzie już w polu:


Potem musisz ręcznie wprowadzić link do stworzonej strony na górze Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list.

[edit] Głosowanie

Aby wyrazić swoje poparcie, możesz użyć następujących szablonów:

  • {{Support}} ( Support),

lub aby wyrazić swoją dezaprobatę:

  • {{Oppose}} ( Oppose),

Możesz także użyć:

  • Neutralny: {{Neutral}} ( Neutral),
  • Komentarz: {{Comment}} ( Comment),
  • Informacja: {{Info}} ( Info:).

Proszę, postaraj się napisać kilka słów, dlaczego podoba Ci się (lub nie podoba) dane zdjęcie - szczególnie, gdy głosujesz przeciw. Pamiętaj również, aby złożyć swój podpis (~~~~).

[edit] Zasady prezentacji grafik kandydatów

[edit] Zasady główne

  1. Po zakończeniu okresu głosowania wynik będzie ogłoszony 15. dnia po nominacji (tak jak jest to pokazane w tabelce czasowej poniżej). A więc okres głosowania to dwa tygodnie (plus godziny do końca 14. dnia). Głosy dodane 15. dnia i później nie są liczone.
  2. Nominacje zgłaszane przez anonimowych uczestników są mile widziane.
  3. Wkład do dyskusji przez anonimowych uczestników jest również mile widziany.
  4. Głosy oddane przez anonimowych uczestników nie są liczone.
  5. Nominacje nie liczą się jako głosy. Poparcie musi być wyraźnie określone.
  6. Nominowani mogą wycofać swoje nominowane zdjęcia w każdej chwili - pisząc po prostu: "I withdraw my nomination".
  7. Pamiętaj, celem projektu Wikimedia Commons jest zapewnienie centralnego repozytorium dla grafik używanych przez wszystkie Projekty Wikimedia, łącznie z możliwymi przyszłymi projektami. To nie jest po prostu depozyt dla grafik Wikipedii, więc grafiki nie powinny być tutaj oceniane na podstawie ich przydatności dla tego projektu.
  8. Zdjęcia mogą być usuwane z listy, jeżeli nie mają żadnego wsparcia (nie licząc nominujących) w 7. dniu (dzień nominacji + 7).

[edit] Zasady publikacji grafik

Grafika kandydata zostanie umieszczona, jeżeli będzie spełniać następujące warunki:

  1. Odpowiednia licencja (co jest oczywiste)
  2. Grafika musi mieć przynajmniej 5 głosów poparcia
  3. Podział głosów popierających/przeciwnych musi mieścić się przynajmniej w stosunku 2/1 (większość dwóch - trzecich)
  4. Nie mogą być wybrane dwie różne wersje tej samej grafiki - wybrana zostanie wersja z większą ilością oddanych głosów.

Zobacz jak postępować ze starymi nominacjami: Template talk:Featured pictures candidates#Co zrobić kiedy głosowanie się zakończy.

[edit] Usuwanie zdjęć prezentowanych kandydatów

Nadgodzinowa zamiana standardów zamieszczonej grafiki. Może się tak zdarzyć, że dla niektórych grafik formalne wystarczająco dobre nie jest już aktualne. To jest dla listy zdjęć, które wierzysz, że nie zasługują dłużej by być prezentowaną grafiką. To wymaga 2/3 głosów większości (i minimum 5 głosów) zgadzających się na usunięcie z listy prezentowanych zdjęć. Jeżeli nie ma 2/3 głosów zgadzających się na usunięcie z listy, nominacja zostaje jako prezentowana grafika. Dla nich głosuj "Zachowaj"  Keep (to zasługuje by być prezentowaną grafiką) lub "Usuń z listy"  Delist (to nie zasługuje by być prezentowaną grafiką). Proszę zapewnij link do oryginalnej FP nominacji (to pojawi się pod Links na stronie opisu grafiki). Inaczej te same zasady jak te powyżej wchodzą w życie. Proszę użyj tego linku this link aby dodać nowego możliwego do usunięcia kandydata.

[edit] Wskazówki dla nominujących

Poniżej możesz znaleźć niektóre ”informacje” na temat zasad, które zdjęcia powinny spełniać:

  • Rozdzielczość – Grafiki zlokalizowane na Commons mogą być używane nie tylko do oglądania na ekranie. Mogą zostać również użyte do drukowania lub oglądania na monitorach o bardzo wysokiej rozdzielczości. Nie możemy także przewidzieć, jakie urządzenia zostaną użyte w przyszłości, a więc ważne jest, aby zdjęcia, które są nominowane, miały tak dużą rozdzielczość jak tylko jest to możliwe. Rozdzielczość powinna być przynajmniej na poziomie 2 mln pikseli (np. 2000x1000), co wydaje się rozsądne na obecną chwilę.
  • Ostrość – każdy ważny przedmiot na grafice powinien być odpowiednio ostry (nie rozmyty).
  • Pierwszy plan i drugi plan – obiekty pierwszoplanowe i drugoplanowe mogą przeszkadzać i odwracać uwagę od głównej zawartości grafiki. Powinieneś/aś sprawdzić czy obiekt z przodu nie zasłania innych ważnych elementów i czy coś na drugim planie nie rozprasza kompozycji (np. gdy światło latarni nie świeci nad czyjąś głową).
  • Głównie Jakość – grafiki nominowane powinny mieć dobrą techniczną jakość.
  • Wartość – naszym głównym celem jest prezentowanie najbardziej wartościowych grafik ze wszystkich dostępnych. Zdjęcia powinny być na swój sposób wyjątkowe, więc bądź tego świadomy/a:
    • prawie wszystkie wschody słońca są ładne i większość takich zdjęć nie jest inna w swojej esencji od innych,
    • zdjęcia nocy są ładne, ale zasadniczo więcej detali można zobaczyć na zdjęciach zrobionych w czasie dnia.
    • piękne nie zawsze musi znaczyć wartościowe.

Nie każda zasada musi być dopasowana, np. grafika może mieć niewielką rozdzielczość, ponieważ wyższa rozdzielczość nie może już być zrobiona (temat zdjęcia już nie żyje lub nie istnieje) lub wydarzenie już nigdy więcej się nie powtórzy.

[edit] Wskazówki do oceniania grafik

Istnieje kilka kryteriów dla oceniania grafik.

Z technicznej strony mamy ekspozycję, kompozycję, kontrolę ruchu i głębokość pola.

Ekspozycja odnosi się do zamkniętego diagramu kombinacji, który wykonuje grafikę z stonowaną krzywą, która jest idealnie zdolna do reprezentacji szczegółów cieni i punktów szczytowych w grafice. To nazywamy poziomem. Grafiki mogą być na niskiej stronie stonowanej krzywej (niski zasięg), środkowej (środkowy zasięg) lub wysokiej stronie (wysoki zasięg). Kamery cyfrowe (lub grafiki) mają bardziej skurczony poziom niż film. Brak detalu cienia nie jest koniecznie charakterystyczny dla negatywu. Faktycznie może to być część zaplanowanego efektu. Wypalone szczytowe punkty w dużych częściach rozpraszają element.

Kompozycja odnosi się do uzgodnienia elementów w grafice. ”Zasada Trzecich” jest dobrą wskazówką dla kompozycji i jest odziedziczona ze szkoły malarstwa. Ideą tą jest rozdzielenie grafiki z dwiema poziomymi i dwiema pionowymi liniami, w ten sposób dzieląc grafikę w trzecie poziomo i pionowo. Centrowanie tematu jest zawsze uważane za złą praktykę. Tematy zainteresowania są zawsze umieszczone w jednym z ‘’punktów zainteresowania’’, gdzie poziome i pionowe linie przecinają się (cztery takie punkty przecięcia są stworzone). Poziomy nie są nigdy umieszczone w środku, bo ‘’przecinają’’ grafikę na połowę. Są umieszczone albo w górnej lub dolnej poziomej linii. Główną ideą jest nie umieszczanie tematu w centrum.

Kontrola ruchu odnosi się do sposobu, w jaki emocja jest odwzorowana w Grafice. Emocja może być zamrożona lub rozmazana. Przy czym jedna w cale nie jest lepsza od drugiej. To intencja odwzorowania jest ważna. Ruch jest ustosunkowany w obiektach na Grafice. Np. Fotografując samochód wyścigowy, który pojawia się zamrożony w relacji do tła, nie daje nam poczucia prędkości ruchu, a więc technika dyktuje reprezentacje samochodu w zamrożony sposób, ale z zamazanym tłem, aby stworzyć poczucie ruchu, ta technika to ‘’panoramowanie’’. Z drugiej strony zaprezentowanie koszykarza w skoku nie wymaga użycia tej techniki w związku z jego nienaturalną pozycją, co automatycznie sprawia że zdjęcie jest prawidłowe.

Głębia ostrości (DOF – Depth Of Field) odnosi się do części ostrości z przodu i za głównym tematem. Głębia ostrości jest wybrana odnośnie do specyficznych potrzeb każdego zdjęcia. Duża lub mała głębia ostrości może zwiększyć lub podważyć jakość grafiki. Niska głębia ostrości może być użyta dla przyciągnięcia uwagi do głównego tematu, oddzielając go od otoczenia. Wysoka głębia ostrości może być użyta do uwydatnienia przestrzeni. Soczewki krótkoogniskowe (szerokokątne) zapewniają większą głębię ostrości, i odwrotnie, soczewki o długich ogniskowych (teleobiektywy) mają małą głębię ostrości. Najmniejsze przesłony (zasunięte) powiększają głębię i odwrotnie, otwarte zmniejszają ją.

Na elementach graficznych mamy kształt, objętość, kolor, teksturę, perspektywę, równowagę, proporcję itd.

Kształt odnosi się do konturów głównych tematów.

Objętość odnosi się do trójwymiarowej jakości tematu. Jest to osiągane używając światła ze strony (z boku). Przeciwnie do generalnego poglądu, przednie światło nie jest najlepszym światłem. Ono dąży do spłaszczenia tematu. Najlepszym światło dzienne jest wczesnym rankiem lub późnym popołudniem.

Kolor jest ważny. Przesycenie kolorami nie jest dobre.

Tekstura odnosi się do jakości powierzchni tematu. Jest ona wzmagana przez boczne światło… to jest ”wyczucie” dotyku…

Perspektywa odnosi się do ”kąta” towarzyszącego przez linie, które znikają w znikającym punkcie, który może, lecz nie musi być wewnątrz grafiki.

Równowaga odnosi się do porozumienia tematów w grafice, które mogą dać albo równą wagę lub wydawać się cięższe z jednej strony.

Proporcja odnosi się do relacji wielkości tematów w zdjęciu. Generalnie dążymy do reprezentowania małych obiektów, małych w relacjach do innych, ale dobrą techniką jest reprezentowanie małych obiektów przeciwieństw do naturalnych rozmiarów wzajemnego stosunku. Na przykład, mały kwiat skupia większe zastanowienie niż wielka góra…. Nazywamy to odwróceniem skali.

Nie wszystkie elementy muszą być obecne. Niektóre fotografie mogą być osądzone na postawie indywidualnych charakterystyk, na przykład, grafika może być o kolorze lub teksturze, lub kolorze i teksturze, itd.

Symboliczne znaczenie lub powiązanie…. Więc, tu właśnie zaczyna się wojna na opinie…. Złe zdjęcie bardzo trudnego tematu jest lepsze niż zdjęcie dobre zwyczajnego tematu. Dobre zdjęcie trudnego tematu jest nadzwyczajną fotografią.

Grafiki mogą być zrobione kulturowo stronniczo przez fotografującego i/lub obserwatora. Znaczenie grafiki powinno być ocenione zgodnie z kulturalnym kontekstem grafiki, nie przez kulturalny kontekst obserwatora. Grafika „przemawia" do ludzi i ma siłę, aby wywoływać emocje takie jak wrażliwość, wściekłość, odrzucenie, radość, smutek, itd. Dobre fotografie nie są ograniczone do wywoływania przyjemnych sensacji….

[edit] Ponad Wszystko bądź kulturalny

Proszę nie zapomnij, że grafika, którą oceniasz jest czyjąś pracą. Unikaj używania fraz takich jak „to wygląda strasznie” i „Ja nienawidzę tego”. Jeżeli musisz być przeciw, proszę rób to z rozwagą. Pamiętaj także, że twoja znajomość Polskiego może nie być taka sama jak kogoś innego. Dobieraj swoje słowa z uwagą.

Miłego oceniania… i pamiętaj…. wszystkie zasady mogą być złamane

[edit] Spis treści

Contents


[edit] Kandydatury do przyznania medalu

Odśwież stronę: purge this page cache

[edit] File:Pavo cristatus (male) in San Francisco Zoo.jpg

Voting period ends on 15 Jul 2009 at 19:45:15
Pavo cristatus (male) in San Francisco Zoo

  • Info: It is not an easy task to clean one tail, if one is a Pavo :)
  • Info: created, uploaded and nominated by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 19:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 19:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Hibiscus-syriacus.jpg

Voting period ends on 15 Jul 2009 at 15:00:13
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Info: created, uploaded and nominated by --Chrumps (talk) 15:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --Chrumps (talk) 15:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:BallonKathedrale01.JPG

Voting period ends on 15 Jul 2009 at 14:38:24
Fantasy of Flight

[edit] File:Pierre-Auguste Renoir 007.jpg

Voting period ends on 15 Jul 2009 at 12:00:43
Painting On the Terrasse by Renoir

  • Info: created by Pierre-Auguste Renoir, uploaded by Olpl, nominated by Yann (talk) 12:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Huge size, great colors. Yann (talk) 12:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Gorgeous. -Calibas (talk) 13:19, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Question: The colours are great, but as I assume the picture does not look this way anymore, do we know that they ever looked so bright and saturated? -- H005 (talk) 13:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support I don't know the real painting. But I like this image for all the above reasons and also because we can see that the faces have several simultaneous expressions. --Zyephyrus (talk) 13:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose If this is to be a faithful reproduction of the real painting, then i believe the colors are unacceptably too vivid and saturated. Jeez, they are supposed to be sitting in a scenery of greenery, and now the overall yellowish-greenish hue of the painting has been so strongly removed that they are left against a pinkish-white background. I'm sorry to say that this, imho, makes no sense. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 18:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Neeme Järvi at Laulupidu.jpg

Voting period ends on 15 Jul 2009 at 11:47:22
Conductor Neeme Järvi

[edit] File:Wildfire in Yellowstone Natinal Park produces Pyrocumulus clouds.jpg

Voting period ends on 15 Jul 2009 at 02:58:47
Pyrocumulus clouds

  •  Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 02:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose too much post-processing --AngMoKio (talk) 08:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Autism Kevin Fruet.jpg

Voting period ends on 14 Jul 2009 at 22:08:25
Child with autism that loves water

  • Info: created by Kevinfruet - uploaded by Kevinfruet - nominated by Econt (talk) -- Econt (talk) 22:08, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Econt (talk) 22:08, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose cute pic, but I see nothing out of the ordinary (the fact that the child has autism is impossible to tell). --ianaré (talk) 23:11, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
    •  Comment My opinion, this pic is ordinary because is a cute pic.--Econt (talk) 00:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support--Mbz1 (talk) 03:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose agree with ianaré. Furthermore there is a white balance problem. --AngMoKio (talk) 09:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose as opposers --George Chernilevsky (talk) 10:09, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose other opposers + personality right problems --Mbdortmund (talk) 11:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Episyrphus balteatus side.jpg

Voting period ends on 14 Jul 2009 at 21:55:09
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Info: c/u/n   • Richard • [®] • 21:55, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Info: Episyrphus balteatus, usually called the Marmalade fly, is a relatively small hoverfly (9-12mm) of the Syrphidae family, widespread throughout all continents.
  •  Support --   • Richard • [®] • 21:55, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --Aqwis (talk) 22:23, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support perfekt gestaltet --Mbdortmund (talk) 00:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Good! —kallerna™ 02:10, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support--Mbz1 (talk) 03:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --Estrilda (talk) 05:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --Acablue (talk) 06:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support very nice details, particularly the eyes --Muhammad (talk) 06:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 08:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --AngMoKio (talk) 09:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --Makele-90 (talk) 12:38, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 18:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support was sonst --Böhringer (talk) 19:32, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Christina Aguilera - Back to Basics Tour - Ain't No Other Man.jpg

Voting period ends on 14 Jul 2009 at 21:28:29
SHORT DESCRIPTION

 Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because it is below size requirements. 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 no contrary views are expressed within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

→Diti the penguin — 23:35, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Star-sizes.jpg

Voting period ends on 14 Jul 2009 at 20:32:32
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Info: created by Thangalin - uploaded by Thangalin - nominated by Thangalin -- Thangalin (talk) 20:32, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Thangalin (talk) 20:32, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --Aqwis (talk) 21:13, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:34, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Question: What are the colors of the stars based on? bamse (talk) 23:08, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment Updated star colours using Wien's Law to calculate the perceived wavelengths, based on the most recent estimates that I could find for the star's surface temperature. Temperatures and sources are noted on the image details page. Thangalin (talk) 01:38, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. The texture/material is based on what? Some stars range in color from yellow to red. Please correct me, but I don't think the temperature/wavelength is known to astronomers on this scale. Besides it would likely change over time. bamse (talk) 07:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment bamse: See the Hertzsprung-Russel Diagram for details. Temperature can be determined. See the Antares page for details. Planet texture maps are mostly from Celestia Motherlode and in the public domain (Earth was from a different site, but also PD). The textures for the stars are simulated, mostly based on textures from our Sun. Yes, the colours will change over time. I will update the image 10,000 years from now (if I remember). ;-) Thangalin (talk) 08:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I remember the Hertzsprung-Russel Diagram from my high school, but that was not my question. Sorry for being so persistent. I have no doubt about the planet textures, since the details can be observed through telescopes or via space crafts. My problem is with the stars which are much further away. You say that you simulated their textures based on the texture from our sun. Can you tell a little more about the simulation part? Also, if I wanted to determine the temperature of "VV Cephei A", should I look at the yellow or the red parts of it? bamse (talk) 09:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support looks OK to me (but I'm no expert) --ianaré (talk) 23:13, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Wow. But I thought the biggest stars were blue? →Diti the penguin — 23:36, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment The colour of a star depends on its size and temperature.
  •  Comment same stars seems to appear in absolute different colours, isn't it? --Mbdortmund (talk) 01:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment The same star will vary in colour from one picture to the next due to slight differences in lighting. (The spheres and materials, however, were imported directly from one scene into the next. The spheres were resized, but colour settings never changed.) Thangalin (talk) 01:38, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment This image was reviewed for technical accuracy by Stephen Shawl for inclusion in a K12 astronomy textbook. Thangalin (talk) 01:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Now I'm a believer... --Mbdortmund (talk) 11:38, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support--Mbz1 (talk) 03:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Wow, amazing representation of celestial bodies. Acablue (talk) 06:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Good and very interesting. Yann (talk) 09:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support very good --George Chernilevsky (talk) 10:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support —kallerna™ 11:19, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Odocoileus hemionus (Calibas).jpg

Voting period ends on 14 Jul 2009 at 15:37:50
Mule Deer (Odocoileus hemionus)

  • Info: created, uploaded, nominated by Calibas (talk) 15:37, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Calibas (talk) 15:37, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support cute ! (if possible, re-upload with Exif) --ianaré (talk) 23:14, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Smile —kallerna™ 11:19, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Orange Spring Mound at Mammoth Hot Springs.jpg

Voting period ends on 14 Jul 2009 at 15:24:28
Orange Spring Mound

[edit] File:Spout Falls, Liffey, Tasmania.jpg

Voting period ends on 14 Jul 2009 at 02:27:14
SHORT DESCRIPTION

[edit] File:Kalapana May 2009.jpg

Voting period ends on 13 Jul 2009 at 23:26:05
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Info: created, uploaded and nominated by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 23:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Info: The image was cropped not downsampled--Mbz1 (talk) 12:45, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Info: Few years ago Kalapana was a very nice, little town with blooming gardens at the Big Island on Hawaii. In 1990 it was buried by lava flow. Most homes were destroyed, but few including famous painted church were moved to other locations. There are no paved roads, no any utilities, no even cell phone services in Kalapana. There is only w:lava, and now new lava is coming back. Just few hundreds meters down new lava enters the ocean File:Three Waikupanaha and one Ki lava ocean entries w-edit2.jpg, yet the trees have no problem in growing up and even blooming in Kalapana, and few people came back and rebuilt.
  •  Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 23:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support wonderful allegory of hope after a catastrophe of a volcanic eruption. -- Ra'ike T C 23:41, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --Econt (talk) 03:14, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support - anonyme vote --George Chernilevsky (talk) 09:06, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support excellent view! Bit small... I srong support this photo --George Chernilevsky (talk) 09:06, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support good composition --ianaré (talk) 23:17, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose IMHO it doesn't have enough wow, quality is just decent. —kallerna™ 02:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose What happened? Nothing is sharp. --Estrilda (talk) 05:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Basilique St Maximim La Sainte Baume.jpg

Voting period ends on 13 Jul 2009 at 18:32:24
Interior of the Basilique of St Maximim la Sainte Baume, France.

  • Info: created by Esby - uploaded by ? - nominated by Yann (talk) 18:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Yann (talk) 18:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too distorted (see the top of the image). Also quite noisy. /Daniel78 (talk) 20:36, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Great lighting, really impressive, but unfortunately the front part is far too distorted, and the center lacks sharpness. -- H005 (talk) 21:55, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
    •  Support Sharpness, noise, stitching, ... everything has become much better since the previous version. -- H005 (talk) 13:19, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose noisy.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:27, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • ' Comment I did two new versions, I changed the projection angle a bit and I added a colored version to show how the panorama was made. Enfused images were also used to make both new version. Dunno if this might be enough or not, now this might be ok for making the sets as 'VI' (since it explains how the images are stitched together).
    See template:St Maximim - Hugin‎ for more details about that. Esby (talk) 10:31, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Distorted, overburnt. —kallerna™ 14:58, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
    Just a silly question, but how do you do a 210x180° indoor panorama without distorsion? Esby (talk) 19:31, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
    With DxO or Fisheye-Hemi I guess. But there are people to dislike distorded images, I personnally prefer distortion, more aesthetic. →Diti the penguin — 23:40, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
    Trying to put half of a sphere on a plane will always show up distorsion, rectilinear images just can't be achieved in such case. For those who don't understand what I am saying, take a world map (usually with a mercator projection), looks at the greenland and at the artic area, and ask yourself if there is no distorsion present, now takes another one, centered elsewhere, with another projection, you'll notice there will be always one or several area that appears as distorted. Esby (talk) 08:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Western tent caterpillars Malacosoma californicum in Joshua Tree NP.jpg

Voting period ends on 13 Jul 2009 at 15:55:35
Western tent caterpillars

  • Info: created, uploaded and nominated by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 15:55, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Info: The image was nominated here and did not get promoted. After that the quality of the image was improved.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:55, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 15:55, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Interesting --Muhammad (talk) 21:17, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Intriguing theme, good quality -- H005 (talk) 21:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support very good photo --George Chernilevsky (talk) 08:51, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I needs new crop and the quality isn't FP-material IMHO. —kallerna™ 14:56, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Owl-Flying-against-a-Moonlit-Sky.jpg

Voting period ends on 13 Jul 2009 at 14:27:58
Sepia drawing by Caspar David Friedrich

[edit] File:Buteo swainsoni (Calibas).jpg

Voting period ends on 13 Jul 2009 at 13:58:40
Juvenile Swainson's Hawk

I'd love to but "Save for Web & Devices" in Photoshop seems to remove the EXIF. Not sure if there's an option to disable it. --Calibas (talk) 15:33, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Question: Err, why don't you use the usual "save as" diealogue then? -- H005 (talk) 16:19, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
The way Photoshop translates jpegs into the actual image is different than the way web browsers translate the image. There's no standard way to read a jpeg file, so the brightness, contrast and color can vary. The "Save for Web & Devices" option writes the jpeg in a way that web browsers will "see" the image in relatively the same way Photoshop does. So "Save for Web & Devices" usually creates something that looks a lot more like the picture you see in Photoshop than "Save As" does. Compare the two, often they vary quite noticeably. --Calibas (talk) 20:13, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
  • 'save for web' also uses higher compression, resulting in poorer quality. I understand you are worried about how it looks in browsers, but our main concern should be in providing the highest possible quality. --ianaré (talk) 23:09, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Are you sure it's lower quality? The file size at maximum for "save for web..." is actually larger than "save as". I don't think a higher compression would have a larger file size. And even if I did lose a tiny bit of resolution, is not correct color and contrast an important part of image quality? --Calibas (talk) 03:33, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I noticed my images look better on 'save as', but on closer inspection it was other settings that affected them ... In looking at the manual, the only difference is in Exif info being removed in 'save for web'. Both types allow you to embed the ICC color profile, BTW. --ianaré (talk) 16:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --ianaré (talk) 23:09, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support And just save in sRGC color profile, it is intertionnaly readable. →Diti the penguin — 23:42, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Good idea, I'll do that from now on. --Calibas (talk) 03:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Egyptian paratrooper.jpg

Voting period ends on 13 Jul 2009 at 11:57:01
An Egyptian paratrooper.

  • Info: created by Staff. Sgt. Aaron Allmon - uploaded by mo7amedsalim - nominated by mo7amedsalim -- mohamed salim (talk) 11:57, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- mohamed salim (talk) 11:57, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Neutral -- Good quality, but cropped too tight on the left and right, and the other soldier is disturbing. -- H005 (talk) 12:05, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Agree about the crop. /Daniel78 (talk) 20:39, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Amstel.jpg

Voting period ends on 12 Jul 2009 at 20:36:06
A panorama of the river Amstel in the city's centre of Amsterdam, the Netherlands. Visible are the famous Skinny Bridge and the theatre Carre.

[edit] File:Drink Up.JPG

Voting period ends on 12 Jul 2009 at 17:01:49
Drink-Up. Tel-Aviv, Israel.

[edit] File:Canary Wharf Wide View 2, London - July 2009.jpg

Voting period ends on 12 Jul 2009 at 14:56:25
Canary Wharf 360° view

  • Info: created and uploaded by Diliff - nominated by kaʁstn --kaʁstn 14:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --kaʁstn 14:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment - There are some stitching errors, fix them please. -- Pro2 (talk) 16:48, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Fixed them by hand - uploaded over the original. This was shot hand-held so unfortunately minor stitching faults resulted. Hopefully they've all gone now. Diliff (talk) 19:45, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I withdraw my nomination

    • They're fixed... bit hasty to withdraw, isn't it? Diliff (talk) 20:09, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support There still some errors left, but hard to spot, and the overall quality is great. Just that sun reflection to the top right looks a bit artificial - I suppose this has been added through some piece of software? -- H005 (talk) 22:00, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
    • No, it's just an actual reflection of sunlight on the glass building. I don't willingly falsify my images. Diliff (talk) 09:37, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --Avala (talk) 18:48, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:12 foot pipe installation s.jpg

Voting period ends on 11 Jul 2009 at 17:17:56
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Info: created, uploaded, nominated and sold by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 17:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 17:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Interesting composition, but just too noisy + quite lot of chromatic aberration. —kallerna™ 18:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Right with the chromatism, but it's very interesting and value --> featured! --kaʁstn 20:10, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak  Oppose - Not unusual or rare enough to overcome the technical flaws. Downtowngal (talk) 22:37, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Interesting!--Mbz1 (talk) 15:59, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment Very nice but would it not be better as a square crop (or at least symmetical)? --Estrilda (talk) 05:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Dunas Fiambala Argentina.jpg

Voting period ends on 11 Jul 2009 at 05:49:38
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Info: created by Lucash - uploaded by Lucash - nominated by Lucash -- Lucash (talk) 05:49, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Lucash (talk) 05:49, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Quality is good, but the theme is not very fascinating. -- H005 (talk) 22:01, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:California island Vinckeboons5.jpg

Voting period ends on 11 Jul 2009 at 00:34:40
SHORT DESCRIPTION

[edit] File:2Heißluftballons.jpg

Voting period ends on 10 Jul 2009 at 22:34:42
2 hot-air balloons

  • Info: created by H005 - uploaded by H005 - nominated by H005 -- H005 (talk) 22:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- H005 (talk) 22:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Interesting idea, good lightning, sharpness, and overall image quality but I think the composition is weak. For me there is not a clear idea with the composition and the cropped text distracts. --Slaunger (talk) 23:28, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Slaunger. Good effort. Durova (talk) 00:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Neutral just the cropped text is bad --kaʁstn 07:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Durova. —kallerna™ 16:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, actually I have virtually the same pic showing the entire balloons with all the text, but I find that perspective boring, whereas this one draws some tense out of its incompleteness, which I liked very much. But well, that's a matter of taste, and taste is undebatable, so of course I'm ok if you all think otherwise. -- H005 17:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
@ Slaunger, The "idea with the composition" is that these balloons are so huge that they are even larger than your field of vision, impossible for the eye to catch them completely. But never mind, if this idea doesn't come across to you, it has probably not been a good one. ;-) -- H005 (talk) 21:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi H005, I see your point, and sometimes I also like unusual crops, be it of a face, or some object, and this one is close at getting to me, it catches my eye somewhat, but still leaves an impression of being messy and point-and-shoot-like. I agree with you that just capturing one balloon or two together can easily lead to a quite uninteresting composition as well, so some amount of creativity in capturing it is called upon.

[edit] File:Argiope sp.jpg

Voting period ends on 10 Jul 2009 at 20:40:18
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Info: An Orb-weaver spider, Argiope sp spider sitting on a web decorations at the center of the web. Everything by Muhammad Mahdi Karim -- Muhammad (talk) 20:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Muhammad (talk) 20:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --Umnik (talk) 21:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- H005 (talk) 23:17, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Very good. Durova (talk) 00:44, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose. Restrictive licence (not best practice and contradicts the note at Commons:Licencing). Minimal resolution (it would be great to see more detail on the spider's body).--Commander Keane (talk) 01:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support per Durova --kaʁstn 08:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support good and uncommon view --George Chernilevsky (talk) 11:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment Did you know that 1.2 only pictures are banned at german WP.   • Richard • [®] • 13:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Good for us this isn't the german WP Smile --Muhammad (talk) 13:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Rather sad, because it cannot be used at that project. Why that restrictive license ?   • Richard • [®] • 16:15, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
        • In what way is it more restrictive ? /Daniel78 (talk) 16:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
      • I am also interested why you use this restrictive license? --AngMoKio (talk) 18:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Very interesting shot, but rather small. A crop of the real action would leave the image below size requirements. Lycaon (talk) 14:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC). Restrictive license is not helping, but not the main reason for oppose. Lycaon (talk) 20:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
    • I have ten other featured pictures with the same resolution and license. What has changed since then? --Muhammad (talk) 17:15, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
      • The visibility of the license issues has changed, I'm sorry. Lycaon (talk) 18:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
        • There are at least two (1, 2) other images currently on the candidates' page with the exact same license and none has received any oppose based on "restrictive license". For what it's worth, you even supported one. --Muhammad (talk) 19:05, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
        • I can see no changes to the criteria and 1.2only is still considered a free license per commons. --Muhammad (talk) 19:05, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
          • Muhammad, somebody said: "Soap and water and common sense are the best disinfectants". Too bad not everybody knows how to use them :)--Mbz1 (talk) 21:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Mainly because of licence & resolution. —kallerna™ 16:39, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
    • You too kallerna? :( --Muhammad (talk)
      • Sorry :(. Why the licence? It would definitely be FP with better licence & resolution, and you can make both of them better with new upload. —kallerna™ 17:24, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
        • If this passes as an FP, I will probably upload a higher resolution once I get faster internet in a month or so, but I am afraid the license will remain the same. --Muhammad (talk) 19:05, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
          • just out of curiosity: how did you get your 9mb panos uploaded? This pic here in the original resolution wouldn't even have half the mb-size of your panos. Furthermore I'd be really interested why you insist on that license? Many of your photos are really great, also this one, but with all those restrictions it is really getting difficult to support. ..and as Richard mentioned on german WP those 1.2 pics aren't welcomed anymore. --AngMoKio (talk) 19:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
            • Hehe, I spent hours uploading those and I had faster upload speeds then. Seriously though I spent more than 6 hours to upload this. I like this license because most of my images are also available for sale as stock images and a completely free license would render my sales ineffective and thus I would be unable to buy more equipment and upload better images. This is a win win situation for wiki and for me. --Muhammad (talk) 20:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
              • Why we should feature commercial pictures and pictures which can't be used in a associated project (deWP) ?   • Richard • [®] • 20:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
                • Wikimedia is a separate entity from deWP and there are different rules. It was deWP though that decided not to use 1.2only images. In my opinion, they are losing quite a large amount of pictures for a crappy rule. --Muhammad (talk) 21:46, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
                • That license issue is a bogus reason IMO. Equipment is not that expensive. I made 950€ from my pictures which are all on commons under cc-by-sa in the last two years. I'm not using stock sites. You are better than me so you should have even better chances with free licenses. People use images all over the net when the license is not too restrictive (and with attribution → e.g. see here). This is publicity and the odd sale follows. I don't advertise my pictures, but interested parties still find them. Lycaon (talk) 20:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
                  • I don't want to whine but I've already spent app $1500 on equipment and for a student living in a third world country, that is a lot. (Average Tanzanian earns that much in 4-5yrs without expenses). With a restrictive license, rich companies who can afford to spend money, are prevented from exploiting photographers. Attribution is good but at the end of the day I am not gaining anything (apart from a little exposure). For the few earlier images I had released under the cc-by-sa, sure people use them but not one person has been willing to pay, and quite rightly so. If a single line of attribution allows you free use, why not? Sounds like slave labour to me--Muhammad (talk) 21:46, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
                    • In 95% of cases, my CC-BY-SA images just get treated as public domain for use. Noodle snacks (talk) 01:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support /Daniel78 (talk) 07:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Mainly because of arguments against license and resolution. :) →Diti the penguin — 08:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Great EV, good quality and per Diti. :)--Mbz1 (talk) 21:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
    • You're back Smile --Muhammad (talk) 21:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
      • No, Muhammad, it is not me. It is only only 1/4 of me , 1/4 that the African Wild Dog has not finished just yet.Smile--Mbz1 (talk) 22:05, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Ignoring the license debate (it is a valid license, after all); I look forward to seeing a larger resolution version of this lovely picture, so it can grace my desktop. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 12:28, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Question: Can someone explain to me just why the (perfectly valid) 1.2 license is not accepted on the German Wiki? And why this picture (and every other wiki) should suffer because they've made that choice? Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 12:39, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
    • The question is answered by Muhammad already. If 1.2only were just as free as the other license on commons there would be no reason for him to cling to it to protect his commercial interests. --Dschwen (talk) 05:10, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support The focus of some people (not only) in the German Wikipedia is set on free commercial use, an idea which got strong in de since the cooperation with de:Bertelsman, Spiegel and de.wikipedia in the biggest lexical portal in Germany. Since then some of our Wikipedians struggled successfully to forbid the upload of GFDL 1.2 pictures on de.wikipedia. That does not mean, that it is forbidden to use 1.2 photographs from the commons as far as I see. Hundreds of them are used to illustrate articles of de. GFDL 1.2 is a free licence and is only a problem for commercial printers, as far as I see. Another problem for the opponents of 1.2 is that it is not possible to change the license without the allowance of the author/uploader of the pictures. --Mbdortmund (talk) 15:15, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose low resolution on the main subject. And argiope is not a satisfactory id (or are we getting the full id also after this gets featured?). --Dschwen (talk) 05:07, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Id has never been a FP criteria (though some think it is), this is not QIC --Tony Wills (talk) 08:37, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
The id till genus is acceptable and we have numerous FPs id'd only till this level. Expecting a complete species id from a picture is impractical and impossible for the majority of the uncommon species. Re the low res on main subject, the whole image covers the subject. And as I mentioned, a larger version will be uploaded in max a month --Muhammad (talk) 12:16, 5 July 2009 (UTC)--Muhammad (talk) 12:16, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
So what is the rush in nominating this now? --Dschwen (talk) 14:06, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose as Dschwen. --Estrilda (talk) 05:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose as Muhammad will upload a version with higher resolution I oppose this one. --AngMoKio (talk) 09:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
    • I will upload the higher resolution over this one, and that too only if this one is featured. --Muhammad (talk) 13:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Panthera pardus close up.jpg

Voting period ends on 10 Jul 2009 at 13:20:05
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Info: The image features a Panthera pardus with a very high quality. Very sharp image, the warm colors contrast to the actual nature of the beast. Very good depth of field with clear and sharp distinction between the foreground and background. I don't think we have such a good picture of a Tiger on Commons. created by tropicaLiving - uploaded , nominated by Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 13:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 13:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Mtaylor848 (talk) 15:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --kaʁstn 18:12, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Composition. --Karel (talk) 20:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support, the composition makes the picture. --Aqwis (talk) 21:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Simpledot (talk) 23:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Aqwis. →Diti the penguin — 23:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -Words in sanskrit (talk) 00:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Durova (talk) 01:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --Brackenheim (talk) 04:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too tight crop on bottom right. —kallerna™ 16:41, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Here kitty kitty kitty! Daniel Case (talk) 02:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support i agree —kallerna, but overall very good --George Chernilevsky (talk) 10:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - per kallerna -- Pro2 (talk) 11:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Reasonable quality for a zoo shot, but unfortunate crop of the paws. Lycaon (talk) 15:09, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment Please add information on the zoo to the description. Lycaon (talk) 15:13, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
done.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 15:43, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. Lycaon (talk) 16:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Crop could be less tight, but pic is good nevertheless--Tired time (talk) 10:20, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Agree that it would be improved by showing more of the paw in the corner, but the animal has so strong a presence that I support it anyway. Fg2 (talk) 12:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Nice. --Calibas (talk) 13:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Crop.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose In general, only very few zoo images deserve the status of FP, imho. I don't find this breath taking. Samulili (talk) 21:03, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support--Avala (talk) 18:49, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose unfortunate crop --ianaré (talk) 23:04, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose (weak) for his legs. --Estrilda (talk) 05:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Perhaps I am more tolerant of cropping than the voters above me, but it does not seem to affect the composition in any major way. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 15:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:European hornet 090621.jpg

Voting period ends on 10 Jul 2009 at 09:38:12
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Info: created by Aconcagua - uploaded by Aconcagua - nominated by Ra'ike -- Ra'ike T C 09:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support In my opinion a very authentic close-up of a hornet. -- Ra'ike T C 09:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Funny, good quality --kaʁstn 09:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --Aqwis (talk) 13:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Question: What do you mean with authentic close-up ?   • Richard • [®] • 17:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
    Hallo Richard, mit "authentic" meinte ich lebensnah (oder auch lebensecht). Damit wollte ich ausdrücken: Als ich das Bild das erste Mal sah, hatte ich das Gefühl, diese Hornisse ist noch mitten in der Bewegung, kommt jeden Moment aus dem Bild gekrochen und berührt mich mit dem linken, ausgestreckten Vorderbein ;-) -- Ra'ike T C 19:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
    Understand Smile Before I did wonder about the term authentic because of the wood lath where the hornet is resting. Being a hobby biologist recently I had liked seeing this animal resting on a plant or the hornet nest like Alves Gaspar supplied us once with his fantastic poster of Wasps - but on the other hand hornets meanwhile are a synanthropic species so the lath should be ok. I like it and indeed it's an impressing picture but must give a  Neutral because of low DOF (f/2,8) ,the missing crispness at that size and the addressed environment. Nice going!   • Richard • [®] • 20:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --Brackenheim (talk) 04:23, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support like Ra'ike --Mbdortmund (talk) 15:35, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 08:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Low DOF (f/2,8), the missing crispness at that size and the addressed environment. (Per Richard Bartz) —kallerna™ 16:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
    The DOF maybe is a bit too low, but in this way it imo assists and reinforced the action of that animal. -- Ra'ike T C 10:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose as Kallerna, --Alchemist-hp (talk) 17:23, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support like Ra'ike --Mbdortmund (talk) 15:35, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Dislike leg on foreground and low DOF --George Chernilevsky (talk) 08:56, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Kluft-photo-fireworks-Cameron-Park-June-2009-Img 2951c.jpg

Voting period ends on 10 Jul 2009 at 08:43:36
Fireworks in Cameron Park, California on June 27, 2009

  • Info: created by User:Ikluft - uploaded by User:Ikluft - nominated by User:Ikluft -- Ikluft (talk) 08:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support as nom -- Ikluft (talk) 08:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not the best crop, decent quality. I've seen better fireworks-photos. —kallerna™ 19:28, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Those long exposures (5 seconds on the link provided) are actually easier shots to get - but they're entirely a different style and result. This one with 7 shells exploding in a 1/40th of a second exposure is far more difficult to get and takes a fair amount of luck as well. Also, what specifically didn't you like about the crop? I cropped it with intent to preserve the widest shell and aspect ratio. But cropping can be adjusted (such as not worrying about the aspect ratio and cutting more off the sides) if it makes a difference. Ikluft (talk) 00:05, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
      • With the crop I meant that the whole firework isn't on the photo and there's too much of black area on the sides. —kallerna™ 16:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Uhmm yes, I have to say that it's not exeptional enough   • Richard • [®] • 21:04, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support I like this as it is. I think it is high-quality, high-value, and has impact. Maedin\talk 19:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Alternative

Fireworks in Cameron Park, California on June 27, 2009

OK, I shouldn't have bothered trying to retain the aspect ratio of the original photo. Fair enough - this alternative addresses that. I also encourage reviewers to observe that this is not the same kind of photography as a long-exposure shot of fireworks. As I mentioned above, this is a 1/40th sec exposure with 7 shells in various stages of exploding. The illumination of the smoke clouds from earlier shells shows there is focus and detail. It's in effect an action shot, which is very difficult to get with fireworks. Submitted again for your review... Ikluft (talk) 07:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

  •  Oppose - This is an excellent encyclopedia illustration of 'simultaneous fireworks'; the smoke clouds contribute to the effect. But for FP a more beautiful (but less accurate) long exposure is more appropriate. A good and useful photo, just not FP. Downtowngal (talk) 22:24, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I know it was a difficult shot to get. But fireworks pics need color, which these shells just don't have. There's no wow. Daniel Case (talk) 04:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
    • FYI, when I downloaded the photos from the camera into the laptop after the show, one of the leaders of the fireworks crew was watching as I stepped through them. For this one, his one word was indeed "Wow!" That was what led me to submit this one. Ikluft (talk) 20:26, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment Since there obviously are white fireworks, color isn't a requirement on its own - the different types of fireworks photography are not better than the others. It distracts the issue to say it isn't a different style. The guidelines say the value of a photo is enhanced by how it adds variety to the collection. I recommend a look through Category:Fireworks to see exposures of more than one second are very well represented, and are the ones that should hardly be considered special. They're analagous to photos of sunsets, which the guidelines address specifically. Ikluft (talk) 07:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Melanargia galathea 01 (MK).JPG

Voting period ends on 10 Jul 2009 at 08:22:20
a Melanargia galathea

  • Info: everything by -- Leviathan (talk) 08:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Leviathan (talk) 08:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Very good --kaʁstn 09:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --Aqwis (talk) 18:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Good composition, but bad quality. What kind of objective do you have? —kallerna™ 19:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Neutral The overall quality and DOF isn't that bad - it's a good solid shot. It's a pity that the wing tips are blurry - I assume the wind has blown towards the wings.   • Richard • [®] • 21:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Info: I took this picture with my old Tamron AF Aspherical LD 28-200 mm (15 years and really lackly so its everytime a fight to get a nearly sharp picture). Unfortunately i don't have any other objektives yet. At the top of my wishlist stands the Tamron 90mm Macro. But the money... ;-) Richard is right, it was really windy that day... Greetings --Leviathan (talk) 06:46, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, money ! :-Y   • Richard • [®] • 13:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Dionaea muscipula flower 1.JPG

Voting period ends on 10 Jul 2009 at 07:37:06
Venus Flytrap flower - 20mm in diameter

[edit] File:Cladiona2 (Terre de Feu).jpg

Cladoniaceae (Tierra del Fuego)

  • Info: created by Butterfly voyages - uploaded by Butterfly voyages - nominated by Butterfly voyages --Butterfly voyages (talk) 01:17, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --Butterfly voyages (talk) 01:17, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose A little bit to low DoF, which makes none of the presented individuals clearly visible. + not sufficient species descriptions, but that can be easily fixed. Masur (talk) 03:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Good --kaʁstn 09:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose as Masur. Lycaon (talk) 09:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As others opponents. --Karel (talk) 20:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Very interesting picture but imperfect execution. DOF, crop, lighting (some eroded parts)   • Richard • [®] • 21:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Bufo_bufo_2009_G1.jpg

Voting period ends on 9 Jul 2009 at 16:39:16
The common toad (Bufo bufo). Example of an excellent camouflage.

  • Info: The common toad (Bufo bufo). Example of an excellent camouflage.
  •  Support -- George Chernilevsky (talk) 16:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't want supprot but I can't oppose. Very good photo, but the background... I can't really see the animal, but it's just the normal background. So  Neutral --kaʁstn 09:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support The description says it's an example of camouflage. The animal and background contrast aren't a problem for me because it does what it says. It's a good photo. Ikluft (talk) 09:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support good example for camouflage --Mbdortmund (talk) 09:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sharpness and object are excellent, but lightness is not balanced, very dark on the left side. -- H005 (talk) 22:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Gentiana verna

Voting period ends on 9 Jul 2009 at 10:16:43
Gentiana verna

  • Info: all by -- Böhringer (talk) 10:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Info: The Spring Gentian (Gentiana verna) is a species of the genus Gentiana and one of its smallest members, normally only growing to a height of a few centimetres.
  •  Support -- Böhringer (talk) 10:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Thou crop could be bit tighter. —kallerna™ 19:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- MJJR (talk) 19:42, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --Estrilda (talk) 05:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Coreopsis Bud.jpg

Voting period ends on 9 Jul 2009 at 09:53:04
Coreopsis Bud

  • Info: created, uploaded, nominated by Twdragon -- Twdragon (talk) 09:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Twdragon (talk) 09:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I will support if the background will be normal --kaʁstn 13:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Maybe the bud is closed only at night ?   • Richard • [®] • 14:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
    • No, this photo was taken at the daytime. --Twdragon (talk) 16:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Is it possible to identify more than the family of this species ?   • Richard • [®] • 16:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
      • No, it's impossible for me because of knowledge absence --Twdragon (talk) 21:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --Brackenheim (talk) 19:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I declined this at QI not only because of the black background but for the overly-tight crop and the blurriness at the edges. Daniel Case (talk) 02:38, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Missing Qualiti Image, bad crop, bad sharpness in front and end of flower. HBR (talk) 09:30, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Zuch dziewczyna.JPG, not featured

Voting period ends on 9 Jul 2009 at 07:16:29
Scout

  • Info: created, uploaded and nominated by Albertus teolog -- Albertus teolog (talk) 07:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 07:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Noisy, imo not featured --kaʁstn 13:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - agree with Carschten. Undoubtedly useful, but doesn't have the FP wow. Downtowngal (talk) 16:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I like it really much, but it's just too noisy & crop is slightly too tight. —kallerna™ 19:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 19:40, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Nycticorax violaceus (at beach).jpg

Nycticorax violaceus at beach

[edit] File:Keswick, Cumbria Panorama 1 - June 2009.jpg

Voting period ends on 8 Jul 2009 at 13:23:34
Keswick, Cumbria (England)

  • Info: created and upoladed by Diliff - nominated by Carschten -- kaʁstn 13:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --kaʁstn 13:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support, great! --Aqwis (talk) 14:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --Brackenheim (talk) 14:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
    • what a wonder ;-) --kaʁstn 14:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Nice picture, hard to get one like this as it seems to be always raining in this part of England. Mtaylor848 (talk) 15:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Blimey, kaʁstn, this was only uploaded yesterday! Maedin\talk 16:00, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I saw the nomination at the German Wikipedia ;-) --kaʁstn 13:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support of course. MadGeographer (talk) 16:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --Claus (talk) 18:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support very good --George Chernilevsky (talk) 19:21, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --Estrilda (talk) 20:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --Lošmi (talk) 21:54, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Simpledot (talk) 23:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --ianaré (talk) 03:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- I've been experimenting with panoramic pictures a bit, but it will take a long time to get them as good as this, if ever! MartinD (talk) 11:40, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --Zuffe (talk) 12:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support   ■ MMXXtalk  17:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Wordsworth would be proud. Although I am having trouble getting it to open at full size. Daniel Case (talk) 04:05, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support--Mbz1 (talk) 16:14, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Lotus Nelumbo 'Mrs. Perry D. Slocum' Dried Seed Head 2000px.jpg

Voting period ends on 8 Jul 2009 at 02:53:03
Lotus seed head

  • Info: Created, uploaded, nominated by Ram-Man 02:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Info: Lotusen (Nelumbo en 'Mrs. Perry D. Slocum') dried seed head.
  •  Support -- Ram-Man 02:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The bottom half should be cut off, as it not in focus. Composition error. --George Chernilevsky (talk) 11:22, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
    • The composition is intentional. The particular choice is more "dynamic" than the suggested crop. -- Ram-Man 23:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per George Chernilevsky, but if it's cut, I will support --kaʁstn 13:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support I like it as it is. /Daniel78 (talk) 16:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Good. I disagree with George Chernilevsky. —kallerna™ 18:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support--Claus (talk) 18:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --Lošmi (talk) 21:54, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support nice composition and colors --ianaré (talk) 01:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Could be a shower head for those who play with lysergic acid diethylamide   • Richard • [®] • 20:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • due to its organic nature, I figure it would be better for eaters of psilocybe ... --ianaré (talk) 23:23, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support per nom. Durova (talk) 21:15, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Lovely!--Mbz1 (talk) 16:15, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support An alien! --Estrilda (talk) 05:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Black Swallowtail Papilio polyxenes Closeup.jpg

Voting period ends on 8 Jul 2009 at 01:49:33
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Info: Created, uploaded, and nominated by Ram-Man 01:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Info: A mature black swallowtail (Papilio polyxenes) caterpillar on its host plant.
  •  Support -- Ram-Man 01:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support excellent --George Chernilevsky (talk) 06:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support →Diti the penguin — 09:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 10:56, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support - Peripitus (talk) 12:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Very good! --kaʁstn 13:31, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Beautiful 144.32.2.205 14:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC) Please log in for voting --kaʁstn 14:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --Aqwis (talk) 14:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --Brackenheim (talk) 14:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Noisy background. Could be edited in photoshop. —kallerna™ 19:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:15, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- MJJR (talk) 21:35, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Simpledot (talk) 23:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Neutral noise prevents my suppport --ianaré (talk) 01:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support // tsca [re] 14:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Durova (talk) 00:39, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support this one is actually stunning --che 07:41, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 19:20, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Neutral Restrictive license prevents me to support. Lycaon (talk) 20:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
    • There is nothing wrong with the GFDL 1.2 and the fact is that it is one of many acceptable licenses allowed on the Commons (Commons:Licensing). This comment is nothing more than a personal opinion that does not belong here and has nothing to do with the rules for evaluating FPs (and could potentially sway other voters incorrectly). If you don't like the license, don't vote. -- Ram-Man 00:32, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
      • My vote is per de:Wikipedia:Lizenzvorlagen für Bilder. Images on Commons should be usable on all wikimdia projects. I didn't oppose because of the good quality of the image, though I can't support for said reason. Lycaon (talk) 06:09, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
        • That's totally rediculous. There are hardly any images here that qualify under your overly restrictive terms. Since Wikinews uses the CC-by-sa-2.5, only those images that use (or explicitly allow) creative commons licenses (of the correct version) would be acceptable for your standards. Creative Commons licenses are too weak copyleft and they do not adequately defend the rights of copyright holders and provide too easy a way for abuse in violation of the whole purpose of copyleft, which is to increase the number of works available under free licenses. Why don't you just oppose and say "Not a Creative Commons copyleft license or weaker". It has never been the mission of Commons for all images to be useful for all projects, as that is extremely difficult since not all current (and future) projects must conform to the same licensing terms, nor are all images even useful for all projects due to their specific content. The fact that you site a German Wikipedia article has nothing to do with the Commons and further supports my position that this is not a valid argument to make here. Until Commons policy changes to support your opinion, I ask that you withdraw your comments. This is not the proper forum to push your own personal philosophical and/or political opinions on which licenses are the "best". You show great disrespect to those of us who believe in the standards of copyleft and free images but don't happen to agree with you. -- Ram-Man 00:07, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
          • It might have been totally ridiculous if I had opposed. I didn't, I just can't support. Please next time react like this to real opposers. Lycaon (talk) 00:35, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support A little noisy at high-res, but not fatally so. Daniel Case (talk) 05:08, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Albertus teolog (talk) 00:53, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support--Mbz1 (talk) 14:54, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Purple Milkweed Asclepias purpurascens Head.jpg

Voting period ends on 8 Jul 2009 at 00:50:06
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Info: Created, uploaded, and nominated by Ram-Man 00:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Info: Flowers of the Purple Milkweed (Asclepias purpurascens)
  •  Support -- Ram-Man 00:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Good --kaʁstn 13:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose No wow, a bit too ordinary--Tired time (talk) 14:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Well done, but just one of too many well-done flower pictures -- H005 (talk) 22:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support countering previous oppose. I don't think 'too many well-done flower pictures' is a valid opposition argument. Lycaon (talk) 14:04, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Neutral Restrictive license. Lycaon (talk) 19:37, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
    • You complain about an invalid opposition argument and then you do this? The GFDL v.1.2 is not only an acceptable license, but has been the "preferred" license for many years. I know you've read Commons:Licensing, but perhaps it bears a reminder. There are no licenses allowed by the Commons that should bear this type of reaction. -- Ram-Man 00:21, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose no wow, bit ordinary and bit low DOF --George Chernilevsky (talk) 18:02, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Connecticut Yankee4.jpg

Voting period ends on 8 Jul 2009 at 00:47:21
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Info: created by Daniel Carger Beard - uploaded by Durova - nominated by Durova. Restored from File:Connecticut Yankee.jpg by Durova. -- Durova (talk) 00:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Info: From Mark Twain's novel A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court. Frontispiece illustration to the 1889 edition, scanned from the original artist's drawing.
  •  Support -- Durova (talk) 00:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Has lots of value. Looks good as a thumbnail and is of high resolution. -- Ram-Man 16:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Drat! I was going to do this, but ended up helping someone else try, who never quite finished. Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support very good quality, image is interesting --ianaré (talk) 01:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support good quality and historic value --George Chernilevsky (talk) 17:45, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support--Mbz1 (talk) 16:16, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Wojciech Kilar 2.jpg

Voting period ends on 7 Jul 2009 at 19:46:30
Wojciech Kilar

[edit] File:Boulevard du Temple by Daguerre.jpg

Voting period ends on 7 Jul 2009 at 18:28:21
Boulevard du Temple, by Louis Daguerre

  • Info: Very very old photo created by Louis Daguerre - uploaded by MichaelMaggs - nominated by Paris 16 (talk)
  •  Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 18:28, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Was probably OK when he made it and has undoubtedly some historical value, but time has destroyed it for FP I'm afraid. Lycaon (talk) 18:54, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Info: This is Louis Daguerre's famous "Boulevard du Temple": the first photograph to successfully record a human being. 1830s technology required exposure times of over ten minutes; the shot captures a man at lower left who stood still. Durova (talk) 01:06, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  strong support –Juliancolton | Talk 01:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Obvious support. This is a great image for its time. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Valuable, but lacks in almost every other area. /Daniel78 (talk) 07:06, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Neutral For 1838 featured, but imo not featured --kaʁstn 12:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support for its extraordinary value. Downtowngal (talk) 16:15, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Strong support A famous photo, the quality is good.--Claus (talk) 18:31, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per other opposers. —kallerna™ 19:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I'm a bit wary to oppose here as I don' want to be shouted at as too often happens with the oppose for certain images these days. But this image is too far gone to become FP. I agree wholeheartedly with /Daniel78. Estrilda --Estrilda (talk) 20:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per other opposers. Maybe it should go to valued image.--Tired time (talk) 21:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Historical value, and it looks artistic to me. --Lošmi (talk) 21:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Lošmi. MadGeographer (talk) 09:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Had to think this over a couple of days. Occasionally the historical importance of a photograph makes it unsuitable for restoration. This is one of those times. Yes, it's rough. Yes, it's decayed. Yet envision this as cutting edge technology for 1838-1839, and it's stunning. One of the landmarks of photographic history. Durova (talk) 01:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support per Durova. Yann (talk) 21:35, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support per Durova. Another classic where the notion of FP just do not cut it. GerardM (talk) 06:13, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Outstanding exhibit of both early photography and the before-Haussmann Paris. --Mylius (talk) 12:29, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support--Mbz1 (talk) 14:52, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 01:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support as per durova --ianaré (talk) 15:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Hamburg-090612-0163-DSC 8260 retouched.jpg

Voting period ends on 7 Jul 2009 at 00:00:34
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Info: created by Mbdortmund - uploaded by Mbdortmund - nominated by Mbdortmund retouched by user:AlMare -- Mbdortmund (talk) 00:00, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Mbdortmund (talk) 00:00, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support good view --George Chernilevsky (talk) 06:35, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Very nice --kaʁstn 09:26, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Excellent! --Sir James (talk) 12:59, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Nothing special IMHO. Sorry. —kallerna™ 16:09, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose, have to agree with Kallerna. --Aqwis (talk) 16:16, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I agree with Aqwis. /Daniel78 (talk) 18:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose --Paris 16 (talk) 18:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Architecture is very static and often very dry. This does not have any real wow. Most high quality architecture photos like this should be QIs. -- Ram-Man 01:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Good quality, but the subject is not interesting enough--Tired time (talk) 21:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --Avala (talk) 18:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment Not only the architecture in a Baroque taste matters. For me, it is valued view. --George Chernilevsky (talk) 06:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
    •  Comment Thx, George. This building is IMHO an important view for Hamburg because its directly over the "Landungsbrücken" in St. Pauli, the central place of the port of Hamburg. But next time I will prefer to propose a macro of the tiny little fly on the third window of the second floor. *g* --Mbdortmund (talk) 21:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
      •  Comment Touché. Macros and landscapes. It is simple though: nature's creations are more often beautiful than human creations. Downtowngal (talk) 22:30, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
        •  Comment One of the tasks of Wikipedia is to show the architecture of our cities. The answers here are not only critizising my picture what would absolutely be OK and I wouldn't have said a single word, but general contras against any picture of the real buildings in our cities are IMHO a problem for our project. --Mbdortmund (talk) 16:33, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
          •  Comment I can sympathise with you Mbdortmund, insect pictures seem to occupy most of the limelight in this section. I enjoy them, but I wish we could have an 'Insect Free Month', so that other pictures could be concentrated on. As for your picture, sadly, I don't find a view like this particularly exciting; photos of buildings need something unusual (for example, perspective, colour or setting) too really stand out. This one is a real example of what I like to see. If you like, I can show you a couple of others I think are great; maybe they could inspire you? Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 12:51, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
            •  Comment 1. We need more of the great macros, too. 2. The picture you named is great. --Mbdortmund (talk) 14:52, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Sheepskin hats.jpg, not featured

Voting period ends on 6 Jul 2009 at 08:47:09
Sheepskin hats

  • Info: created by Morten Oddvik - uploaded by Geagea - nominated by Matasg -- Matasg 08:47, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Matasg 08:47, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I would say a QI-image, but not featured --kaʁstn 09:37, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not impressive enough--Tired time (talk) 14:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support I like the content, and quality is xcellent. -- H005 (talk) 11:40, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 19:35, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Thomas Bresson - Enallagma cyathigerum (by).jpg, featured

Enallagma cyathigerum

  • Info: created, uploaded, nominated by ComputerHotline --ComputerHotline (talk) 08:24, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 08:24, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --kaʁstn 08:49, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Lycaon (talk) 10:38, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- MJJR (talk) 21:03, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support really good --Mbdortmund (talk) 00:05, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support very good --George Chernilevsky (talk) 14:43, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support As I said. —kallerna™ 15:43, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Detail is excellent.RandyKaelber (talk) 22:22, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose At f/6.3, the DoF is way too shallow and there are no mitigating reasons. -- Ram-Man 01:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Durova (talk) 02:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --Brackenheim (talk) 14:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Neutral you've definitely gotten better but DOF is still a bit shallow. --ianaré (talk) 03:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support IMO DOF is ok --Muhammad (talk) 18:51, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
result: 11 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 19:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Sympetrum vulgatum LC0168.jpg, not featured

Voting period ends on 5 Jul 2009 at 23:50:55
Vagrant darter

  • Info: All done by Jörg Hempel -- LC-de (talk) 23:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Info: Male Vagrant Darter (Sympetrum vulgatum)
  •  Support -- LC-de (talk) 23:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Wings not so good --Mbdortmund (talk) 00:04, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment EXIF-data is lost. Could you add it? —kallerna™ 16:11, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
    • no, I couldn't add it anymore for this pic (see comments before the TOC on my discussion page). --LC-de (talk) 20:57, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support —kallerna™ 19:06, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 19:32, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Dangling swamp-lover Helophilus pendulus.jpg, featured

Voting period ends on 5 Jul 2009 at 23:03:12
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Info: created by Mdf - uploaded by Richard Bartz - nominated by   • Richard • [®] • 23:03, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Info: The Dangling swamp lover (Helophilus pendulus)
  •  Support --   • Richard • [®] • 23:03, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --LC-de (talk) 23:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Top level. -- Ram-Man 00:16, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support shure --Mbdortmund (talk) 01:31, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment Helophilus species are resembling each other quite a bit. H. pendulus is a hoverfly occurring in Central and northern Europe (incl. Iceland) ([1], [2]). It does not occur in North America. H. groenlandicus ([3]), of which I unfortunately didn't find an illustration yet, and H. hybridus ([4]) at the other hand are holarctic species, also occurring in Canada. You should re-evaluate your identification. Postponing support until then. Lycaon (talk) 04:48, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Read this, please.   • Richard • [®] • 10:03, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the PDF: an old but interesting key. I'm even less convinced now ;-). These flies are difficult, and the distinguishing features (face, hind femur/tibia) are not clearly visible on the picture. I think we need the opinion of a syrphid taxonomist here. Lycaon (talk) 10:24, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
In progress   • Richard • [®] • 13:46, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, as it is a very worthy image. Lycaon (talk) 14:17, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
I know. M. hybridus could be excluded [5].   • Richard • [®] • 15:13, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support But a wrong ID is far worse than no ID at all. I would appreciate it if you could investigate! Maedin\talk 07:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 08:26, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --kaʁstn 09:38, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support, fantastic. --Aqwis (talk) 09:48, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --AngMoKio (talk) 11:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support /Daniel78 (talk) 14:31, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Superb quality. -- MJJR (talk) 21:07, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support, whatever species it is. Nice composition. Daniel Case (talk) 05:45, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --Brackenheim (talk) 14:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Created by Mdf, uploaded Richard Bartz. Why and how? —kallerna™ 19:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Rename issue Lycaon (talk) 19:27, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:18, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --ianaré (talk) 00:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support // tsca [re] 14:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support--Mbz1 (talk) 14:55, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 19:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Cherry_tree_blossom_2007_G1.JPG, not featured

Voting period ends on 5 Jul 2009 at 18:12:22
Cherry tree blossom

result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 19:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:20090129 paris manifestation.jpg, not featured

Voting period ends on 5 Jul 2009 at 14:12:52
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Info: People watching a demonstration in Paris on january 29th, 2009.
  • Info: created, uploaded, nominated by Romanceor [parlons-en] 14:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Romanceor [parlons-en] 14:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, it's an interesting photo, but fuzzy and no really Wow --kaʁstn 15:22, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
    •  Comment I find more wow in this type of pictures than in insects' macros... but I very well understand it's just my opinion (of course not for the context which I don't care, but for the subject : people). --Romanceor [parlons-en] 18:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support an interesting photo--Claus (talk) 16:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. Interesting people on the stairs. Well chosen. --Dereckson (talk) 17:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - The photo doesn't tell us anything about the manifestation except that some photographers were tired. Well-composed but not valuable. Downtowngal (talk) 18:40, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
    •  Comment This is because the subject is not the demonstration ; it is the public of it. Am I the tired photograph ? --Romanceor [parlons-en] 18:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
      •  Comment - No, you're not the tired photographer. The people in focus look tired, or maybe just cold! Actually, I disagree that the people in focus are "the public" of the demonstration. But that's another discussion. Downtowngal (talk) 19:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support I like the picture, which tells a story --Mbdortmund (talk) 01:33, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 08:27, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Really interesting and I would feature it, but the noise reduction dropped all the details away. :( →Diti the penguin — 08:40, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Diti. —kallerna™ 16:15, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Not ideally technically, but it is pulse of real life --George Chernilevsky (talk) 11:27, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --ianaré (talk) 00:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Downtowngal. MadGeographer (talk) 13:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Ziga (talk) 19:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
result: 7 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 19:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Montjuic2.jpg, not featured

Voting period ends on 5 Jul 2009 at 12:07:06
SHORT DESCRIPTION

result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 19:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Ciucas stanca1.jpg, not featured

Voting period ends on 5 Jul 2009 at 08:38:59
Eerie landscape in the Ciucaş mountains, Prahova County, Romania.

Anonymous votes not allowed. --Yerpo (talk) 19:32, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Neutral Good composition and exposure, but not very sharp. Would support for QI without reservations, but FP... not so sure. --Yerpo (talk) 19:32, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - bad qualitiy -- Pro2 (talk) 12:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose – Quality, value, white balance, shadows could be better exposed --Ernie (talk) 21:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The scenery is beautiful, but not special enough. Sharpness is good, but some areas too dark. Also, the fog in the background is hiding too much to see the mountains, but is not enough to be impressive. -- H005 (talk) 20:32, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 2 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 19:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Gymnadenia rhellicani (spike).jpg, featured

Voting period ends on 5 Jul 2009 at 07:27:11
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Info: Rhellica gymnadenia (flower spike is 22mm high), close to Gletschertafel, Lötschental, Switzerland. Everything by Lycaon (talk) 07:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Lycaon (talk) 07:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support--Marten253 (talk) 12:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Good --kaʁstn 13:40, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --Yerpo (talk) 19:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support nice --George Chernilevsky (talk) 19:11, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Neutral This has a very pleasing composition, which is why I am not opposing. Taking photos of saturated reds like this is extremely difficult to do without blowing out the color as in this picture. The DoF is a tad on the shallow side as well and it could be sharper. -- Ram-Man 01:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --Brackenheim (talk) 14:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --ianaré (talk) 03:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Ram-Man   • Richard • [®] • 20:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 19:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


[edit] Kandydatury do odebrania medalu

[edit] Tabela czasu

Sun 21 Jun → Mon 6 Jul
Mon 22 Jun → Tue 7 Jul
Tue 23 Jun → Wed 8 Jul
Wed 24 Jun → Thu 9 Jul
Thu 25 Jun → Fri 10 Jul
Fri 26 Jun → Sat 11 Jul
Sat 27 Jun → Sun 12 Jul
Sun 28 Jun → Mon 13 Jul
Mon 29 Jun → Tue 14 Jul
Tue 30 Jun → Wed 15 Jul
Wed 1 Jul → Thu 16 Jul
Thu 2 Jul → Fri 17 Jul
Fri 3 Jul → Sat 18 Jul
Sat 4 Jul → Sun 19 Jul
Sun 5 Jul → Mon 20 Jul
Mon 6 Jul → Tue 21 Jul
Retrieved from "http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Kandydatury_do_grafik_na_medal"
Personal tools