# Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/July 2007

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

### Image:Drohnenpuppen 79b.jpg

 Drohnenpuppen 79b.jpg Edit: Drohnenpuppen 79d.jpg -- wau

•  Info created, uploaded and nominated by Waugsberg. --wau 23:07, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

#### Version 79b, not featured

•  Support --wau 23:07, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --Digon3 talk 16:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strongly  Oppose Maybe encyclopedic, maybe nice and sharp, but making a dissection to show some drone-larvaes is absolutely not wow! and not FP for me. Iam shure there is a much better or more creative way to show this. Maybe a drawing works better. DONT KILL ANIMALS! --Makro Freak talk 17:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Obviously you know more about bold type than about beekeeping. The live of every colony of honeybees is threatened by varroa mites. If there are too many, the colony breaks down. Cutting off drone cells is a method many beekeepers use to reduce the number of varroa mites. As drones need 3 more days to develop in their cells than worker bees, the varroa mites prefer to lay their eggs in the drone cells where the number of varroa is 8 times as high as in worker cells. Therefore beekeepers make the queen lay much more drone eggs than needed using combs with drone cells. Once the cells are capped, they cut off the drone brood, thus removing a big part of the mites (see en:Varroa destructor#Behavioral methods). We do this to help the colony survive. As the drones had to be cut off for this reason, I think it to be acceptable to take pictures of them to show in a encyclopedia how the larvae and pupae develop. --wau 22:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Even if you overflood me with your expert informations and beeing bold to me (reason?), i dont like this picture because of the brutality. And as i said a drawing would work better in my eyes --Makro Freak talk 06:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Anmerkung: bold type = Fettdruck --wau 11:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Schon verstanden :) Hab dir das Wortspiel nur zurückgehaucht bold = frech --Makro Freak 12:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Question Could a drawing be made without making a dissection? Ben Aveling 21:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Surely not, but there are some nice drawings out there like this --> [1] where the informations could be taken without a dissection --Makro Freak talk 07:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Question Why a different background on each side? And could the image be rotated a little? Ben Aveling 21:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Maybe something more like this? (OK, this is too small, and cropped too closely, but I just want to show that it looks better rotated, and without that blue on the right.)
•  Support I don't see why a bee keeper can't make up his own mind on this issue. If a beekeeper was going to euthenise the bees anyway, you might as well take the picture. I also wouldn't have a problem if this was done for the sole purpose of education, provided that the bees were not in a wild hive and that the owner of the bees consented. -- Ram-Man 12:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Question What would be the difference if a veterinary opens a living dogs torso and show you some fetus, when its up his mind? --Makro Freak 12:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Bees are lower order animals. Dogs are higher order animals. I think that makes a difference. While we shouldn't be indifferent to cruelty, there are too many problems in this world to attack them all with this level of emotional intensity. Regards, Ben Aveling 13:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• I agree with Ben here: I swat the common housefly and don't feel guilty, I run over snails and worms with my car during rain storms and I'm not arrested. Destroying a native environment has certain moral issues, but if the bees are domestic there is no problem, even without the explanation above. If the example dog was "under the knife", proper anesthesia should be used of course. I'm certainly not advocating cruelty. Opening up a dog in a controlled, educational environment, such as a veterinarian school, is not going to be an issue, and when done properly it will not affect the dog's health. In your example, is it not the right of the owner to abort a dog's fetus if the owner wants to, just as neutering a pet would also be acceptable? (Also, I certainly do not imply that these rules apply to humans). -- Ram-Man 14:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Maybe you are the ethic-specialists ... for those its a thing, for me not, thats all. --Makro Freak 15:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• @ Makro Freak: My English is not perfect, but speaking of dissection I think of cutting off the heads and legs of the drones or cutting them in 2 parts to show what they are looking inside. What I did was opening the cells of wax where the drones are lying in without injuring them in any way. Sure, if I had asked them if they agree to do this, they might have answered the opposite way than Diogenes of Sinope: Please, don’t let the sunlight shine on us. If I had closed the cells again, they could have developed normally. To compare this with opening the body of a dog to show the young dogs inside is not a very fair argument I believe.
@ Ben Aveling: Of course the newspaper background at the right edge is not very nice, I was not sure if it is allowed to change this. Unfortunately I have no program to edit the picture at the moment. I'll see what I can do. By the way there is another version Image:Drohnenpuppen_79a.JPG that is less cropped. --wau 15:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Small edits such as rotating and cropping are OK. Larger edits are OK if you are honest about them in the description of the image. But in this case, I don't think an edit will help. If you rotate the picture until it is straight, you lose the bottom left hand corner. (As you can see in my thumbnail) If you have another version that is less cropped at the bottom, I can rotate that for you. (I use GIMP. It took a while to work out where the rotate function is, but it's there and it works and you can't complain about the price.) Regards, Ben Aveling 12:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• The term dissection is right. I dont said that you are dissected the drones, i meant the comb. But dissecting the comb means disturbing the development of the drones, ergo they have to die. --Makro Freak 16:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• I don't want to support this picture, for the same reasons as Makro Freak.Anyhow, I think that the real owners of their lives are the bees themselves...Vassil 18 June 2007
•  Support First time I see that --Orlovic (talk) 16:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support I am a strict vegetarian for more than half of my life and I have no ethical problems with this picture whatsoever. What would indeed be wrong is a contest of who can make the best photography of honeybee drone pupae - but that's not what we are seing here. What we are looking at here is the result of a beekeeper documenting his routine work. That kind of work does not need to be carried out often, but from time to time it is necessary. Just like a forester does not kill deer for fun, they sometimes have to in order to help the wood keep in balance. We humans have intervened with nature in ways so massively that we have basically forced ourselves to invervene again in order not keep our planet in shape. If this is reason for someone to stop eating honey or change their religion it is their decision, but please lets try to be objective and realistic when voting on pictures, and let's not forget the goal of the Wikipedia. I am supporting this picture for it's great detail and enourmous educational value. However, I, too, would like to see the picture rotated a bit and the blue border on the right removed. ---volty 19:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Why you want to decide the issue? (your misinterpretated one) Its not a discussion about the usability or the enormous value nor anybody wants to delete this picture. Here is the poll for FP and the goal is to decide who is hot or not ;) and i dont like this picture because of its brutality, so what is unrealistic onto this opinion? Makro Freak
•  Oppose --Wiki mouse 19:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose reflections of flash, tilt, composition --Simonizer 06:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Disgusting --Bergwolf 09:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support. A better picture could be taken, but at the moment, I believe this is the best picture we have on this important subject. Regards, Ben Aveling 12:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Very relevant. Never seen before. Though the crop ccould be disussed. A "musthave" for wikipedia. --AM 21:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Question I think, it is better not to crop too much the right side. I prefer that the edges of the comb be visible. Would an edit like "Drohnenpuppen 79d" be acceptable? --wau 23:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• Looks good to me. Ben Aveling 08:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
• I think so, too. Right border doesn't attract so much attention now. --AM 16:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Lovely, informative picture. Very essence of encyclopedic. I don't mind which version. Adam Cuerden 07:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Ss181292 19:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Sorry, have to agree with Makro Freak. --Digitaldreamer 19:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
```result: 9 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
```

#### Version 79d, featured

•  Support Lovely, informative picture. Very essence of encyclopedic. I don't mind which version. Adam Cuerden 07:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC) copied here from above as the vote is for both versions --wau 17:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support both. Prefer this version. Ben Aveling 08:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --Orlovic (talk) 16:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support I was waiting until the blue background was fixed. Really good picture. - Keta 16:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose You should apply the retouched picture template onto this version --Makro Freak talk 16:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support both. Prefer this version. --AM 16:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose as above --Simonizer 17:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC) reflections of flash, harsh light --Simonizer 09:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Question Above you wrote "reflections of flash, tilt, composition". I think this edit fixes two of those? Is the flash such a problem? The highlights seem minor to me, and they do show a lot about the texture of the creatures and their cells. Ben Aveling 21:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
• Yes it does in my opinion. Dont get me wrong, the picture has great detail and surely has value. But there is something special missing that this picture needs to get a FP support from me. The picture dont cope with the fragile and delicate character of this creatures--Simonizer 09:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support both versions. Extra high value. Vary good quality. Ss181292 19:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose as above --Bergwolf 19:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support - Alvesgaspar 09:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Detailed and highly educational. As this was taken during normal beekeeper activities I have no moral issues with it -MichaD | Michael Apel 11:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --Digon3 talk 15:47, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support both versions, prefer this one --wau 17:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support. Anrie 08:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose --Wiki mouse 21:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Comment ;) Ich gönne es dir trotzdem, Brutalinski! :) :) :) --Makro Freak talk 16:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support -- Ram-Man 17:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
```result: 12 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 20:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
```

### Image:Play fight IMG 3018.JPG, featured

•  Info Grizzly Bears (Ursus arctos horribilis) are engaged in a play fight.
•  Info created, uploaded and nominated by Mbz1 --Mbz1 01:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --Mbz1 01:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support - Lovely image, and we're probably not going to get anything else like it that's not copyrighted. Though be careful, lad: Don't want you getting mauled for Wikipedia. Adam Cuerden 06:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support - Keta 13:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support - Very real and powerfull, Milla --Makro Freak 16:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --Simonizer 07:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --Digitaldreamer 19:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --LucaG 21:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Basik07 08:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support just change the file name Alessio Damato 18:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support--João Carvalho 14:35, 1 July 2007 (UTC)Voting time was allready over --Simonizer 20:42, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
```result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 20:42, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
```

### Image:Piazza san marco.jpg, not featured

•  Info Piazza san Marco in Venice, Italy. The place is famous for its high number of pigeons. created, uploaded and nominated by Nattfodd --Nattfodd 17:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --Nattfodd 17:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support - Nice picture of that well-known place. AndI have to admit, I love black&white pictures. :) DainDwarf 17:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support I also love B&W pictures and this one is good. Romary 07:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Vassil 13:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Tilted, quite hefty barrel distortion and I'm not sure if that's the best B/W conversion. All of which are correctable --MichaD | Michael Apel 14:52, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Info I also had the impression of a tilted horizon but photoshop ruler doesn't seem to agree. Which specific criticism do you have about B/W? The conversion was made with an aesthetic point of view, hence the high contrast. Nattfodd 17:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Comment First let me say that I can't really put hard facts down for the B&W conversion and I'm also not really an expert at this. That's why I say I've got the impression it could be better. What I like about good B&W photos is a fine tone graduation. This can even be the case while being very contrasty. I think this conversion certainly lacks that, especially on the facade. The impression of the tilt is probably a combination from the off-center composition and the barrel distortion. Again I like the photo, that freeze frame look, and I would support it with the barrel distortion corrected and maybe a different B&W conversion --MichaD | Michael Apel 20:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Neutral as per MichaD --Digitaldreamer 19:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Beautiful Sosomk 20:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Agree with MichaD and additional it looks slightly overexposed --Simonizer 12:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Jina Lee 00:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose see: MichaD. No reason for B/W. --Jeses 19:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Info I don't quite see what would be a "reason" for B/W. I think it makes it look better and goes much better with the pigeons flock. Nattfodd 17:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose ack MichaD. --Digon3 talk 16:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Dynamic! Jón 18:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose --Bergwolf 20:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Please say why. --MichaelMaggs 13:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose due to correctable tilt and some relatively minor distortion. The writing on one of the banners looks aliased or oversharpened to me. The black and white is fine here. -- Ram-Man 17:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose--João Carvalho 14:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC)Voting time was allready over --Simonizer 20:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
```result: 7 support, 6 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 20:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
```

### Image:Hyles euphorbiae004.jpg, featured

•  Support --Makro Freak talk 20:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support - Beautiful colours and detail(finally an insect!). What is the tree, a spruce? - Alvesgaspar 20:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support--Mbz1 21:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
•  Support-- LadyofHats 11:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --Digitaldreamer 19:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Well done:)--Glory 04:28, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Basik07 08:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Very nice, get a picture of the Imago as well if you get the chance :) --MichaD | Michael Apel 15:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support--Böhringer 21:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose --Bergwolf 20:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Please say why. --MichaelMaggs 13:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
```result: 10 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 20:45, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
```

### Image:Calopteryx virgo male.jpg, featured

•  Info created by MichaD | Michael Apel - uploaded by MichaD | Michael Apel - nominated by MichaD | Michael Apel --MichaD | Michael Apel 09:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support DOF, sharpness and smooth lighting. Plus it shows a juvenile imago which is not seen in most of the other shots --MichaD | Michael Apel 09:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
• Nice way to talk about your own image... a "support" would probably do just as well instead of doing what sounds like bragging... :) Majorly (talk) 22:40, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support good shot. Which camera and lens did you use? --AngMoKio 10:19, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Info Canon 20D, Sigma 105/2.8 Macro @ f/11 and 2 second exposure with MLU.
•  Support - The subject is so sharp and detailed that we can forget the background (2 seconds exposure? Did you sedate the animal first?...) - Alvesgaspar 11:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Info Simple, the movements of insects is highly dependent on temperature. That's why I like to go out on overcast days or after rain showers. No animals were harmed in the making of this photograph. Although it averted an attack by an ichneumon wasp shortly after this picture was taken, sadly I didn't get a clear shot of it. MichaD | Michael Apel 11:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support - could you add where the photo was taken? I suspect somewhere in Germany, but I think it might be interesting to be a bit more precise (for example to see regional differences) Tbc 12:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Question What's the preferred way of geocoding? --MichaD | Michael Apel 13:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
• I was thinking of a description, something like Leopoldpark, near statue of Albert II, Brussels, Belgium or something. If you want geocoding, just decimal lat-long I guess. Tbc 15:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Vassil 12:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Neutral The feet is cropped, should be fixed for FP --Makro Freak talk 13:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Comment Then you have to oppose, no cropping other than in-camera. I blame it on the 96% frame coverage of the 20D, who would blame himself? :). I don't like cropping afterwards, don't ask me why. Thus I tend to frame really tight and sometimes too tight in-camera. --MichaD | Michael Apel 14:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --Digon3 talk 15:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --LucaG 21:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support This picture is a high quality picture. Good work.--Glory 04:27, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support A fantastic picture, good job! Majorly (talk) 22:46, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Superb shot, highly informative. 20:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Basik07 08:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support - Wow, amazing colours... --typhoonchaser 14:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --Karelj 19:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support--Böhringer 21:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support--Saturno07 13:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Framing --Bergwolf 20:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --MichaelMaggs 06:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --Digitaldreamer 17:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support--João Carvalho 14:32, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
```result: 18 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Simonizer 08:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
```

### Image:Mature flower diagram.svg, featured

•  Neutral --LadyofHats 10:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support - Excellent - Alvesgaspar 11:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --MichaD | Michael Apel 12:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Question -- How about the image resolution on drawings and diagrams? It seems the size is very low as seen in pixel-mode. --Makro Freak talk 16:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
• it is an svg (vector graphic), there is no one single pixel inside that file, you can make it as big as you want and will show exactly as it is-LadyofHats 17:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
• Maybe not in the file, but when rendered the browser displays pixels i guess, but anyway. How does that work? When i click on it, i can only watch the base size which is 423 × 217 pixels. Does i need a plugin? --Makro Freak talk 17:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
• you can go to my user page and see a much bigger thumb. here i could try uploading a bigger version of the basic file. but actually to see it bigger you need to create an image thumb with a higer size.-LadyofHats 17:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --Digon3 talk 15:41, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support -- Lerdsuwa 08:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support, but I would like to see numbers instead of english words in the picture for nonenglish users (with separated legend) -- Pinky sl 06:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
• in "other versions" on the image description there is anumbered version. for numbered diagrams fans.-LadyofHats 09:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support. --MichaelMaggs 06:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
```result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Simonizer 08:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
```
•  Support Note that to make the image show correctly with Commons thumbnails, I have just edited it to remove the Adobe Illustrator specific extensions (only needed for its internal editing options) and notably the internal DTD definition of XML named entities for the namespaces, and the <switch> that hides the effective SVG graphic to use only these private extensions after it. With this change, we have a standard SVG. Nothing was changed in the image itself (whose source remains in the hstory if one needs to reedit it). This was necessary in order to have the image displayed on the Commons frontpage or in other wiki projects, independantly of its effective display size, by using the thumbnail resizing features of the Commons image server. Note also that the internal radial gradients generated by AI are not supported in thumbnails... Verdy p 15:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

### Image:Styracosaurus dinosaur.png, not featured

•  Support --LadyofHats 10:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Vassil 13:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Question What is special on this drawing? --Makro Freak talk 23:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --Wiki mouse 21:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose --Bergwolf 20:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support--Benjamint 09:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --MichaelMaggs 06:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose no featured picture material, cartoonish Tbc 20:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose - Agree, not the best of this author. - Alvesgaspar 21:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose He Who Laughs Last 02:47, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose--João Carvalho 14:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
```result: 5 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 08:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
```

### Image:ZedazeniMonastery.jpg, not featured

#### 1#, not featured

•  Info Zedazeni Monastery, originally built in the 6th century, is a good example of early Christian architecture of Georgia. The picture has a good composition and focus on the two-story basilica style of architecture. Created by Sosomk - uploaded by Sosomk - nominated by Sosomk --Sosomk 11:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Pictures like this make my day. Also I looked at it carefully and I am pretty sure it is original :):) -- Sosomk 11:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose overexposed and there is a stain near the aircraft contrail --Simonizer 11:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose tilted image -- Lerdsuwa 08:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose--João Carvalho 14:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
```result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 08:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
```

#### 2#, not featured

InfoI propose an edit; it was very easy to remove the stain and the aircraft contrail.Vassil 14:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

•  Support Vassil 14:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose - I'm sorry, but I don't like the composition which seems too symmetrical and a little boring. Also, there is a slight (and disturbing) ccw tilt, which has nothing to do with the slope of the terrain. Finally, I agree with Simonizer on the overexposure. Alvesgaspar 22:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Dear Vassil, thanks a lot, I was not sure if we could use photoshop. As for the exposure, I think it is more of a difference in taste of art rather than anything else. I think it is good and so does User:Vassil, who I think has a good taste of art judging from the pictures he uploaded on Commons (Louvre, Cathédrale Notre Dame de Reims, Medieval festival, etc.) Sosomk 06:42, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Comment Thank you very much, Sosomk.I agree that this picture isn't spectacular at first sight, but I like it because it's sharp and representative, and the lamb fits in well with this rustic architecture.About the exposure, I've tried "automatic contrast" and "automatic levels" in Photoshop and nothing moved, so I've let the original exposure.(I know that "automatic levels" isn't unfailing, but it's an indication in normal light conditions.) I don't know about the tilt; the building and especially the roof are asymmetrical. Vassil 08:27, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
The architecture is called Basilica style, which is ancient and early medieval church architecture of Georgia. Also, the monastery is surrounded with the gate. Sosomk 19:55, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose still overexposed and that has nothing to do with art, because i can see no intention that the author wanted to make some kind of High Key picture --Simonizer 08:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, I find the picture great because of the contrast of the lamb (the symbol of Christianity) and the Church, and that's what the author has done to make it professional. Sosomk 19:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree, thats a good idea, but a good idea is often not enough --Simonizer 07:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Overexposed. --Digon3 talk 15:39, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Tilted image -- Lerdsuwa 08:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support. --Kober 20:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose--João Carvalho 14:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
```result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 08:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
```

### Image:Stadtkirche Oberer See Böblingen.jpg, not featured

MichaD | Michael Apel 12:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC).

```result: Nomination withdrawn => not featured. Simonizer 14:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
```

### Image:Bellis perennis white (aka).jpg, not featured

EXAMPLE: This similar image has perfect DoF
EXAMPLE: Proper DoF covers every part of the flower. Even at the too shallow f/7.1 on this image, you can see detail in every petal.
```result: 6 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
```

### Image:Trebinje River.jpg, featured

•  Info created by Hrast - uploaded by Hrast - nominated by Hast --Hrast 17:10, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --Hrast 17:10, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Majorly (talk) 17:46, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Sosomk 20:06, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support -- Lerdsuwa 08:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support - What else has to be said? Booksworm 17:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Less than 2MB, but excellent quality -- MJJR 20:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Basik07 08:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --Simonizer 10:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --LucaG 17:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support -- Pinky sl 06:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support--Böhringer 15:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support--Mbz1 16:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
•  Support --Merikapteeni 17:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --Bergwolf 20:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Vassil 20:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Amazing -- He Who Laughs Last 00:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Question am i the only one that notices the image is overexposed?-LadyofHats 11:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Sorry, but I can see no 'strong mitigating reasons' why this image should be smaller than 2Mpx. --MichaelMaggs 13:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Wow Moravice 21:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
```result: 17 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 07:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
```

### Image:Pyrenees topographic map-fr.svg, featured

•  Info created by Sting - uploaded by Sting --Ayack 17:50, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --Ayack 17:50, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support - I like maps and I like SVG. And I like especially good-looking informative maps ;-) --Manuel (Diskussion) 18:58, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support - amazing work. Yug (talk) 22:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose - Because there is no scale in the map. Svg is not the best format for a map because it gives the wrong impression that it can be used in any scale or size, which is not true. Also, the legend is not complete and there is no indication of the map projection. - Alvesgaspar 23:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
• « no scale in the map  » : well, looking at your nice work, I imagine that you know that a scale on a digital map doesn't represent lot of things : I may write that it is a 1:500.000 scale (for example), but in this "1 unit" (cm, inches, etc.), will you have a strait line or curves ? Two maps of the same size may give the same scale, but not with the same accuracy. Secondarily, do you know many paper maps giving the scale under the 1:xxx.xxx form plus the distance scale ?
• « no indication of the map projection » : for sure, you didn't read the complete summary, where it is written : « UTM projection ; WGS84 geoid ». I do not know until now in Wikipedia (but of course, I don't know them all) a topographic map giving both the information of projection and the geoid used.
• Please explain for the incomplete legend. Sting 04:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Info - I would call this a “general reference map” (like those on the atlases), rather than a “topographic map”, due to the relatively small detail and high level of cartographic generalization. I have enlarged it to a scale of about 1: 1 million, which appears to be a more than reasonable upper limit of use. Even at this scale the information density is quite small when compared to a common atlas’ map (for example, the cities shouldn’t be represented with dot symbols at this scale). Also, this is not a true digital map, comparable with Google Maps, since the level of generalization doesn’t change with scale. This might indeed be useful as a printed map. But for that purpose, a numerical scale is needed, besides the graphical one. Please note that a map is not just a beautiful drawing that we can reduce or enlarge at will. All printed maps always have a nominal scale associated with it, which is closely related to the spatial and thematic accuracy of the information depicted, and to its level of cartographic generalization. In paper maps, the length of 0,25mm (which is the typical thickness of a thin line) is normally taken as a reference for planimetric accuracy. In a map with a scale of 1:50 000, this means that the horizontal accuracy of the survey was, at least, 0.25 x 50 000 = 12 500mm = 12.5 m. In other words, it is guaranteed that the error in the position of all objects depicted in the map is less than 12,5m. When we enlarge that map by a factor of 10, keeping the line width of 0,25mm, we are implicitly assuming that the horizontal accuracy is 1,25m, which is wrong. And when the nominal scale of the map is not even stated, the map becomes useless for anything other than trivial applications. That is precisely the problem with the svg format.
OK, I understand now what you meant by « scale ». In fact it would be more about the accuracy of the drawing. For further discussion about this point, please refer to the post I leaved in your discussion page.
• I really mean "scale", not accuracy. The map should contain a indication on the the maximum scale to be used in printed versions (together with the corresponding paper dimensions) - Alvesgaspar 11:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Of course, zooming in the map with a ratio over 1:1 will not give more information, it will just make it more legible, as for a raster image. It's also true that it's not a « pure » topographic map in which everything is in scale. Here, the river lines doesn't represent their true width and, like you wrote, the cities should be represented with their real area, but for all that, the scale should be much bigger and it would be impossible to represent the whole area. Sting 21:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• In a "pure topographic map" exageration is also used in the thickness of lines in order to make certain objects visible or more conspicuous, that is not the point. To be truly "topographic" much more information should be depicted and the "working scale" should be much larger than this map permits. Anyway, even at 1:3,000,000 (which is a reasonable printing scale for this map), area symbols (instead of point symbols) should be used to represent cities (at least, the bigger ones). - Alvesgaspar 11:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
• In your map, the legend is not complete because it does not contain all the types of symbols used in the representation. The indication of the map projection should be present in the map itself, not only in the Commons file. Remember that many pictures are used in non-wiki projects. Finally, the WGS84 is not a “geoid” but a geodetic reference system (containing, in particular, the definition of the “ellipsoid” used ). - Alvesgaspar 10:09, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
For the legend, I thought the signification of the three lines were almost trivial, but all right, I added them. About the projection information directly on the map, I think it's a point of view. I created this map (and the others) first for WP and the complementary information is in the description page. If a third party wants to use it in a correct way, they should take what they need also from the description page and not only the image, as they should with the license and the author name. I think also adding too much information not indispensable for a direct understanding of the map would unnecessarily complicate the key, so I left them in the description page (sometimes, there's not much space left on the map). About « geoid », sorry, my mistake : I made a shortcut between the reference frame and the geoid it tends to represent. Sting 21:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• PS - I almost forgot the most important: your map is beautiful and very nicely done. I might support it if those issues are addressed in some elegant way. Alvesgaspar 10:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Sting 21:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support -- Lerdsuwa 08:07, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support. Awesome work. Since Alvesgaspar is a cartographer, he is certainly right and I wish this image be improved following his indications. Nonetheless, those flaws are seen from a skillful eye and I don't think they are rehibitory. — Xavier, 13:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support -- but I think these maps are too big files (5.88M). STyx 20:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support -- High quality map. Nice job ! Perhaps it could be duplicated in a lighter version (with less details, of course), with a reference to this image. Sémhur 15:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Info New version uploaded with the borders and projection info in the key and major cities areas. The description page was completed with indication of the data accuracy. Sting 00:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Support This map is really a great job! Guérin nicolas 17:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
```result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 07:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
```

### Image:Blue-wooden-bench.jpg, not featured

•  Info created by Adamantios - uploaded by Adamantios - nominated by Jeses --Jeses 18:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Nice still life. Well balanced Colors. --Jeses 18:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose ??--Böhringer 22:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Neutral It is a nice picture, but...it is a picture of a bench.--Sir James Paul 23:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Question It's not "yet another animal pic". Whats the problem with benches??? --Jeses 18:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose --Kolossos 06:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Composition, lighting, and subject not well presented. --Digon3 talk 15:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose --Bergwolf 20:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Please say why. --MichaelMaggs 13:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Please say why. --MichaelMaggs 13:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry i forgot to say that it is just a bench with a leaf on it and author gives no informations about context. --Makro Freak 20:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Neutral - I like minimalist photos and this one is almost there. But the composition is just not good enough (I can't say exactly why) and the quality could be better. With some more space around a non-centered bench, who knows? - Alvesgaspar 21:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose--João Carvalho 14:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
```result: 1 support, 6 oppose, 2 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 07:05, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
```

### Image:Hummingbird in GGP.jpg, not featured

•  Info A hummingbird shows his plumage.
•  Info created, uploaded and nominated by Mbz1 --Mbz1 16:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --Mbz1 16:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Blured, noisy, beak out of focus... --Jeses 17:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose --Bergwolf 20:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Please say why. --MichaelMaggs 13:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose -- out of focus and noisy-LadyofHats 12:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
```result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 07:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
```

### Image:Phlomis russeliana C.jpg, not featured

```result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 07:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
```

### Image:Photinia fraseri D.jpg, not featured

Left image, not featured:

```result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 07:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
```

Right image, not featured:

•  Comment It may be that my monitor is brighter. I processed a lighter version from the original RAW data. In my opinion is that too light, but others may like it. --Wouter 20:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose There is harsh and uneven lighting, which gives the picture under and overexposed parts. --Digon3 talk 14:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Comment It seems the 2 leaves describes a treasure from where the buds flying away. Nice but strange lighning. --Makro Freak talk 15:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose--João Carvalho 14:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
```result: 0 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 07:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
```

### Image:Yamabiko dome.JPG, not featured

•  Info created by Qurren - uploaded by Qurren - nominated by Mitulbabu --Mitulbabu 17:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --Mitulbabu 17:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Not really a "wow" factor and a little too dark. --Digon3 talk 19:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Underexposed, classical - boring composition --Makro Freak talk 19:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose- boring-LadyofHats 12:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose too dark --Bergwolf 11:44, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose--João Carvalho 14:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
```result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 07:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
```

### image:Prosobranchia Trio.jpg, not featured

•  Info created by TopoGigio - uploaded by TopoGigio
•  Support --TopoGigio 00:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose There is a lot of noise on the shells. --Digon3 talk 14:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Neutral Great photographs and composition. The picture could have been cropped a little at the top and bottom, but why are the two shells of the right much more noisy than the left one ? Can you fix it ? Sting 20:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
```result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 08:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
```

### Image:Oblique rays 02 Pengo.svg, not featured

•  Info created by Pengo - uploaded by Pengo - nominated by Cacophony --Cacophony 07:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Second diagram (03) shows Northern Winter tilt, and the last (04) attempts a Spring/Autumn tilt, although it's probably not enough of one.
•  Support I think it elegantly illustrates a simple concept that has major effects to the world that we live in. --Cacophony 07:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose. Unfortunately, the concept is not that simple, and this image is in my view very misleading. It doesn't show the earth's angled rotation axis, and seems to imply that the sun's rays are always parallel to the equator, which is not the case due to the oblique angle the axis makes with the plane of the earth's motion around the sun. The text even states that "Solar radiation in tropical areas (i.e. lower latitudes, nearer the equator) has vertical rays", which as a general unqualified statement is simply wrong (it happens at local noon only twice a year). To explain the effect properly you'd need at least to mention if not show both time of day and seasonal effects. Also, the fake landmass worries me; why not a real outline? --MichaelMaggs 08:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Thanks for the comments. The diagram is to show why the poles are colder than the equator, so I'm not sure how adding axial tilt would do anything but confuse things. I've changed the text to note this simplification, and to say "more vertical" (if that's a term) rather than just "vertical". I didn't use real land mass because it's too hard to find a picture of the Earth with the equator in the middle, let alone in svg or at the right level of detail; and i wanted to the avoid the politics of choosing which side of the Earth was facing the viewer. The time of day being noon is implied by positions of the sun and Earth and the areas of focus. Pengo 10:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose i do think you should tilt the equator line, remove the outline of the atmosphere ( wich gives the impresion of being solid) , also remove the yellow scale at the size it gives really no extra information. and the arrow heads in the sollar rays are not really necesary either -LadyofHats 12:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• I've incorporated your suggestions, and attempted a couple of different "tilts". I'm still not sure they help at all other than to confuse matters by introducing seasons.
•  Oppose - 1st: This is not the best way to illustrate the concept; 2nd: that is not the only reason why the poles are colder than the equator, and 3rd: the picture is misleading, like MichaelMaggs said. To show that the altitude of the sun above the horizon has a strong influence on the flux of energy at the surface I would prefer to depict a flat ground, with two similiar "cylinders of rays" coming from different angles. - Alvesgaspar 22:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Sorry, what other reasons are the poles colder other than axial tilt? The cylinders of rays is a different way (not a "better way"), and would make it difficult to show the rays have to travel further through the atmosphere. Although it doesn't change anything, please note also that this diagram that I seem to be defending now isn't completely my own design, but is based on those found in a couple of textbooks. Pengo 23:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Comment - Here is a picture illustrating what I mean, from the time I was teaching these things (sorry to be in Portuguese). The angle of incidence of the rays, combined with the albedo of the surface has also a strong influence on the amount of energy being absorbed (or reflected) at the surface. In the ice-covered polar zones, almost all direct energy from the sun is reflected because it is white and the angle is small. In short, the angle of incidence affects the heating of the surface in 3 different ways: lenght of atmospheric track, variable flux and variable reflection. - Alvesgaspar 10:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
• Cool. Thanks for that. Pengo 16:25, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
```result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 08:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
```

### Image:Sky.png, not featured

•  Info created by Manuel Strehl - uploaded by Manuel Strehl - nominated by Manuel Strehl --Manuel (Diskussion) 08:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Info This is a rasterized version of the SVG file Sky.svg. The SVG however relies on CSS to style the stars (much smaller file size!), which is not yet handled properly by the KSVG renderer of the Commons.
•  Comment - Impressive and useful work. But the sky map should be explained with a comprehensive legend (colours, sizes/magnitudes, symbols, celestial circles,...) and the constelations also represented. To further simplify the reading, I would also put the names of the larger magnitude stars. The map projection should be identified in the map (I suppose this is an azimuthal equidistant projection). Not being svg doesn't bother me, it is well known that the Commons renderer doesn't work properly. - Alvesgaspar 08:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
```result: 0 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 08:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
```

### Image:07Agamemnon.jpg, not featured

•  Info created by fingalo - uploaded by fingalo - nominated by fingalo --Fingalo 11:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Info The Agamemmnon-mask in the National Archaeological Museum in Athens
•  Support --Fingalo 11:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose -- overexposed image -LadyofHats 12:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Neutral The reflection of the flashlight is very harsh --Makro Freak talk 14:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Overexposed. --Digon3 talk 14:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose I didn't know the Ancients made a version in copper of that mask… See Category:Agamemnon_Mask. Sting 20:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Question fake? --Bergwolf 11:36, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
```result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 08:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
```

### Image:Flying Kookaburra DSC 0711.JPG, not featured

•  Info created, uploaded, nominated by Ben Aveling 12:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Ben Aveling 12:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose It is too dark and I don't like the composition. --Digon3 talk 14:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Comment It has a impression like a scissor type silhouette --Makro Freak talk 15:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose nice composition, but colors and focus are bad. --Jeses 13:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

•  I've uploaded a lightened and cropped version. However it makes some color fringing even more obvious. :-( Regards, Ben Aveling 19:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC).
```result: Nomination withdrawn => not featured. Simonizer 08:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
```

### Image:Smutugle (Noctua pronuba).jpg, not featured

•  Info created, uploaded and nominated by --Malene Thyssen 18:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --Malene Thyssen 18:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Neutral Very detailed, but the light is a bit too hard for my taste --MichaD | Michael Apel 21:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Let's raise the bar? No wow for me --Bergwolf 22:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose For me, too --Makro Freak 08:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Do you have any technical critique? Its hard to argue about or inproove in the wow-factor. Its wow to me - hence the nomination :-) --Malene Thyssen 17:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Uargh .. why I must write an essay. Because as you are: In my imagination I see a dead, bit blurry "Eulenfalter" from behind with a snapped off and a twisted antenna, placed very classical on a bark somewhen at noon. And then i stare at this picture and try to see something which is arcane for my eyes, but I cannot find anything which touches me. The texture of the wings ? The type of the sere moss ? The butterfly itself ? Are iam so fuc-beep-up that i cannot find any ? I think iam, sorry. The technical achievement is ok, like i anticipate when viewing your userpage-gallery, as far my businesslike appraisal. Ok now i try to see it from the more abstract side. Is it a persiflage ? Is it a mirror ? Is it a --Makro Freak talk 18:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)?
Oh sorry Makro Freak, I didn't mean for you to write an essay and explain why you didn't find the "wow" in the picture. I definitely respect your judgement in that aspect, since thats absolutely individually - and should be. I was just wondering if something technically was wrong since Bergwolf wrote "Let's raise the bar?". Regards --Malene Thyssen 19:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
"Lets raise the bar on Insect pictures" was a quote by Alvesgaspar and Bergwolf must have taken that literally --Makro Freak talk 20:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Ok - thanks for clearing that up for me. --Malene Thyssen 21:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Let's raise the bar....
```result: Nomination withdrawn => not featured. Simonizer 08:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
```

### Image:Argynnis pandora LC0052.jpg, featured

•  Info created, uploaded and nominated by LC-de --LC-de 12:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --LC-de 12:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Wonderful image. — Xavier, 13:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support WOW! Very good DOF and beautiful colors --LucaG 17:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support wow! -wau 19:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --Digon3 talk 19:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Oppose Sehr schön, Jörg. I don't watched it at 100% before, so i overlooked that its very blurry ;) But i really like it. --Makro Freak talk 11:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Jina Lee 00:28, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Pimke 06:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose - I agree that the composition and colours are great. But the image is not sharp enough. Am I the only one to notice that the focus is not on the butterfly? - Alvesgaspar 10:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support--Böhringer 15:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose I agree with Alvesgaspar and there seems to be some quite strong noise reduction involved --MichaD | Michael Apel 11:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Neutral The coloring in this picture is great, but I do not think I can support this because it is not sharp enough.--Sir James Paul 00:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose  Neutral agree with Alvesgaspar but composition and colours are nice - so i change to neutral --AngMoKio 11:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose --Bergwolf 20:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Please say why. --MichaelMaggs 13:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --Atoma 09:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Basik07 16:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support-- i do believe the part that seems not to be sharps comes due the hairy body of the buterfly.-LadyofHats 11:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

** dream on ;) This are smoothing software artefacts --Makro Freak talk 15:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC) This critter is hairy! --Makro Freak 13:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• Never used smoothing filters on that picture, but these butterflys are hairy. --LC-de 15:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• I'd say that part is just out of focus. The focus plane seems to span from the far wing, behind the thorax through the head of the thistle --MichaD | Michael Apel 21:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Beautiful colours, good composition. Nice impression of the animal. Sharp enough for me. --AM 17:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
```result: 12 support, 4 oppose, 2 neutral => featured. Simonizer 08:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
```

### Image:sa brownpelican.jpg, not featured

•  Info Picture of a brown pelican, taken at Santa Cruz Beach, California. Created by sanjay_ach - uploaded by sanjay_ach - nominated by sanjay_ach --Sanjay ach 05:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --Sanjay ach 05:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --Pedroserafin 07:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose composition! I dont like that the reflection of the pelican is cropped --Simonizer 08:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Agree with Simonizer. The focus seems to be on the reflection and not the pelican itself as well --MichaD | Michael Apel 09:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Unfortunatly the pelican is out of focus, which is a pity because the tone and "softness" in the sea behind is great (apart from little bubbles at right edge -easily fixable in PS). I think the compositon is fine. --Trounce 14:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose I agree with the others who oppose this being made a featured picture. The pelican it to much out of focus. It still is a nice picture though.--Sir James Paul 00:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose --Bergwolf 20:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Please say why. --MichaelMaggs 13:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose --too much empty space. even when it is a nice image -LadyofHats 12:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose--João Carvalho 14:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
```result: 2 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 06:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
```

### Image:Guepe sur son nid.JPG, not featured

•  Info created and uploaded by J-Luc - nominated by J-Luc -- 13:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Info I am sorry about the low DOF, but by closing the diaphragm, I would have a too low speed and a picture not so good (I've tried ! :-)) No tripod used, camera handled. This is the picture out-of-the-camera, perhaps someone will want to process it... --J-Luc 13:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Composition and framing (nest cut off, close crop on the wasp). --Digon3 talk 17:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support--Mbz1 19:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
•  Support --Wiki mouse 21:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Composition, overexposed, focus off and very noisy --MichaD | Michael Apel 21:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Info The focus is on the head of the wasp and about the noise... I would understand where you find that the noise is annoying. I agree about the composition, but the light was changing very quickly and I did not have too much time. J-Luc
The eye is clearly not in-focus --MichaD | Michael Apel 21:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose This is a good picture, but I do not think the quality of this picture is quite feature quality. Sorry.--Sir James Paul 23:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Neutral--João Carvalho 14:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Info Do you prefer this one ? But the "noise" is exactly the same. J-Luc

•  Oppose --Bergwolf 20:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Please say why. --MichaelMaggs 13:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Please say why. --MichaelMaggs 13:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Info Cool ! :-) J-Luc
•  Oppose-- both images are overexposed -LadyofHats 12:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
If you want the details in the wasp, including the black "eyes", you over-expose the nest. The subject is lit by the sun in a very dark environment.--J-Luc
Then you have to shoot it at a different time of day, shade it, use reflectors, flash(es) or whatever...
Not saying it's a bad picture, but with current common standard for macro pictures I don't think that's a valid excuse --MichaD | Michael Apel 21:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
```result: 2 support, 7 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
```

### Image: MosaikJungferExuvie09.JPG, featured

•  Info [2] / [3]|German: Blaugrüne Mosaikjungfer frisch geschlüpft mit Larvenhaut
• en: Female Southern Hawker freshly slipped with larva skin
•  Info created, uploaded and nominated by --Böhringer 10:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support--Böhringer 22:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Nice photo. --J-Luc 19:42, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support--Mbz1 19:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
•  Support Quality is a bit on the low side but it's an extremely valuable well executed picture --MichaD | Michael Apel 21:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support In my oppinion, this is a Featured quality picture. Good work Böhringer.--Sir James Paul 00:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --Manuel (Diskussion) 07:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Comment - Some additional information on the picture is welcome. Also, only one species is identified. - Alvesgaspar 10:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose The cropping is disadvantageous. The picture is blurry althought the object is bigger than 100mm. Maybe QI? --Makro Freak talk 12:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• No, not QI. QI is about technical quality. This picture has some wow value, but QI doesn't take that into account, at least, it's much less important. Whereas for an FP, "wow factor" is the most important thing, which is why a small number of pictures pass FP but not QI. Regards, Ben Aveling 22:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Please say why. --MichaelMaggs 13:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Ack MFreak --Bergwolf 22:26, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
```result: 13 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 07:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
```

### Image:Freudenberg sg Switzerland.jpg, not delisted

•  Info I think this image which has been featured recently had a better edit which never had enough time to get enough votes. So here i propose replacing the original with this edit. I also made an edit in which the colors are not so warm. (Original nomination)
•  Delist Replace one of the two. I go with majority. --Arad 19:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Comment You postet the edit at the 14th of June, I determined the result at 24th of June. So there has been enough time! --Simonizer 20:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
• Well, because it was under all nominations, no one saw it. So It never had enough votes. Whether the reason was time or the position of the nomination on the page. What difference does it make for you anyway? --Arad 02:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• None. I just wanted to make clear that there was enough time. --Simonizer 07:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• I see. True, it did had 10 full days. --Arad 16:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment I'm tired of this. It's obvious that Edit one is much better than the original. So I'll just upload it on the FP one. --216.221.35.113 02:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

```result: 1 Delist, 0 Keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. Simonizer 12:54, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
```

### Image:The Orange Polo Wedstrijden.jpg, not featured

•  Info created by Trebaxus - uploaded by & nominated by --Trebaxus 02:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Info With high velocities the bodies of polo ponies are used to create more space for his rider Trebaxus 02:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose overexposed --Simonizer 07:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Dont understand the crop --Makro Freak 08:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Info Crop is because of the use of a telelense and horses riding with 35 miles an hour towards the audience. Zooming out more wasn't possible.
•  Oppose Overexpose and bad crop. --Digon3 talk 18:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose overexposed: look at the histogram! Alessio Damato 21:07, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose strange crop --Jeses 12:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose agree with Makro Freak. If the photo would have a wider angle it could be a really interesting photo.--AngMoKio 17:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Info Next time I'll try to change my lense a bit faster :p Trebaxus 20:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
```result: 0 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 13:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
```

### Image:Alouatta caraya amk.jpg, not featured

#### Version 1, not featured

•  Info A monkey (Alouatta caraya) relaxing in a secluded place. Created, uploaded, nominated by AngMoKio --AngMoKio 18:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --AngMoKio 18:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Underexposed. --Digon3 talk 19:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose The monkey is under- and the background partially overexposed. --Makro Freak talk 20:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose --Bergwolf 20:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Please say why. --MichaelMaggs 13:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
```result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 12:55, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
```

#### Version 2; not featured

•  Info I tried to improve the photo. Is it better?--AngMoKio 18:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --AngMoKio 18:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose-- it remains overexposed -LadyofHats 12:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
I think overexposure in general doesn't have to be a problem. Some photos are impossible to take without overexposure and I think in this photo it is not really disturbing...well and if it is then I give up :-) --AngMoKio 12:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Do you ever tried to do a exposure-array for a DRI Image? The object seems very static, think that works. --Makro Freak talk 13:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
hm...yeah in this situation it might have been a good idea. Though i have to say I dont have any experience so far in creating HDR images. But I like that photo despite the overexposed areas. --AngMoKio 17:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support I disagree that this is overexposed. There may be some dark spots, but its a great image. He Who Laughs Last 17:26, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Neutral--João Carvalho 14:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose it remains overexposed --Bergwolf 22:24, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
```result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 06:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
```

### Image:Tavira Igreja Santiago.jpg

#### 1#, not featured

•  Info created by MJJR - uploaded by MJJR - nominated by MJJR -- MJJR 20:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support -- MJJR 20:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Great Picture He Who Laughs Last 00:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Sorry, but I think this is the wrong POV, there are blown whites on the walls, and the guy and the car on the right are disturbing. --Digon3 talk 01:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Neutral - I like the composition and POV. But the building in construction and the guy on the right are unfortunate. Alvesgaspar 08:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose--Makro Freak talk 17:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Neutral--João Carvalho 14:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
```result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 2 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 13:01, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
```

#### 2#, featured

Info I propose an edit:I've removed the guy, cropped because of the car, I've increased the sky's luminosity, and its saturation to balance the effect, and I've smoothed it. Vassil 14:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

•  Support Vassil 14:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support (Thanks, Vassil!) -- MJJR 20:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Neutral - It's a shame I cannot support a picture of my country, but the quality is not good enough. Besides the building in construction on the left, we have the artifacts in the sky. - Alvesgaspar 21:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support - Changed my vote after the smoothing of the sky - Alvesgaspar 12:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Good enough to me. Paulo Juntas 23:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support As per comments above Booksworm 08:12, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Info I smoothed the sky again with the gaussian blur. Vassil 14:34, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

```result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 06:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
```

### Image:Purple Hibiscus.jpg, not featured

```result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 06:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
```

### Image:Dovzanova soteska bug.jpg, not featured

plus his left middle foot is cropped --Makro Freak 16:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Unfortunately, only the centre back of the beetle is in focus --MichaelMaggs 07:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Info This was my composition idea, I have another picture, where is back in focus and front is blurry. --Mihael Simonic 09:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose-- the composition ( if it is a composition idea) doesnt work-LadyofHats 12:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose lacks of wow --Bergwolf 11:45, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --Karelj 22:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Support // tsca [re] 20:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Winiar 08:51, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
```result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 06:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
```

### Image:Wrightflyer.jpg, featured

•  Info created by Para - uploaded by Para - nominated by Mitulbabu --First flight, 120 feet in 12 seconds, 10:35 a.m.; Kitty Hawk, North Carolina Summary: Orville Wright at the controls of the machine, lying prone on the lower wing with hips in the cradle which operated the wing-warping mechanism. Wilbur Wright running alongside to balance the machine, has just released his hold on the forward upright of the right wing. The starting rail, the wing-rest, a coil box, and other items needed for flight preparation are visible behind the machine
•  Support --Mitulbabu Great Classic
•  Support Very nice --Makro Freak talk 19:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Shows what quality a glass plate can deliver. --MichaelMaggs 09:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support-LadyofHats 12:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Great historical B/W-pic. --AM 16:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Historic moment and large format together makes me happy --MichaD | Michael Apel 21:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support What more has to be said? Booksworm 08:10, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support important moment --Bergwolf 11:43, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support nice -- Gorgo 13:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Support--João Carvalho 14:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Support MJJR 16:04, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Support -- Cacophony 02:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Support classic Richardfabi 20:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --Pimke 06:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
```result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 06:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
```

### Image:Lakemerrit02192006.JPG, not featured

•  Info created by Miskatonic - uploaded by Miskatonic - nominated by Mitulbabu --Lake Merrit Oakland California looking west at the Tribune Building
•  Support --Mitulbabu 18:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose i am not in general against night shots if they show an impressive skyline and have a good technical quality...this skyline is a bit too common and this photo also leaves technically sth to be desired --AngMoKio 19:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose tilted and it doesn't really stand out from other night picture. --Digon3 talk 19:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Lack of sharpness/detail --Makro Freak talk 19:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Support I love Lake Merrit and this is a good picture, i disagree that this is a too common skyline. Seriously, it's Oakland I rarely see pictures of the Oakland Skyline. Nice Detail too. He Who Laughs Last 01:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

•  Oppose The colors are very monotonous, the framing seem random, the fountain in the foreground is a nice idea but you can barely make it out and even then it's more like a blur blob --MichaD | Michael Apel 21:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
```result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 06:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
```

### Image:SalmonellaNIAID.jpg, not featured

•  Info created by NIAID - nominated by Mitulbabu --Color-enhanced scanning electron micrograph showing Salmonella typhimurium (red) invading cultured human cells
•  Support --Mitulbabu 18:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Even for a superhightech-megamagnification shot it is essential to avoid noise. Very noisy. --Makro Freak talk 19:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose - Quality not good enough - Alvesgaspar 22:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support - Can't you understand that some images cannot be perfect because the system used to have them is not so fine ? In other words, either you get this image as-it-is or you don't have it. I prefer the first solution...--J-Luc 9:00, 2007-06-29
•  Support --Atoma 07:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose -- i could live with the noise, and since it is not a camera i would say the image has enough quality. yet the coloring was made after the picture. and it is not really well done. color edges overlap and ther are parts who are missing color at all. -LadyofHats 12:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose quality --Bergwolf 11:42, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --Karelj 22:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --Jeses 13:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Winiar 08:51, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
```result: 6 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 06:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
```

### Image:Soybeanvarieties.jpg, not featured

Soybeans are practically as much a part of American life as baseball. They're grown today in more than half the United States. Yet, a hundred years ago, they were virtually unheard of-raised only by a handful of innovative farmers. These seeds, from the National Soybean Germplasm Collection housed at Urbana, Illinois, show a wide range of colors, sizes, and shapes.

•  Support --Mitulbabu 18:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Very nice, but blurrry and noisy  Oppose There are a huge amount of ugly dust spots everywhere--Makro Freak talk 18:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support agree with MakroFreak - nice composition --AngMoKio 18:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose - Blurry and noisy - Alvesgaspar 22:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose A nice image, but it is indeed very noisy. --MichaelMaggs 07:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose- light burns all other colors-LadyofHats 12:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose as above. --Digon3 talk 14:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose in some way dingy --Bergwolf 11:42, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Apart from the technical flaws like noise and dust I don't think the lighting works really well. I wouldn't mind the overexposed bag that much but the beans in the front are defenetely in need for some light --MichaD | Michael Apel 21:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
```result: 2 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 06:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
```

### Image:Zwiebelrostbraten.jpg, not featured

•  Info created by Kobako - uploaded by Kobako - nominated by Mitulbabu --Zwiebelrostbraten
•  Support --Mitulbabu 18:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Ground, left of the plate is overexposed, the roast looks delicious to me --Makro Freak talk 18:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose-- overexposed-LadyofHats 12:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose overexposed --Bergwolf 11:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support ---donald- 15:35, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose--João Carvalho 14:09, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Why? --Karelj 22:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Why? Why not?! It is already in use in Zwiebelrostbraten. I cannot see any overexposition, especially not on the left side of the plate. Just looking at it makes one hungry! --wg 21:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
```result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 06:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
```

### Image:Wawadit'la(Mungo Martin House) a Kwakwaka'wakw big house.jpg, featured

•  Info created by HighInBC - uploaded by HighInBC - nominated by HighInBC --HighInBC 20:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --HighInBC 20:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Question is there a reason to stitch this pic together by 33 pics? Isn't a normal wide-angle pic sufficient? You should write a warning...not every pc and browser handles such a big pic...--AngMoKio 20:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• The reason is so that you can see the tool marks and fine details in this hand made building face and totem poles. My camera also cannot do a wide enough angle, and I cannot stand in a busy street to take this. You are welcome to add any relevant warning. HighInBC 14:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Comment I would suggest heavily downsampling it to a usable size (like 5000 x 3500). --Digon3 talk 14:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• A secondary version could be available, but the original should remain full size. HighInBC 14:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
That would be fine. --Digon3 talk 14:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Go for it. HighInBC 16:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Support What's the problem? --Bergwolf 11:39, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Neutral--João Carvalho 14:09, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Do you perhaps have any information about your opinion that I could use to improve future works? HighInBC 16:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
```result: 5 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Simonizer 06:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
```

### Image:Hydrangea macrophylla 02.jpg, not featured

•  Info created by MJJR - uploaded by MJJR - nominated by MJJR -- MJJR 20:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support -- MJJR 20:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --Jeses 20:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Beautiful and good technical quality. The only problem with this image is that a few of the flowers are cropped. --Digon3 talk 13:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Sorry, a QI maybe, but the composition hasn't in my view been considered nearly carefully enough to be acceptable as a FP. --MichaelMaggs 07:29, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose cropping --Bergwolf 11:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose--João Carvalho 14:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose The cropping is not nice --Makro Freak 13:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
```result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 06:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
```

### Image:Hydrangea macrophylla 01.jpg, not featured

#1 #2

• #1, not featured
•  Info created by MJJR - uploaded by MJJR - nominated by MJJR -- MJJR 20:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support -- MJJR 20:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)+
```result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 06:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
```

• #2, not featured
•  Info I cropped it to get rid of the grey metal thing in the upper right corner and increased saturation by 1. --Digon 14:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Info Actually, the 'grey metal thing' in the upper right corner is simply a Hosta leaf damaged by snails... -- MJJR 09:01, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --Digon 14:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Sorry, a QI maybe, but the composition hasn't in my view been considered nearly carefully enough to be acceptable as a FP. --MichaelMaggs 07:28, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose cropping --Bergwolf 11:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose--João Carvalho 14:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose The cropping is strange. --Makro Freak 13:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
```result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 06:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
```

### image:Inscriptions on torii, Fushimi Inari shrine, Kyoto.jpg, featured

•  Info created by MichaelMaggs - uploaded by MichaelMaggs - nominated by MichaelMaggs. This image shows the inscriptions on the famous torii gates, not visible in the existing FP of this shrine: see here (the colour in that picture is too deeply red - the torii are actually much more orange than is shown there). --MichaelMaggs 20:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --MichaelMaggs 20:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Neutral Support hey a nice composition - i really like it. Really too bad that this lower character is cut. Have to think aboutt it? Btw what lense did you use? --AngMoKio 20:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
It was a Canon EFS 17-55mm. --MichaelMaggs 07:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support - Good composition and quality. Any Japanese speaking guy around? - Alvesgaspar 20:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Yes, the inscriptions list the donors. The prominent one in the foreground was contributed by a construction company; its name is most prominent and its representative director is in smaller letters. The neighboring column lists people only; perhaps a company name is out of sight to the right. The third one shows the company and so forth. The fourth one has the company's telephone number on it. Not very romantic, I'm afraid. But the photo is nice! Fg2 21:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC) + 02:25, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Very nice photo Raphael17 19:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Vassil 22:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Neutral--João Carvalho 14:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Romary 08:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
```result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Simonizer 06:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
```

### Image:"La Boqueria" Market (Barcelona, Spain).JPG, not featured

•  Info created, uploaded and nominated by [[User:--C·A·S·K 12:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)|casuarez85]]
•  Support --C·A·S·K 12:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose I don't like the lighting in this. --Digon3 talk 14:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Skewed, composition --Digitaldreamer 17:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose lighting. -- Ram-Man 02:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose lighting. --Bergwolf 11:37, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --Jeses 13:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Support The lighting is probably due to a blind or umbrella overhead, isn't it? Anyway, it adds a warm hue to the image. Beautiful illustration of a plentiful mediterranean market. --wg 21:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Pretty! Dachi 16:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Support I just like it Mike-tango 13:14, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Support So colorful, and it's true the light adds a warm hue, anyway I like it. --AdrF 22:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
```result: 6 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 06:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
```

### Image:Euchroea-auripimenta-on-passiflora.jpg, featured

•  Info created b & uploaded & nominated by --Makro Freak talk 14:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Info A nice Rose chafer on a Passionflower.
•  Support --Makro Freak talk 14:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Comment What is wrong with the head, it looks oversharpened. --Digon3 talk 14:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• No clue, looks fine 2 me. --Makro Freak talk 14:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Looks like a bit of motion blur to me --MichaD | Michael Apel 21:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• He turned his head towards me and said "Hey Richard, what a lovely day!" and i answered with a friendly "click" --Makro Freak talk 14:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Yeah, looks fine in source, too. --Digitaldreamer 17:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --Karelj 19:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Tbc 21:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Beautiful colors and composition. Vassil 22:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Very pretty. -- Ram-Man 02:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --MichaelMaggs 07:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --Bergwolf 11:35, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --Wiki mouse 18:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --J-Luc
•  Support--Mbz1 05:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
•  Support--João Carvalho 14:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --Simonizer 07:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --Hrast 22:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Support // tsca [re] 20:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --Pimke 06:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --Winiar 08:51, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Comment would appreciate some more info (where was it taken, e.g. - in the wild? in a terrarium? in a zoo?) Lycaon 15:38, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose lack of information , and DOF (minor). Lycaon 12:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
```result: 17 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 06:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
```

### Image:Oxysternon-conspicillatum male.jpg, featured

•  Info created & nominated by --Makro Freak talk 15:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --Makro Freak talk 15:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --Digitaldreamer 17:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --MichaelMaggs 07:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --Bergwolf 11:35, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --Wiki mouse 18:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support--Mbz1 05:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
•  Support--João Carvalho 14:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --Simonizer 07:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Support // tsca [re] 20:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Pimke 06:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --Winiar 08:52, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose weird illumination and not perfectly sharp for such a picture of an animal you can 'put' anywhere. Lycaon 15:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
If you say so --Makro Freak 17:31, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
```result: 11 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 06:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
```

### Image:Lactoria cornuta.0 - Aquarium Finisterrae.JPG, not featured

•  Info Lactoria cornuta in Aquarium Finisterrae (Corunna, Galicia, Spain) - uploaded and nominated by --Drow male 16:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --Drow male 16:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Raphael17 19:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Very nice shot, but the tail is cropped (not a big issue), the picture is very noisy and there are two ghost spots of light on the front of the fish (overexposition ?). Sting 20:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Very noisy and not sharp. --Digon3 talk 20:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Noisy. -- Ram-Man 02:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Quality --Bergwolf 11:35, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose - As opposers. (I have a feeling that this image has been nominated before?) /Daniel78 22:27, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
```result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 06:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
```

### Image:Ferrofluid in magnetic field.jpg, not delisted

•  Info When I first nominated the image, it was the only qualifying example of a ferrofluid on the Commons. I'm sure it was mostly its "coolness" factor that pushed it through despite numerous technical problems (blown highlights, fuzziness at the back, messy background.) Happily, the nomination seemed to push User:Gmaxwell into uploading high-res versions of his ferrofluid photographs, one of which is now also featured. With so many high-quality, high-res alternatives now available, and with recent upscaling of FPC requirements, I feel the version I uploaded really shouldn't keep its tag. (Original nomination)
•  Delist -- At least I can say I had one of my uploads featured for a whole year :) GeeJo (t)(c) • 04:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Delist only because of low resolution. Except for resolution, I like this one better than the other FP. I almost voted "keep", as this isn't an obvious delisting. -- Ram-Man 12:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Delist --MichaelMaggs 21:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
```result: 3 Delist, 0 Keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. Simonizer 07:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
```

### File:Coat of arms of the British Antarctic Territory.svg, featured

•  Info created by Masur - uploaded by Masur - nominated by Szczepan1990
Very nice, colorful coat of arms, based on [4]. Already featured on polish-wiki and possesed the title of quality image. --Szczepan talk 12:27, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --Szczepan talk 12:27, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support M@rcin Suwalczan [talk] 13:42, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Support - good work! Schimmelreiter 08:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --Jeses 13:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Support // tsca [re] 20:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose--Lmbuga gl, pt, es: contacta comigo 18:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Comment May I ask for a reason of your negative vote?Masur 05:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose - Not special enough. The kitschy design doesn't help either. - Alvesgaspar 21:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Info Sorry, but it wasn't me who design this COA ;). I've just svg'ed it. Masur 05:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
•  SupportWpedzich 10:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Ala z 14:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Comment If you will fix the text (place it on the path or sth), you've got my support vote. It is important in SVG to draw every single detail. Hołek ҉ 14:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Support, but I had to do it myself. ;) Hołek ҉ 13:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose There are better COA's because of their beauty colours, complexity & details, well SVGed... but this... why? There are datails which will look better with gradients (penguin, helmet) and the lion looks bad drawn: Not special enough. --Dachi 15:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
So nominate them too. There are so few featured SVG, that is even hard to find some "quality templates" and help to improve your own work with them. Masur 08:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --WarX 17:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC) Ugly as original image ;)
•  Support --Winiar 08:54, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
```result: 10 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 07:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
```
•  Comment How could this image become featured without source information? This nomination says that it is based on [5] so this is clearly a derivative work. But the image description does not mention the original image or its copyright status. /90.229.135.239 10:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

### Image:Cetoniidae Torynorrhina.jpg, featured

•  Info created & nominated by --Makro Freak talk 12:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Info This is another nice Rose-chafer. I like the greentones on the bug playing with the browntones in the background. The sharpness is exactly where it should be and the DOF compensates the distractness of the background.
•  Support --Makro Freak talk 12:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Support --Wiki mouse 18:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

•  Support --J-Luc
•  Support--Mbz1 05:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
•  Support --MichaelMaggs 08:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --Bergwolf 09:10, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Support--João Carvalho 13:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Support // tsca [re] 20:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --Prevert(talk) 22:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Comment would appreciate some more info (where was it taken, e.g. - in the wild? in a terrarium? in a zoo?) Lycaon 06:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
```result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 07:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
```

### Image:Rom vatikan 1.jpg, not featured

•  Info created by jacoon - uploaded by jacoon - nominated by Lars --84.183.204.13 13:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose too small --Simonizer 13:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --Karelj 22:27, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Size --Makro Freak talk 12:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose too small. --MichaelMaggs 20:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose too small and a bit overexposed (even if it was a difficult subject) Alessio Damato 21:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
```result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
```

### Image:Porsche detail amk.jpg, not featured

•  Info Detail of a Porsche car. Created, uploaded, nominated by AngMoKio --AngMoKio 15:48, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --AngMoKio 15:48, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Question Do you choosed b/w because of the overexposed fender ? --Makro Freak 18:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
actually i chose it bcs i think the photo looks better in b/w --AngMoKio 18:29, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support - MartinD 09:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose overexposed -- Gorgo 12:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose--João Carvalho 14:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose overexposed --Bergwolf 22:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose I do not see any reason for this nomination --Karelj 22:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose I like old Porsche cars. The overexposed fender isnt nice --Makro Freak 08:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
What is your general opinion of the composition. I'd be happy to get a feedback concerning that. Concerning the overexposure I think it is not disturbing here - but I know tastes are different :) --AngMoKio 09:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
You are right, tastes are different. Here it was not my taste to decline this nice picture, it was more a aspect to decline any overexposure for FP. In general the idea is great to make some "retro" ambiente with this car, but what disturbed me a little was the title. You wrote Porsche detail in the header. When i was searching for details i found a blurry Porsche sign where i can not propperly read Stuttgart on it. So the only detail is the chrome frame of the light, surrounded by a overexposured fender. So what would you decide? --Makro Freak talk 11:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your feedback. In general I agree with you - my photo is not in a high-end quality. I chose detail in the title as it doesn't show the whole car but a detail of it. But I think that we have a severe lack of good compositions in the FPCs...that's why I think photos shouldn't get opposed bcs of some minor technical flaws. For example your really great photo Image:Sicus_ferrugineus_side.jpg has a front focus but it became a FP and I definitely agree with it bcs the photo has simply a great content, then i can ignore some technical flaws. But this should be true for all kind of photos. I don't want to say that my photo has a perfect composition - I only tried my best. It may even be that the technical flaw in my photo is really too big. But to oppose without even a comment about the composition is in my opinion not fair and also not helpful. Ok that was what I wanted to say :) --AngMoKio 14:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
This picture as a example Image:Sicus_ferrugineus_side.jpg had no big support (less than 10) because of that. Can i see your picture in color ? I would see if i was wrong with my opinion --Makro Freak talk 16:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Anyway your photo became FP - that's what matters and it is ok like that (as it should be with other photos with minor technical flaws too). I can give you the original photo though i don't question your statement about the photo --AngMoKio 16:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Aber jetzt mal ehrlich ... findest du nicht auch das dieses Bild oder der Affe im Vergleich zu deinen bisherigen, schönen FP Bildern stark abfallen? Für jedes erworbene FP Bild in deiner Gallerie (ein jedes fast perfekt) hätte ich dir einen dicken Support gegeben wenn ich damals schon dabei gewesen wäre. Sicher ist das bitter wenn eine großartige Arbeit den Bach heruntergeht, bin mir aber sicher das du bald mit etwas Großem anrückst! --Makro Freak talk 19:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Naja...ich sach mal mir gefallen die schon, sonst hätte ich sie nicht hier rein gestellt. Es ging mir aber eigentlich etwas ums Prinzip, da mir eine gute Komposition immer am wichtigsten ist. Ich finde es halt immer etwas schade, wenn man ein oppose-overexposed vorgesetzt bekommt obwohl das Bild ansich vielleicht ganz gut ist. Zumindest ein Kommentar könnte man dazu abgeben. Ich will hier auch nicht meine Bilder durchkämpfen...mit dem was hier entschieden wird kann ich leben und akzeptiere das auch. Grundsätzlich fände ich halt längere Statements zu den Bildern (speziell bei oppose) besser. Aber keine Sorge ich werde hier noch ganz großartige Bilder reinstellen! ;-) --AngMoKio 19:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Das will ich aber auch hoffen, du! :) :U :)--Makro Freak talk 20:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
```result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
```

### Image:Along the River 7-119-3.jpg, featured

```result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 07:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
```

### Image:Azulejos Parque Eduardo VII-2.jpg, featured

•  Info Panel of glazed tiles by artist Jorge Colaço (1922) representing an episode of the battle of Aljubarrota (1385) between the Portuguese and Castilian armies. The Ala dos Namorados (Wing of the fiancés) was the left wing of the Portuguese defense formation. Lisboa, Pavilhão Carlos Lopes. Created and nominated by Alvesgaspar --Alvesgaspar 22:37, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --Alvesgaspar 22:37, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Very interesting --MichaelMaggs 08:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Support--João Carvalho 13:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Nice! It reminds me the church of São Lourenço dos Matos at Almansil, near Loulé. -- MJJR 16:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Perfect colors and definition. Paulo Juntas 20:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Vassil 21:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --Bergwolf 22:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --Karelj 22:26, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose and  Delete Jorge Colaço died in 1942. This Azulejos is not in the public domain. In Portugal it's 70 years after the author's death. Please wait 2012. Petrusbarbygere 05:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Thats irrelevant cause of the freedom of panorama. The mentioned Pavilhão Carlos Lopes is in a puplic park. --Simonizer 08:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Info - Simonizer is right. Portuguese law ("Código do direito de autor e dos direitos conexos", 2004. Article 75º,2,g) explicitly considers the right of reprodution of artistisc works when they are exposed in public spaces (right of "panorama"). That is exactly the case of this one, which is in the outside wall of a building, in a public park. - Alvesgaspar 08:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Ok, if everything is cleared ... --Makro Freak talk 10:56, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Neutral Dont know exactly how to handle this. Should i judge the photo or the piece of art? --Simonizer 12:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• The photodrapher is secondary, here. --Makro Freak 13:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Comment - My opinion is that reprodutions of works of art should be evaluated here on their illustrative value (in this case as an example of the Portuguese "blue glazed tiles") and photographic quality, with the artistic componenent contributing (or not) to the necessary "wow factor". - Alvesgaspar 13:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Please Freedom of panorama isn't a freedom of reproduce. Where is the paronama here ? Please consider this picture is ok for speedy delete. Please, we need trust in Commons's medias. I have nice Picasso who can be avalueted here on their illustrative value. If we want some I can upload this. Petrusbarbygere 23:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Info - Please check the article on Freedom of panorama more carefully. In the Portuguese law, "freedom of panorama" means exactly freedom to photograph and publish. I don't understand what Picasso works have to do with this issue. Did he make any glazed tiles? - Alvesgaspar 00:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
• Ok sorry. I  Support it now. Thanks for your explications.05:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --wau > 22:34, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
```result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Simonizer 07:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
```

### Image:Hydrangea Macrophylla 03.jpg, not featured

•  Info created by MJJR - uploaded by MJJR - nominated by MJJR -- MJJR 19:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Support -- MJJR 19:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --Makro Freak 19:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
•  I withdraw my support & * Oppose the background is 2 blurry for me in source --Makro Freak talk 20:52, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Shot on a cloudy day? Blue tint. Also, why not withdraw your other nomination? --Digitaldreamer 19:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Overexposed, sorry - check the histogram. --MichaelMaggs 20:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose the composition is a bit too straight forward--AngMoKio 21:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Прекрасное, wonderful! --wau > 22:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
•  I withdraw my support Having looked at the picture now, I found it is not as good as I thought! (Perhaps it is better to look at the picture before the vote.)--wau > 22:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
When withdrawing support, please strike out the original votes (as I've done above). Otherwise it makes life very difficult for whoever has to close the nomination. --MichaelMaggs 16:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree with MichaelMaggs. It would be nice just to strike out the support vote and make a oppose vote instead. Counting the votes is much easier so --Simonizer 08:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
```result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 08:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
```

### Image:Callistemon Flower Cropped.jpg, not featured

•  Info created, uploaded and nominated by Extranet. --Extranet 00:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --Extranet 00:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Comment: If this picture is not promoted, can I please get a summary of the things that have to improve. Thanks! Extranet 00:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose The image lacks sharpness and there seems to be a lot blurring --sanjay_ach 00:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Lack of sharpness --Makro Freak 02:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Blurred. --Digon3 talk 17:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
```result: 1 support, 3 oppose, x neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 08:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
```

•  Info Red-headed Finch (Amadina erythrocephala) in Sossusvlei, Namibia. Created, uploaded and nominated by Lycaon -- Lycaon 16:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Support -- Lycaon 16:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Strong support Ziga 17:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Support strange atmosphere... cool! Alessio Damato 17:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Neutral Against the trend ... lovely animal in thumb but very noisy background in source. Regards, --Makro Freak talk 18:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Noisy, strange lighning, animal feet stuck in the ground, hard decisssion, sorry. Regards --Makro Freak talk 14:27, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Do you still satisfied your desire for revenge? I thought you are more firm. When I can see more pictures from Namibia? --Makro Freak talk 20:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Support--Mbz1 19:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
•  Support Winiar 19:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose a nice picture. But DOF is too small and the overall quality (noise, sharpness) is unfortunatelly quite low. I know such a 400mm shot is tough...you needed iso400. --AngMoKio 19:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Noise, sharpness, and the background lighting is distracting. --Digon3 talk 19:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Support -- MJJR 20:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Support /Daniel78 22:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose The noise is not to my taste. --Bergwolf 20:00, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Nice, is so difficult to take birds pictures, I like this one :)--AdrF 22:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose I really like the setting, but the noise is very present, unlike the bird's feet. --Digitaldreamer 01:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Nice Subject, but the lighting went down the drain, Ouch! --Wiki mouse 17:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
•  I agree with the 'noise' factor. I'll try some noise reduction and resubmit later -- Lycaon 06:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
```result: Nomination withdrawn => not featured.  Simonizer 08:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
```

### Image:Elephant Beetle Megasoma elephas Male Side 2699px.jpg, not featured

#### Left Version, not featured

•  Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Ram-Man. 02:18, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Info An Elephant Beetle (Megasoma elephas) feeding on sugar cane in Costa Rica.
•  Support This is a special shot of a beautiful insect. -- Ram-Man 02:18, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --MichaelMaggs 07:23, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Neutral 50/50. Nice object, technically good but boring composition --Bergwolf 11:33, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Let's raise the bar. Boring composition --Bergwolf 22:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Makrofreak loves bugs. --Makro Freak talk 12:53, 30 June 2007 (UTC) I dont support interactive remixing. --Makro Freak 08:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• What do you mean? -- Ram-Man 11:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• I had that same with Alvesgaspar. Why improving pictures during a nomination? --Makro Freak talk 12:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• I didn't improve the picture during the nomination. Someone else added another version! The rules don't allow me to do anything about other nominations, so please don't hold it against me. I can't believe you'd withdraw your support for my picture just because someone else wants a different version. If you don't want the other versions, oppose them individually. -- Ram-Man 12:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Suddenly i dont know which version is better. (Now) The moody original or the brighter one with less detail. Untill i found this out my vote remains like it is.--Makro Freak talk 16:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --Wiki mouse 18:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Neutral Joli mais terne. --J-Luc
•  Oppose Looks like a staged image--Mbz1 05:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
•  Oppose - Agree with Bergwolf. I think it is the time to raise the "Flower & insect" FP bar a little. - Alvesgaspar 13:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• I thought a simplistic composition was ideal. It's got an ideal non-distracting background. The foreground is great because it shows the insect well and shows a food that they eat. It's not like it's just any old boring stick. We have tons of insects on flowers, but nothing like this. It is not a flower which I suspect is the real reason it is found to be "boring". Not colorful enough. -- Ram-Man 13:25, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Support--João Carvalho 14:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Composition works for me --MichaD | Michael Apel 21:04, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Nope. It's feeding slowly on the sugar cane. They're most active after dark, so they'll move much slower in the daytime when this picture was taken. -- Ram-Man 21:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Support - very sharp and detailed beetle. --typhoonchaser 03:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Sorry, I just can't get over that initial impression of a dead bug. If it actually is alive, it's a very unfortunate posture. --Digitaldreamer 14:22, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Comment - Might be a shame if neither of these pictures go through to become an FP... --typhoonchaser 13:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• The vote was split by the unfortunate introduction of a second version. Losing two or three support votes may kill its chances. Instead of voting for both pictures and "may the one with the most support votes win", people only vote for one and let the other one die. It's a shame, because those support votes were made under the impression that the picture was good enough for a FP. The picture didn't change just because another version was introduced, but somehow it's no longer good enough. The FP process is getting too wearisome. -- Ram-Man 16:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Wearisome? Why should every poll be straight for you, everytime. Thats democracy. --Makro Freak talk 21:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• You missed the point. There are 3 versions and people are not willing to support multiple versions and let the one with the most votes win. As a result, none of them are successful. When evaluated on its own merits, it would be successful. The problem isn't that the picture isn't good enough or that we need to raise the bar, the problem is the split vote. There are too many good photos that no one can agree on which one is best, so the result is none will be featured. Some people like this version, some like the one below, and you like the one you linked. This is rediculous. Under this system, I'll have to upload photos one at a time so my own photos don't compete with each other. If I nominate the one you link, chances are that it wouldn't be supported because other versions are preferred. This is wearisome and almost not worth the effort. -- Ram-Man 22:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Jina Lee 17:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
•  OpposeI like this version more Lets raise the bar! --Makro Freak talk 21:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• I nominated it for a FP, but I doubt it will be successful for the reasons stated above. Either you or I will be right. Time will tell, but of course by then it will be too late for this one that was really the best one of the three. -- Ram-Man 23:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
```result: 5 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
```

#### Right Version, not feartured

•  Comment Felt this badly needed a little PS work, so I've uploaded an edit --Fir0002 www 23:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --MichaelMaggs 06:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Support I prefer the original. The sugarcane in this version loses detail, but I suppose this will do. -- Ram-Man 11:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Support // tsca [re] 20:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --Wiki mouse 17:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Oversaturated --Makro Freak 20:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Neutral - the body looks brighter but the sugarcane looks a little too bright. --typhoonchaser 03:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose The sugarcane loses too much detail and it looks a bit oversaturated. --Digon3 talk 15:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Oversaturated --Digitaldreamer 14:18, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose It does look dead--Mbz1 00:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
•  Comment This is not my nomination, so can't technically withdraw, but it is my photograph and it has no chance of success, so I'd prefer it withdrawn. -- Ram-Man 11:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
```result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 21:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
```

### image:Une guêpe sur son nid en papier.jpg, not featured

 Original version Version with noise reduction

#### Original version, not featured

•  Info created and uploaded by J-Luc - nominated by J-Luc 15:52, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --J-Luc 15:52, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Info The same wasp, taken this afternoon. I have tried to take care about the noise (400ASA), the sun (taken in the shadow), the composition. Made 100, kept only 1... :-)
•  Support Vassil 23:47, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support--João Carvalho 14:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose I really like this picture, especially the colors. I can not understand why you cutted the wing. In my eyes the cutted wing destroys the whole picture. A hard decission for me. --Makro Freak 08:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Info I have used a tripod, it was centered on the wasp "looking" at me. Suddendly, she took this position and I was happy to have it "3/4" but did not have the time to unscrew/reposition the tripod, I "forced" the tripod to change the composition and I took care not to crop the antennas (first plane) but sorry for the wing. Ok for the "noise" but I don't see a lot of noise on the EOS20D at 400ISO...

See reponse below... (J-Luc)

```result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
```

#### Version with noise reduction, not fearured

•  Info The background is so far oof that it's easy to remove the noise from it --MichaD | Michael Apel 21:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --MichaD | Michael Apel 21:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Vassil 22:04, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose dont like the crop --Bergwolf 22:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose I really like this picture, especially the colors. I can not understand why you cutted the wing. In my eyes the cutted wing destroys the whole picture. A hard decission for me. --Makro Freak 08:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Info - Several "quality images" are croped. A very little part of my wasp wing is missing, but these are example where the crop is sometimes more important. The rules must be the same for everybody.

•  Comment None of the example pictures would get support from me. You cannot fit this cropping thing in rules. This is a personal aspect. --Makro Freak talk 11:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Info - Ok, I give up. I am afraid that technical aspects are more important that emotional and artistic considerations.
•  Comment Spoken for me, it should have both. --Makro Freak talk 15:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Info - I agree, but keep in mind that it is amateur work... (J-Luc)
• I allways have this in my mind. If you post this whole FP List onto fotocommunity.de -->fotocommunity.de as a example, you will get not a single response on any picture. The benchmark is very low here onto Commons.--Makro Freak talk 22:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose - What I don't like in this picture is the extreme close-up, making only a small part of the wasp focused. But that is also a personnal preference I suppose. - Alvesgaspar 19:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Info - I like this "E.T. monster with helmet" effect... (J-Luc) 19:46 (UTC), 2007/07/02
•  Support - Beautiful macro shot, great details in the eye zone, shallow depth of field is not really a problem here. Cropped wings are a bit annoying but is far from "killing the image". --Nattfodd 23:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Winiar 08:48, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose - Even most parts of the head are not really sharp. --wau > 22:51, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
```result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 21:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
```

### Image:Compact disc.svg, not featured

•  Info created by Sakurambo - uploaded by Sakurambo - nominated by Kulshrax --Kulshrax 11:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --Kulshrax 11:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose SVG + embedded raster = sth not really useful.Masur 13:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose As above - SVG with raster graphic makes it inscalable. Herr Kriss 13:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Comment That is not necessarily true. The nature of the embedded bitmap makes it scalable, because even enlarged pixels will hold the same pattern, and blurriness would not be an issue. It have tried scaling it up to large (over 10,000x10,000 pixels) sizes in multiple graphics programs, and have been able to scale it up just fine. The embedded bitmap would only pose a problem if it was depicting something more photographic that needed to remain sharp and undistorted, which, again, doesn't appear to be the case here. Kulshrax 14:45, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Comment Nice pic. But scaled on the overview page it is not visible, only when i click on the image.---donald- 07:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Comment Thanks for the nomination :-) I just wanted to point out that the embedded JPEG bitmap in this image is very blurry, so the pixels will be very hard to pick out no matter how much you scale it. The circular edges are formed using clipping masks, so they will render perfectly at any size. The SVG standard currently doesn't support tangential gradients, so an embedded bitmap is the only practical solution — compare this image (43 KB) with Image:CD-R.svg (5.61 MB) and hopefully you'll see what I mean. -- Sakurambo 11:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Info I've just uploaded a slightly revised version with an SVG gaussian blur filter applied to the embedded JPEG. The pixels are now completely invisible at all scales. File size is now just 21 KB. -- Sakurambo 11:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Good Quality. ---donald- 07:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --typhoonchaser 03:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Strong  Oppose (svg + raster) --Szczepan talk 11:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Dont oppose without reason. That is not polite. Please say why you dont like the picture! --Simonizer 11:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Good quality. I have no problem with raster in a situation where it works. /Daniel78 22:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose SVG + raster Roman 92 talk 09:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
```result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 21:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
```

### Image:Nodding Pincushion Protea Flower Bud.jpg, not featured

•  InfoNodding Pincushion Protea Flower Bud. The flower is native to South Africa.
•  Info created ,uploaded and nominated by Mbz1 --Mbz1 00:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --Mbz1 00:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --MichaelMaggs 05:22, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Support It reminds me on a wig --Makro Freak talk 13:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Support - Very good quality and detail. But why a crop so tight? - Alvesgaspar 20:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Vassil 17:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Basik07 22:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
•  The flower is too common--Mbz1 23:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
```result: Nomination withdrawn => not featured. Simonizer 21:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
```

### Image:Revolução de 1930.jpg, not featured

Question Dear Dantadd, why you think this should be a FP ? --Makro Freak 08:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
This should be a FP because is a rare and good quality picture, taken by an important author, picturing a very important moment in Brazilian history (the guy on the center, because of the action captured in the picture, was president (dictator) of Brazil during 15 years!). In a few words: the image captured a defining moment of history. Dantadd 13:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose  Delist Historical value doesn't compensate the lack of resolution and overall picture quality. Sorry. --Digitaldreamer 04:44, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Resolution. --MichaelMaggs 08:30, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Comment: if it was American or European history I'm sure your judgement will be different. What a pitty, but it doesn't surprise me, it was expected. Dantadd 14:18, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
It's a pretty good quality picture, with a very good B&W composition, picturing very nitid faces. It has not the resolution I'd wanted, but it's absolutely enough for a picture taken in 1930. But now this election is already over with you "oppose" votes. There's no turning back, it's the bad habit of digital pictures, we get spoiled. Dantadd 15:12, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• It doesn't meet the FP requirements regarding resolution and, in my opinion, focus. I fail to see where this is a matter of nationalities. --Digitaldreamer 15:17, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
The requirements state clearly that some rules can be broken with good reasons and I already presented them. I didn't expected this kind of biased criticism, you even want to delist the picture, a nasty action in opinion. I resignate myself. Dantadd 15:29, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• I chose to vote delist due to the basic FP requirements not being met. And, after all, I carry only one vote, which I sincerely ask you to accept without the accusation of me victimizing you. Thank you. --Digitaldreamer 15:51, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
You're not victimizing me, but this very good and interesting picture, but ethnocentrism is something a lot of people simply don't see. Dantadd 17:16, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Quality and resolucion is on the low side, sorry. Saludos efectuosos, --Makro Freak talk 15:04, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
```result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 21:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
```

### Image:Arbresfosilise.jpg, not featured

•  Info created by Serge Laviolette - uploaded by Capbat - nominated by Jeses --Jeses 08:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Simply great --Jeses 08:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Underexposed, and I would like to see a few more pieces of Petrified wood in the picture. --Digon3 talk 14:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Too underexposed for my taste, sorry. Regards, --Makro Freak talk 16:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Exposure. Also it neither really shows les Arbres nor the fossils. Sorry. --Digitaldreamer 05:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Presumably those who have opposed for underexposure meant overexposure? Some of the clouds are overexposed, but the rest is OK if a little flat and lacking in contrast. I'm not wild about the composition, though. --MichaelMaggs 21:38, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
```result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 21:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
```

### Image:Oberlech2.JPG, not featured

#### Original version, not featured

•  Info de:Naturschutzgebiet, Gipslöcher Oberlech, (Lech am Arlberg, Austria) eingerichtet 1988, 21 ha / im Hintergrund die (Mohnenfluh 2544m)
•  Info created, uploaded by and nominated by Böhringer 09:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --Böhringer 09:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose nice landscape picture, but could be a bit sharper and the sign on the bottom bothers me --Simonizer 10:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose lacks of sharpness in source, looks good in thumbnail, composition is so so. Regards Makro Freak 11:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Its a good picture, but it is too unsharp. --Digon3 talk 14:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose a nice scene but i miss the special kick abt the photo. I think it is also a bit tilted.--AngMoKio 19:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
```result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 21:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
```

#### Edit, not featured

Info I've seen the sign, so as Böhringer encouraged my besetting sin, I propose an edit without it and with a slight adjusting. Vassil 14:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

•  Oppose Its a good picture, but it is too unsharp. --Digon3 talk 14:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose lacks of sharpness in source, looks good in thumbnail, composition is so so. Regards, --Makro Freak talk 16:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose a nice scene but i miss the special kick abt the photo. I think it is also a bit tilted.--AngMoKio 19:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Snapshot level. Sorry. --Digitaldreamer 04:58, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose As per statement Digitaldreamer --Bergwolf 20:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Not a hikers best --Wiki mouse 18:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
```result: 0 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 21:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
```

### Image:602Rappenloch3.JPG, not featured

•  Infode: Rappenlochschlucht in Dornbirn, im Winter gesperrt
•  Support --Böhringer 10:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose ??? --Makro Freak 11:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose It is underexposed with overexposed parts. You don't want to be able to see the sun if you are taking pictures inside a cave. --Digon3 talk 14:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose As per Digon3. Sorry. --Digitaldreamer 04:54, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Much too rigorous lighting --Bergwolf 20:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Odd exposure --Wiki mouse 18:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
```result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 21:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
```

### Image:Darjeeling Himalayan Railway panorama.jpg, not featured

•  Support --Planemad 14:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Overall it is overexposed and has 2 sun streaks. However, there are few stitching errors and no ghosting, good job on that. --Digon3 talk 14:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Oppose Quality, sorry. Regards, --Makro Freak talk 16:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment Can you please elaborate on quality? Noise, blurry, out of focus? Digon, Can you tell me where the sun streaks are? maybe i can fix it--Planemad 16:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Both sun streaks are in the middle of the church-like structure on the hill and is most noticable in the bushes (there is also some missing pixels from stitching on the very top and some by the concrete blocks on the bottom right). --Digon3 talk 19:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
The whole picture seems very harsh 2 me, Regards --Makro Freak talk 18:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose For the most part overexposed. Sorry. --Digitaldreamer 04:54, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Odd exposure --Wiki mouse 18:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
```result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 21:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
```

### Image:Mosquee-missiri-frejus-3.jpg, not featured

•  Info created by Greudin - uploaded by Greudin - nominated by Greudin --Greudin 15:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --Greudin 15:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Lacks contrast, blurry, and artifacts. --Digon3 talk 15:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Too many artefacts and unsharp, sorry. Regards, --Makro Freak talk 16:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose ... and composition; sorry. --MichaelMaggs 21:33, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Blurry --Wiki mouse 17:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
```result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 21:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
```

### Image:WasenbourgRock.JPG, not featured

•  Info created by Wssw - uploaded by Wssw - nominated by Wssw -- SW by Wssw 16:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Support SW by Wssw 16:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose the sky is overexposed Alessio Damato 17:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose The sky may be overexposed, but it is not blown white, so I don't have a problem with that. For me, the picture lacks a wow factor and the composition could be better (e.g. Not centered). --Digon3 talk 16:01, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose composition. --MichaelMaggs 21:32, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Poor buildup --Bergwolf 20:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Too common arrangement --Wiki mouse 17:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
```result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 21:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
```

### Image:Heron at lake.JPG, not featured

•  InfoIt was really interesting to watch that heron walking on the floating leafs.
•  Info created ,uploaded and nominated by Mbz1 --Mbz1 19:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --Mbz1 19:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Harsh lighting. It is interesting though. --Digon3 talk 19:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• I've missed you opposing my images. I'm glad we're back to normal once again--Mbz1 20:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
Opposing has nothing to do you as a photographer and I have never had a problem with you. I am sorry if you feel like I oppose all your images. IMO this picture just has too harsh lighting to be a FP. --Digon3 talk 20:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• I really ment what I said. I like better, when my images are opposed than, when nobody opposes and/or supports them because then it is getting really boring. So there's nothing to be sorry about.--Mbz1 22:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
Ah, ok. --Digon3 talk 01:44, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Support I dont find the lighting overly distracting. Its a beautiful bird and the background is interesting. Wildlife shots are difficult, you can't ask the subject to move into better light. Where was this taken btw? I'm curious what kind of heron it is.... -(psylexic)
• The picture was taken in San Francisco ZOO. The bird was not in a cage and I saw him flying across that wide pond. I believed he was a wild bird. Yet I've never seen such a bird in San Francisco, but I did see something like this in Bali, Indonesia. I went to look for him on the NET and now I believe he is a Pond-Heron and he is not wild because looks like they do not live in SF. I believe his wings were cut just enough to make him able to fly only a short distanse.--Mbz1 18:25, 7 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
• thanks, I was wondering about the goldfish - now I understand. -psylexic
•  Oppose Sorry. The lighting is too harsh, the background distracting, and for FP status the bird needs to be properly identified to the species level. --MichaelMaggs 13:38, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose The lighning is 2 harsh for my taste, partialy overexposed, sorry. Regards --Makro Freak talk 14:37, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Unfavourable lighting --Bergwolf 19:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Boring arrangement --Wiki mouse 17:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Uncomfortable lighting and exposure. Not good enough for a FP, but still a nice picture. -- Ram-Man 11:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
•  I cannot agree with "Boring arrangement". Usually I do not take boring pictures--Mbz1 23:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
```result: Nomination withdrawn => not featured. Simonizer 21:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
```

### Image:Green bee in a flower.jpg, not featured

•  Info Green Bee
•  Info created ,uploaded and nominated by Mbz1 --Mbz1 19:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --Mbz1 19:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Harsh lighting, the shadow is distracting, the bee is not sharp and there are (artifacts?). --Digon3 talk 19:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Neutral very beautiful picture and beautiful colors, it's really a pity that the bee is not sharp. Vassil 20:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose The artefacts are not nice and the insect could be sharper, sorry. Regards --Makro Freak talk 14:33, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Unattractive lightning --Bergwolf 19:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Neutral I like the picture, but light isn't good Basik07 09:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose quality --Wiki mouse 17:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose quality and no proper (=exact) ID. Lycaon 08:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
• It really does not matter, but ID is proper.--Mbz1 14:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
• The ID might be correct but it's a bit imprecise. "There are some 45 species in the genus". It's probably not easy to get a full ID with just that pic though. --MichaD | Michael Apel 16:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
• That is true Michael, but care should be taken by the author (if he/she wants his/her picture featured) to note such things on the spot and possibly make several other pics, for identification purposes. I personally (but that's me) will never even upload a photo of an unidentified organism. The value of pictures of unidentified plants or animals is not very high. Correct and complete IDs matter very much. Lycaon 17:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
• Then we agree. I wasn't opposing your opinion but rather trying to explain your original wording to Mbz :) --MichaD | Michael Apel 21:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Who said I wanted the picture featured. I was just making my point--Mbz1 23:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
• Which was what? Anrie 07:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
```result: Nomination withdrawn => not featured. Simonizer 21:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
```

### Image:Western Swallowtail butterfly.jpg, not featured

•  InfoWestern Swallowtail Butterfly
•  Info created ,uploaded and nominated by Mbz1 --Mbz1 21:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --Mbz1 21:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose If we are really going to "Raise the bar" on insect photos, then it has to have absolute technically perfection in addition to a wow factor. An out-of-focus wing is not technical perfection. -- Ram-Man 22:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Thats right --Makro Freak 08:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
• What exactly is right? The right wing is out of focus? Or maybe the left wing is out of focus?Then I guess you should have said:"Thats left",or maybe both wings are out of focus? Then should not you have said "Thats both"?--09:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
• Sorry for my bad english, i meant that i agree with Ram-Man about the perfection for FP Makro Freak 1007, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
• What's a pitty. I really wanted to learn what wing is out of focus(and to learn it from such insects autority as you are), not to repeat the same mistake the next time.--Mbz1 13:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
• Sorry, my foul mouth forgets sometimes :). The wings are ok, but the head is really out of focus which is not nice for a top shot, plus the flower is overexposed. I think its nearly impossible to make a really good insect picture without a tripod. --Makro Freak talk 15:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
• I wouldn't say that. For insects with large wings it's essential to be parallel to the wings. If your subject isn't holding perfectly still you are far less flexible with a tripod. In this special case the fault was to chose an aperture of f/5.6 at 1/1000s as the wings are not fully expanded (e.g. on a flat plane with the thorax). This could have easily been shot 3 stops down at f/11 and 1/125s which probably would have placed the complete butterfly inside the DOF. The background wouldn't have gotten prettier though --MichaD | Michael Apel 16:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
• Theoretically 1/1000s sounds great, and why you was exposing your dragonfly for 2seconds ? Regards --Makro Freak talk 16:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
• Thank you for advices, everybody. I'm afraid it will not help me the next time, because while I would be changing my camera settings fast flying, wild insect would fly away.~~----Mbz1
• I'm not saying you can't get good macro shots with a tripod but rather it isn't always a necessity for getting them. In my opinion macro photography is a constant struggle between getting enough DOF, light and shutter speed. If your subject isn't moving you can use a tripod and slow shutter speeds. In the Calopteryx virgo case it was cold and after a rain shower. If you shoot in the sun you certainly need a faster shutter simply because your subject will most probably move. But 1/1000s is overkill. This isn't sports photography and it's not a picture in-flight. 1/125s is usually enough to stop modest subject movement. Camera shake isn't a problem at this speed and 55mm as well. --MichaD | Michael Apel 21:37, 10 July 2007
• If you say so ;) --Makro Freak talk 21:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
```result: Nomination withdrawn => not featured. Simonizer 21:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
```

#### Image on the right, not featured

•  InfoWestern Swallowtail Butterfly
•  Info created ,uploaded and nominated by Mbz1 --Mbz1
•  Support --Mbz1 21:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
• Comment It is still the same butterfly, but a different shot. I believe the head is in focus now (of course I believed tha head was in focus at the left image too).--Mbz1 21:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
•  Oppose While the focus is more consistent in this one it's less sharp overall. It also has some very strange noise in the shadows which I'm quite puzzled why it is there at ISO 100. I also prefer the other composition. Sorry. --MichaD | Michael Apel 21:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Both the right and the left.I think I made my point. MichaD, there's is nothing to be sorry about. It was fun and I learned something new.-- Mbz1 23:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
```result: Nomination withdrawn => not featured. Simonizer 21:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
```

### Image:Elephant Beetle Megasoma elephas Male Top 2170px.jpg, not featured

•  Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Ram-Man. 22:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Info An Elephant Beetle (Megasoma elephas) feeding on sugar cane in Costa Rica.
•  Support "Raise the bar" as per Makro Freak here. -- Ram-Man 22:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Few legs and the horn at the front are out of focus. I do not like framing. Very annoying background. Besides it looks that the picture was staged. I assume somebody was holding a sugar can for the tourists taking pictures.Is it still the same dead beatle from your prior submission?--Mbz1 23:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
•  Comment That is not a fair comment, Mbz1. I suppose the staging argument is not valid here as it is also true for all the large beetles that passed here the last weeks!. The only thing keeping me from supporting this particular image is a focus issue. -- Lycaon 06:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
• I probably know very little about large beatles. I was sure that all last weeks images were real. If I knew they were not I would have never ever supported any one of them. I really do not like staged images.--08:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
• Oh they are real, and most probably alive too. But staged can also mean in a zoo or another artificial environment. Like a beetle from Madagascar sitting on a Brazilian flower (as with this Euchroea auripimenta for instance). It does not mean that FP can not be rewarded, but that kind of information should be provided. Lycaon 10:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose unfortunate background --Simonizer 07:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose also focus but I especially think that the composition is not convincing --AngMoKio 07:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
•  I think I made my point. -- Ram-Man 11:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
```result: Nomination withdrawn => not featured. Simonizer 21:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
```

### Image:Female Pandion.jpg, not featured

•  Info created by Psylexic - uploaded by Psylexic - nominated by Psylexic --Psylexic 03:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --Psylexic 03:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Only 800k pix, not enough light on the fish, very little visible detail. Siebrand 07:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Info I have uploaded a higher res version of this file. It should be sharper and large enough now (sorry about that). Also please consider the difficulty involved in approaching a wild raptor. thanks. --psylexic
•  Oppose Parts of the feet, head, wing, and even the plastic pile is overexposed. --Makro Freak talk 12:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Comment I agree the leg and the wooden post set up at five finger reef are overexposed. But I felt the light nicely accentuated the bird's face. Just a matter of oppinion I guess. --psylexic
•  Support--17:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
•  Comment Could you please fill out a complete template {{Information}} on the image, please? Aside from claiming here that you ar the author, it is formally missing from the image description. Cheers! Siebrand 17:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• No worries, hope there's enough info now -psylexic
•  Support --Karelj 20:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose good view... but bad light Alessio Damato 21:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose because of the overexposure Tbc 11:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
```result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 06:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
```

### Image:SeattleI5Skyline.jpg, featured

•  Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Cacophony 07:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --Cacophony 07:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Comment Great shot. But can it be that the picture is a little bit tilted? --Simonizer 07:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
I just put the full sized version in photoshop again and I can't find anything tilted, even zoomed to 500%. What part dosen't look straight? The building verticals are right on and the waterline at bottom right is also perfectly horizontal. The original file was off, but I uploaded a new one that corrected the problem (I think). Cacophony 08:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Awesome photo. --Psylexic
•  Support Sharp, great exposure and composition, and no noise. --Digon3 talk 17:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Support - Alvesgaspar 19:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Support // tsca [re] 20:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --Karelj 20:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Sleepless ... --Makro Freak talk 21:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Support keine Frage --Böhringer 22:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --Simonizer 22:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Simply great. Er Komandante (messages) 01:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Support impressive photo --AngMoKio 06:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --Jeses 12:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Support astonishing Richardfabi 20:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Support -- MJJR 20:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --Pimke 06:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --MichaelMaggs 17:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Support for sure --MichaD | Michael Apel 14:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --LeZibou 06:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Support What more has to be said? Booksworm 11:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Wow ... Great !!! Mike-tango 13:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Info Sorry, I found an error: a white dot upwards the end of the white car-lightning in the middle of the building. Not excellent! Perhaps to repair? --Lantus 11:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
That building you mention is a Red Lion Hotel and the light is their sign. Cacophony 16:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Support Obviously you know every corner of this area. My voting is o.k. ;-)) --Lantus 17:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
```result: 21 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 06:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
```

### Image:Bighornbattle1 pl.svg, not featured

•  Info created by Pitert - uploaded by Pitert - nominated by Przykuta 17:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --Przykuta 17:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Comment I propose to make it more international: use numbers or just translate to english.Masur 19:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Comment There's an English version in PNG format already, so translating this shouldn't be difficult. The two differ a little bit in the locations of things. I don't know if this is significant. Pengo 02:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
•  SupportMasur 19:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose no units in height scale bar (m, feet, other) Tbc 11:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Info Ther is m n.p.m. just in the top of that table, which means "meters above the sea level". Masur 19:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, but then again: m n.m.p. is not that clear for non-Polish speakers... Tbc 12:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Like others labels as well :) So that's why i suggested author to make it "international".Masur 14:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose - The elevation scale is wrong, this way the terrain is made of leveled steps. The image is somehow cluttered and "tight cropped", with big symbols and not enough empty space around. It would be nice to have an inset to show the location of the battle or, at least, to depict geographic coordinates. Finally, I'm sorry for not being totally able to evaluate something written in Polish. - Alvesgaspar 20:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the elevation classes are coarse, but to call them wrong is a step too far. There are always steps in elevation maps (they are never continuous, always discrete, might be interpolated but that's giving a false impression of accuracy). Tbc 10:40, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Alvesgaspar is right, this way all places with a given color have the same elevation. For each color there should be an elevation interval, not a single elevation. - 16:12, 8 July 2007 85.3.8.68
•  Oppose Nicely done, but I think the topography might be enhanced with the available PD NASA SRTM1 data (31m resolution) (has to be tested), the presentation of the elevation scale is weird, same for the North arrow and I don't like much the flashy colours. In fact, there's no « wow » for me in this map. Sting 23:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
```result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 06:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
```

### Image:Kamillenfeld mit Mohn vor der Veste Otzberg.JPG

```
```

#### Original Version, not featured

•  Info created by Reiner Müller - uploaded by Reiner Müller - nominated by Reiner Müller --Reiner Müller 20:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --Reiner Müller 20:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Underexposed. --Digon3 talk 20:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Totaly missing composition, very poor photo quality. --Karelj 20:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose DRI would work best here --Makro Freak talk 20:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose I dont agree with Karelj about the missing composition, the diagonal of the red flowers is quite nice. But i agree with Digon3 and Makro Freak --Simonizer 06:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --J-Luc Dark ambiance, enhanced by the underexposition. But you should remove the CCD dust shadow on the top left (and others). Noon, 2007-07-03
•  Neutral lighten the foreground a little, but leave the sky like this... --Jeses 12:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
```result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 06:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
```

#### Edited Version, not featured

•  Info I have uploaded a new edit. --Digon3 15:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Info Great work - Thanks a lot. --Reiner Müller 19:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Way better --Jeses 17:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose the gras is unsharp --Wiki mouse 17:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose - Interesting composition but poor quality. The wide angle lens distortion should be corrected. Alvesgaspar 20:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
```result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 06:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
```

#### Edited Version 2, not featured

•  Info Wide angle lens distortion corrected. --Digon3 talk 00:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose composition -- Gorgo 20:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Neutral I like the composition and the dark ambiance, the edit looks much better, unfortunately the pic isn't sharp enough. Vassil 22:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
```result: 0 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 06:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
```

### Image:Polyprion americanus.2 - Aquarium Finisterrae.JPG, not featured

•  Info Polyprion americanus in Aquarium Finisterrae (Corunna, Galicia, Spain) - uploaded and nominated by --Drow male 15:00, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --Drow male 15:00, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Very noisy and lighting. --Digon3 talk 15:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose I like it because it looks like a drawing but it is very noisy and the lighting is strange, sorry. Regards, --Makro Freak 16:09, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Very noisy --Bergwolf 19:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose low quality --Simonizer 12:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose quality --Wiki mouse 17:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
```result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 06:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
```

### Image:Bandeiras06052007.jpg - not featured

•  Info created by José Cruz - uploaded by Dantadd - nominated by João Felipe C.S --João Felipe C.S 21:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Amazing view. João Felipe C.S 21:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose This nomination was declined less than a year ago. Lycaon 21:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• And how long until it can be attempted again? Never? A year? -- Ram-Man 03:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
• There is no time limit that I know of, but the image has not improved meanwhile and was not withdrawn at that time... Lycaon 16:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
• In the last nomination someone voted against the image because they didn't think national flags should be featured. IMO, that's an invalid way to vote because the rules say nothing about banned classes of images. Remove that vote and it is one vote away from a support. That's close enough to merit a second try. In this case, you are voting simply because it was going to be reattempted? I don't consider that to be much of a reason. You should at least judge a picture on its own merits I think. This will likely fail much more conclusively this time, but at least the reasons for its failure will be stated. It should be given a chance to fail conclusively -- Ram-Man 00:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
• Fair enough. I still do think national flags should not be featured. Furthermore, the crop is kind of spoiling the image. Lycaon 18:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Support for now. July of last year is quite a while ago, even if it wasn't a complete year. The original nomination never garnered a large number of votes anyway, so I don't see a problem with trying it again. I specifically disagree with the idea that we can't feature a national flag. If it's a good picture, let's feature it. Even if we had a featured picture for every country's flag (unlikely of course), that still isn't a problem. -- Ram-Man 03:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose While its nicer than "flat" flags, this is a little overkill on the motion --ShakataGaNai Talk 06:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
• I like the idea but don't like the cropped flagpole, so  Neutral for now. --norro 08:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC) Btw: I don't see any problem with featuring photographs of national flags.
•  Oppose I don't like the left part with the flagpole either. It makes the image seem tilted and a bit messy. Also if the image is borderline FP (due to last oppose) I prefer to not have it FP. /Daniel78 09:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Support--Laziale93 10:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose for the same reason as last time. The image hasn't changed. --MichaelMaggs 17:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Support--Econt 20:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Daniel78 - 12:59, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose overkill in motion... Bthv 09:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
```4 support, 5 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 22:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
```

### Image:P. Brueghel II - De kindermoord.JPG, not featured

•  Info Musées royaux des Beaux-Arts de Belgique - created by Szilas - uploaded by Szilas - nominated by Szilas --Szilas 04:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --Szilas 04:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Again, focus and lighting. Sorry. --Digitaldreamer 02:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose it seems too dark --Simonizer 12:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose as above. -- Ram-Man 23:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose- bad light, it is too dark-LadyofHats 17:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
```result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 09:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
```

### Image:Alsloot - Tervuren.JPG, not featured

•  Info Musées royaux des Beaux-Arts de Belgique - created by Szilas - uploaded by Szilas - nominated by Szilas --Szilas 04:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --Szilas 04:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Focus, lighting. --Digitaldreamer 02:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose it seems too dark --Simonizer 12:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose as above. -- Ram-Man 23:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose- dark-LadyofHats 17:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
```result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 09:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
```

### Image:Petanque batignolles.jpg, not featured

•  Info created by KoS - uploaded by KoS - nominated by KoS --KoS 11:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --KoS 11:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose quality is ok, but composition doesn't do anything for me -- Gorgo 16:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose lack of wow --Simonizer 12:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Too common --Wiki mouse 17:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose No wow factor. -- Ram-Man 23:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose I agree. The wowiness just isn't wow enough to wow me. --Digitaldreamer 11:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose-as said above -LadyofHats 17:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
```result: 1 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 09:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
```

### Image:Landsvale.jpg, not delisted

•  Info Doesn't meet the standards (Original nomination)
•  Delist --Malene Thyssen 19:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Keep - Alvesgaspar 21:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Keep ♦ --Makro Freak talk 22:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Keep --MichaelMaggs 17:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Neutral Borderline for sure, but this actually has decent resolution and the quality is ok. Is it among "the best we have to offer"? I'm not sure what I think. -- Ram-Man 11:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
```result: 1 Delist, 3 Keep, 1 neutral => not delisted. Simonizer 09:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
```

### Image:Bombus Bumblebee (Bestoevning).jpg, delisted

•  Info Doesn't meet the standards (Original nomination)
•  Delist --Malene Thyssen 19:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Delist It has its charm, but it's not good enough. -- Ram-Man 20:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Keep --MichaelMaggs 17:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Keep Good and special subject and theme, with good composition and good techinal value. --Beyond silence 03:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
```result: 2 Delist, 2 Keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. Simonizer 09:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
```

Re-opening delist nomination:

•  Delist Clearly the current image is not the one promoted to featured picture, in fact the original upload is not even available in the image history. At the very least the image should be reverted to the earliest version available, or the actual promoted version undeleted. This version looks terrible, at preview or full size compare to the earlier (smaller) versions. An alternative is to nominate this version for promotion. --Tony Wills 12:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
•  Delist per nom (obviously). Lycaon 12:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
•  Delist per myself. -- Ram-Man 16:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
•  Delist per nom. The deleted image had a border and a watermark. Besides that, it's identical to the other smaller versions. Rocket000 10:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
•  Delist Noy 13:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
•  Delist given the lack of transparency about what happened to this picture after it was promoted. --MichaelMaggs 16:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
```result: 6 Delist, 0 Keep, 0 neutral => delisted. --Mywood 21:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
```

### Image:Siberian Tiger by Malene Th.jpg, not delisted

•  Info Doesn't meet the standards (Original nomination)
•  Delist --Malene Thyssen 19:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Keep - Nonsense. - Alvesgaspar 21:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Keep ♦ --Makro Freak talk 22:05, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Keep Still big enough --MichaelMaggs 17:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Delist I almost didn't vote to delist. This is a great picture and the subject somewhat compensates for the low resolution. However, for shots in captivity, I'd like to see it without a man made background. The background is the real problem. -- Ram-Man 11:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Keep --Atoma 08:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
```result: 2 Delist, 4 Keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. Simonizer 09:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
```

### Image:Kaloe.jpg, delisted

•  Info Doesn't meet the standards (Original nomination)
•  Delist --Malene Thyssen 19:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Delist Awkward and obvious photoshopping. --Arad 20:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Delist Poor photoshopping --Digon3 talk 23:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Delist Agreed. --MichaelMaggs 17:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Delist Low resolution and what appears to be posterization. -- Ram-Man 11:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
```result: 5 Delist, 0 Keep, 0 neutral => delisted. Simonizer 09:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
```

### Image:Pongo pygmaeus (orangutang).jpg, not delisted

•  Info Doesn't meet the standards (Original nomination)
•  Delist --Malene Thyssen 20:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Keep - Nonsense - Alvesgaspar 21:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Keep ♦ --Makro Freak talk 22:05, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Keep Still bigger than 800x600 (480k). --MichaelMaggs 17:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Delist Yuck, the background. It may be blurry, but the colors are awful. -- Ram-Man 11:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Comment Some
paintings with such awful colours are supposed to be good. --wau > 10:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• This isn't a painting and this isn't art evaluation. In the FP process we favor backgrounds of the real environments because they have more value. Lots of pictures are rejected because of fake backgrounds. -- Ram-Man 13:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Keep --Digitaldreamer 14:34, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Delist ack Ram-Man. Lycaon 17:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
```result: 3 Delist, 4 Keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. Simonizer 09:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
```

### Image:Hestemøj.jpg, delisted

```result: 5 Delist, 0 Keep, 0 neutral => delisted. Simonizer 09:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
```

### Image:Villingerød kirke.jpg, delisted

•  Info Doesn't meet standards (Original nomination)
•  Delist --Malene Thyssen 20:05, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Keep ♦ --Makro Freak talk 22:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Keep Still bigger than 800x600(480k). --MichaelMaggs 17:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Delist Less than 1MP. This resolution is just way too low. The image cannot be evaluated against any other standards because there are not enough pixels. Virtually any pictures appears good at this resolution until you blow it up to, say, 2MP. -- Ram-Man 11:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Delist overexposed and low size --Simonizer 08:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Delist per nom. Lycaon 17:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Delist overexposed. --Digon3 talk 01:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
```result: 5 Delist, 2 Keep, 0 neutral => delisted. Simonizer 09:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
```

### Image:Mandril.jpg, not delisted

•  Info Doesn't meet standards (Original nomination)
•  Delist --Malene Thyssen 20:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Keep - This is a wonderful photo. I don't agree on delisting a FP just because of size. It makes me recall Well's "1984" novel, where History was permanently being revised according to present politics. - Alvesgaspar 21:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Comment If this was QI where an image can't be demoted, you'd have a point. But this is FP where "the best we have to offer" can and will change. There was a time when low resolution images were the best we had to offer, but that is no longer the case. I'm not saying that we should just remove all FPs less than 2MP without discussion, but they should be judged based on whether they are still the best we have to offer. -- Ram-Man 17:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Keep - Wonderful photo. The "wow" factor is more important than technical details. Fg2 21:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Keep for the reasons given above. --MichaelMaggs 21:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Keep ♦ --Makro Freak talk 22:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Keep --Digon3 talk 23:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Delist I don't like the hair. It's looks white from too much sharpening. Thumbnails look ok because downsampling removes the effect. It's basically 1MP, so it's pretty low resolution. -- Ram-Man 11:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Delist per Ram-Man. Cacophony 16:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Keep borderline case Lycaon 17:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Keep C'est super Badhy 11:47, 14 July 2007 (CEST)
```result: 3 Delist, 7 Keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. Simonizer 09:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
```

### Image:Rød ræv (Vulpes vulpes).jpg, not delisted

•  Info Doesn't meet standards (Original nomination)
•  Delist --Malene Thyssen 20:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Keep - Alvesgaspar 21:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Keep ♦ --Makro Freak talk 22:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Keep --Digon3 talk 23:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Keep The only thing that would fail current standards is size, and the fact that the size rquirements have got tougher shouldn't necessarily mean that all old FP's have to be de-listed. If size is the only problem, I might be inclined personally to delist at below, say, 800x600(480k). --MichaelMaggs 17:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Delist Oversharpened. Less than 1MP. -- Ram-Man 11:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Keep --Atoma 08:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
```result: 2 Delist, 5 Keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. Simonizer 09:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
```

### Image:Boelge stor.jpg, not delisted

•  Info Doesn't meet standards (Original nomination)
•  Delist --Malene Thyssen 20:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Keep - Nonsense - Alvesgaspar 21:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Keep ♦ --Makro Freak talk 22:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Keep --Digon3 talk 23:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Keep The only thing that would fail current standards is size, and the fact that the size rquirements have got tougher shouldn't necessarily mean that all old FP's have to be de-listed. If size is the only problem, I might be inclined personally to delist at below, say, 800x600(480k). --MichaelMaggs 17:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Delist Even if I supported grandfathering older FPs, this is below 1MP. -- Ram-Man 11:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Keep Great image, no reason to unlist. --Atoma 08:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
```result: 2 Delist, 5 Keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. Simonizer 09:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
```

### Image:Solsort.jpg, not delisted

•  Info Doesn't meet the standards (Original nomination)
•  Delist --Malene Thyssen 20:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Keep - Alvesgaspar 21:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Keep ♦ --Makro Freak talk 22:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Keep The only thing that would fail current standards is size, and the fact that the size rquirements have got tougher shouldn't necessarily mean that all old FP's have to be de-listed. If size is the only problem, I might be inclined personally to delist at below, say, 800x600. --MichaelMaggs 17:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Delist Underexposed. Sure the sky isn't washed out, but the shadow detail just isn't visible. Less than 1MP as well, so clearly too low resolution. -- Ram-Man 11:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Delist Much part of bird underexposed. --Beyond silence 10:49, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
```result: 3 Delist, 3 Keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. Simonizer 09:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
```

### Image:ParavaniLake.jpg, not featured

#### Original version, not featured

•  InfoParavani lake in southern Georgia (2,000 meters above the sea level) created by Georgian photographer Paata Vardanashvili - uploaded and nominated by Sosomk --Sosomk 09:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Support -- Sosomk 09:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Support - Good shot! --Kober 09:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose - Seriously tilted. --J-Luc 11:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose agree with J-Luc --Simonizer 11:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose agree with other opposers on the tilt Tbc 11:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Comment Oh, give me a break, what the heck are you talking about? Why is it tilted? Sosomk 15:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose it's tilted because the water level/horizon is not parallel to the image rim. --Jeses 17:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose agree with Jeses --Wiki mouse 17:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Comment How can the image rim be parallel with the water level? The lake is located in the tallest mountainous range of Europe. Sosomk 19:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Comment Well, Jeses, is not this Commons:Featured picture candidates#Edited Version tilted according to your definition? Why did you vote for that? Sosomk 19:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
No, that one is not tilted. I don't get what the location where the picture was taken has to do with tilting...--Jeses 09:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose - Uninteresting centered composition, strongly tilted. Alvesgaspar 20:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose It's tilted indeed... -- MJJR 20:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Just to be against the trend. Strange day, today! --Makro Freak talk 22:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose agree with Alvesgaspar..centered composition. Use the golden ratio for placing the sun in the photo and you have a much more interesting pic - though it would be still a bit too common for FP ..there should be at least a boat with a kissing couple on the lake ;) --AngMoKio 12:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
```result: 3 support, 8 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 09:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
```

#### Edit, not featured

Info I removed the tilt. Vassil 23:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

•  Support Thanks Vassil Sosomk 09:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Excellent shot. grendel|khan 20:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Looks even better.Kober 20:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Uninteresting composition, and IMO it looks like just another sunset (only without the colors). Sorry. --Digon3 talk 23:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
•  CommentWell, if you think it not interesting, I think it is indeed interesting. If you have any personal problems with it that's your business. Sosomk 07:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose not tilted anymore, ok... but that bush in the lower right corner is totally underexposed, the mountains are too noisy... --Jeses 08:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose nothing particularly special Lycaon 19:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
```result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 13:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
```

### Image:Marine Fog Pattern 1.jpg, not featured

•  Info created by Jacek Walicki - uploaded by Jacekw - nominated by Przykuta 11:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --Przykuta 11:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose It is too compressed, which introduces a lot of of jpeg artifacts. --Digon3 talk 14:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
• Katja  Abstain --Makro Freak 19:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --Pmgpmg 20:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --Thierry81 16:47, 10 Juillet 2007 (CEST) please log in to vote, thanks Lycaon 18:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Dark and blunt, poor presentation. --Beyond silence 11:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
```result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 13:18, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
```

### Image:Metalmania 2007 - Sepultura - Derrick Green 01.jpg, not featured

•  Info created & uploaded by Lilly M - nominated by --Makro Freak talk 14:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC) Derrick Green (singer) from Sepultura during Metalmania 2007 festival
•  Support Sepultura is a very famous Metalband from Brazil. I dont listen to this kind of music, but i like the pic because the singer looks very natural and charismatic. The background is cool but spacey and fits great --Makro Freak talk 14:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Support We need more FP of people. Subject is sharp, nice perspective. --Jeses 17:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Vassil 17:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Poor background. However the subject is very clear; the background could be removed without damage? --Jacopo 18:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Comment This dark background fits very well for this kind of music ... --Makro Freak talk 18:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Agree with Jeses. Shadow around the nose, but that's too nitpicky. --Bergwolf 19:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Neutral hmm....i am not really convinced of the perspective. I'd be happier to see a part of the right eye ....background overexposed ;) (which even causes purple fringe around the nose) --AngMoKio 21:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Comment Metal musicans need purple fringe around the nose :) And i say you what ... Neonlamps can be a bit overexposed because they are really white --Makro Freak talk 21:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
That's not a purple fringe, that's a wee bit of motion blur. --Digitaldreamer 22:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree on the motionblur --Makro Freak talk 22:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Support It's a person in motion, I like the portrait. --Digitaldreamer 22:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose I would like to see him a little more from the frontside. Background is too much disturbing --Simonizer 07:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Poor background. --Digon3 talk 17:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose background Tbc 18:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Support, same as Digitaldreamer, Ziga 17:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --WarX 17:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC) One of best from Metalmania 2007
•  Oppose Nice image, but I think nice is not enough for FP. Basically I agree with Simonizer. /Daniel78 22:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose--OsamaK 07:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --Karelj 20:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Agree with above opposers. --Atoma 08:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Not enough valuable subject. --Beyond silence 12:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
```result: 8 support, 8 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 13:21, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
```

### Image:Colour Explosion.jpg, not featured

•  Info Created, uploaded and nominated by Nattfodd --Nattfodd 23:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Support While a nice sunset by itself, this is nominated because it gives a good example of a HDR image, where multiple exposures and tone mapping are used to correctly expose every part of the image while retaining good contrast. --Nattfodd 23:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Support--Mbz1 23:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1