Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/June 2007

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


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


Contents

Image:Trigonoceps occipitalis 1 Luc Viatour.jpg, featured[edit]

Trigonoceps occipitalis

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Luc Viatour - uploaded by Luc Viatour - nominated by --Luc Viatour 07:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Luc Viatour 07:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Excellent composition and detail, the pose is almost human. The overexposed whites are not enough for opposing but maybe they could be fixed. - Alvesgaspar 08:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral - I agree concerning the overexposed whites - Charlessauer 22 May 2007

* Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral He might be a great photographer, but i have the feeling that this image isnt real. (concerning the whole background) --Makro Freak 21:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

    • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question Why do you say that? Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question It appears that the photographer is reflected in the bird's eye? Can that really be the case? Regards, Ben Aveling 12:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes, another example [1] and more beautiful reflection still [2] and still me [3]--Luc Viatour 12:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Because if you look on the forebody, in the middle there is green dust on the feathers. This seems to be postproduction artefacts.--Makro Freak 12:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
        • no faking! I can send the raw (nef format 10Mo) for proof via E-mail! --Luc Viatour 12:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support :) --Makro Freak 16:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I'm green with envy as your stunning picture background :( --LucaG 19:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Digitaldreamer 22:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --MichaelMaggs 05:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Jon Harald Søby 20:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support A perfect example where overexposure is acceptable. -- Ram-Man 04:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support // tsca [re] 15:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Simonizer 09:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Simonizer 06:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Erysimum cheiri gold garden flowers.jpg, not featured[edit]

Erysimum cheiri

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Jina Lee - uploaded by Ram-Man - nominated by D-Kuru --D-Kuru 10:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --D-Kuru 10:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Lovely composition: better than most boring centered flowers, including many of the ones that I take. Still, this picture is all about the color. -- Ram-Man 12:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Jina Lee 17:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Jon Harald Søby 20:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Yes, composition is beatiful but quality and DOF not good enough. Alvesgaspar 11:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
    • The DoF here is very high (check the sensor size and aperture). There is either a little wind blur or more likely a camera sensor that has difficulty with retaining detail in highly saturated colors. You've been there, but I think in this case it's pretty nice, as you can make out detail in most of the flowers. It looks really good at 2MP, not nearly as good at 100%. -- Ram-Man 14:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
result: 4 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 06:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Taraxacum spec-1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Twin yellow Taraxacum officinalis

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info With the wind blowing, these wild dandelions looked like two cog-wheels of some fantastic mechanism.Created and nominated by Alvesgaspar --Alvesgaspar 15:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Alvesgaspar 15:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The composition is strong for such a common subject. The only negative to this image is that the shorter-stemmed flower is a bit out of focus. I usually prefer both flowers in focus, like your image here, or if one is in focus then the other should be far enough out of focus, like my image here. Still I wouldn't oppose a good shot due to that kind of picky personal preference. -- Ram-Man 15:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol strong support vote.svg Strong support Symbol support vote.svg Support LOVE . . . Minimalism --Makro Freak 18:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Can someone tell me why {{love}} is forbidden? No one seems to care about it other than the occasional person who removes them. -- Ram-Man 18:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
    • The origin is here, but I was never against the use of the {{love}} tag. I will gladly support its return if someone cares to make the proposal. Alvesgaspar 19:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
    • So 5 people supported its removal on a vote that wasn't even about removing it? Great. I just roll my eyes when someone removes it. I see nothing wrong with it, so that's at least one oppose vote, not to mention all the people who were not polled who actually use it which have to be more than 5 people. I don't want to make a proposal per se, just so much as ignore the silly message about it being banned, which incidently doesn't even link to the discussion (which is rediculous!). There is clearly a lack of consensus over this being banned. -- Ram-Man 19:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question Why are people not voting on this (or a bunch of other flower pictures, like this and this, for that matter)? It deserves more than 3 votes. And why is this one so much better? At best it is only slightly better. -- Ram-Man 03:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose it is not a Taraxacum sp., I'ld go for Hieracium sp. but I'm not sure yet. Lycaon 11:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting info.svg Info - I believe it is the same species of this one, which I was convinced it was a dandelion. - Alvesgaspar 11:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Aha! Dandelions are never branched see this one and this one for instance. Lycaon 12:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - I'm completly lost after learning that Hieracium species are among the most difficult to identify by botanists... Could it be H. caespitosum or H. umbellatum ? There seems to be dozens of possibilities! To worsen the situation, all flowers appear to have faded since last week. - Alvesgaspar 14:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
        • What about the plants they came from? What do the leaves look like? -- Ram-Man 14:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info - I think I found the species: it is a Wall hawkweed (Hieracium murorum)! The leaves have various forms and all agrees with the information I got in Wikipedia and through the net (for example, this site). Here are two more photos of the same plant: Image:Dandelion flower and fruit.jpg, Image:Hieracium murorum-1.jpg - Alvesgaspar 11:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 06:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Cichorium intybus-alvesgaspar1.jpg, featured[edit]

Cichorium intybus

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info I was amazed by the beauty of this wild flower of common chicory when I took a walk this morning near my house. All three nominations of today are the result of that short walk. After every shot I'm more convinced that "recognizing beauty" is a major skill in photography, maybe more important than technique and good hardware. Created and nominated by Alvesgaspar --Alvesgaspar 15:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Uhm, yeah, very profound. But while you walk around recognizing beauty it wouldn't hurt keeping the project scope in mind too. Flower pictures are more useful if the whole plant can be seen. This just as a side rant... --Dschwen 16:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Not exactely so. The scientific approach to Nature is to not the only one and probably not the most important for people coming here looking for flowers. That is true in general and also in which the Commons' project is concerned. Besides, everyone serves the project according to his capacities and preferences (you seem to have forgotten the wisdom of honourable Dr. Marx about the subject). Just imagine someone claiming that your building pictures, to be complete, should also emphasize the engineering details. - Alvesgaspar 18:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Even if we assumed for a second that commons is based on a marxist philosophy, I still doubt that the honorable Dr. Marx would advocate tons of flower bud pictures among the FPs. Compared to their usefulness they are waaaaaay overrepresented. And as for the my building pictures, you got to give me some credit here, there is a little more variety in the pics I upload to commons than just building pictures. --Dschwen 19:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
        • Well tons of flower pictures among FPs is a function of picky reviewers, not Alvesgaspar as a photographer. This image failed with a glorious total of 6 votes and this failed miserably, despite being sharp and of high quality, mostly because they were "boring". Oh and don't forget these images which got a whole two support votes including the nominator (myself) and no opposition. This image is a landmark: it's not just a small flower head, but leaves as well and should become a featured picture. Amazing. I'm not convinced that many reviewers even care about usefulness. At most it is secondary to other aspects. Your comment is misplaced and should be geared at the reviewers, not this photogapher. -- Ram-Man 20:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
          • Point taken, I partially agree about the reviewer thing. But the nominatior takes some responsibility as well, especially if it is a self-nom. The reviewers only review whats presented to them. Non-self noms are a rarity (only 4 in the first 35 on this page, even less if you discount mutual courtesy nominations). Anywho, I suspect the new Meet the photographers thingie is a big incentive for even more self-noms now. I'm not saying its a bad thing per se, but the nominator definitely bears responsibility on what he presents as his share of allegedly the best work on commons. --Dschwen 20:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
    • If we're having side rants, I get criticized for citing project scope when I oppose low-resolution files. As for the point, trying to get a featured picture of a plant that doesn't have a flower is nearly impossible, even if it is technically flawless. Flower images like this *are* useful, because they show in detail the flower itself. A good encyclopedia article would have closeups of each important part (leaves, buds, flowers, stems, roots, etc...) while having another picture of the entire plant. As for featured pictures though, it's just not possible to get featured pictures of everything that a good article needs, due to current standards. A picture without some form of beauty (or anti-beauty on the other extreme) doesn't become a FP. -- Ram-Man 18:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Alvesgaspar 15:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- The angle of the stem, somehow makes the flower look crooked and off center. The the background is not in focus, it is distracting. Further (beauty is in the eye of the beholder) there is no "wow" effect for me. {Charlessauer 17:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC).}
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I can't agree more with bit on "recognizing beauty". This is a beautiful image, and I don't seem to mind that it has a centered composition. It certainly doesn't hurt though that your camera can reproduce these blues much better than saturated yellow and red. -- Ram-Man 15:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Thermos 20:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --MichaelMaggs 21:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Jina Lee 05:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Jon Harald Søby 20:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Vmenkov 04:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support /Daniel78 20:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Javier ME 16:34, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 06:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Wild Boar Habbitat 2.jpg, featured[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by --Makro Freak 18:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Makro Freak 18:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

*Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Its too small, and I don't think there are strong mitigating reasons for size. Could you upload a larger resolution? --Digon3 18:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Aye, i replaced it by its HiRes version. : ) --Makro Freak 18:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Good picture, but I am just wondering if less centralised crop could be made for enhanced composition the preceding unsigned comment is by Thermos (talk • contribs)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I think its ok. The most important on this picture is the mood, not a pseudo dynamic :) Can you smell it ? --Makro Freak 20:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment But feel free to try. I will be glad :) --Makro Freak 14:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Vmenkov 22:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Terrible! --LucaG 23:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Surprisingly very nice --norro 11:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support nice and sharp, plus i like how the movement of the water is captured. --Dschwen 12:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportJina Lee 15:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Digitaldreamer 22:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Jon Harald Søby 20:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support great job gren 06:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great photo, but I'm not too sure about the 'natural habitat' bit, they don't live in water like this or they'd have severe hoof rot problems, secondly this puddle includes a couple of submerged planks (machine sawn) in the right foreground. Where exactly was this shot taken? --Tony Wills 13:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • This shot was taken in a large Sanctuary. There is a lot of forrest arround but the Boars prefer to stay on this place. I know that Boars are not amphibic :-) but with habitat i meant in a natural environment not a zoo. Wanna see more ? Image:Wild Boar rubbing.jpg ___ Image:Wild Boar Habbitat.jpg ___ Image:Wild_Boar_frontal.jpg --Makro Freak 17:55, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support excellent! MichaD 17:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Lycaon 16:23, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Sweet --Bergwolf 10:15, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Javier ME 16:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Lycaon 16:23, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 06:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Pegomya bicolor on Ranunculus acris.jpg, featured[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created & nominated by --Makro Freak 19:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC) Pegomya bicolor in front of a yellow heart :)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Makro Freak 19:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Karelj 19:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Thermos 20:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Excellent. Alvesgaspar 21:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Almost all of the flower is blown out and there isn't much detail in the fly --Benjamint444 23:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • The size is a bit on the low side aswell --Benjamint444 23:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Once again i was wrong with the ID, but this time it was very close. The propper ID for this Critter is Thricops semicinereus, because of the feet. Shame on me. --Makro Freak 23:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Jina Lee 05:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --MichaelMaggs 06:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- shame on you indeed ;-)) -- Lycaon 07:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Digitaldreamer 22:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Jon Harald Søby 20:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Keta 10:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Bergwolf 10:15, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Sharp image of the fly, might not make QI, but good enough for FP :P --Tony Wills 12:31, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
result: 12 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 06:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Polychaeta anatomy en.svg, featured[edit]

polychaete anatomy

'3D' vector rendering of the anatomy of a segment of a polychaete
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by Lycaon -- Lycaon 21:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support A complex illustration is quite a bit more work than a simple click on a camera :), particularly when its done well and with meticulousness --Makro Freak 21:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --MichaelMaggs 06:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question Are there any standards or guidelines for evaluating illustrations? I mean it looks complex, but lacks the "wow factor", but I don't know how an illustration even has a "wow factor". It's not really a picture either, it's an illustration. I would feel better about voting on an illustration if I had some idea how I should even go about evaluating it. -- Ram-Man 16:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Pictogram voting info.svg Info Looking at those that are FP: Highly detailed or photo realistic or animated, visually appealing, use colour well. Often of something familiar but showing detail not illustratable by a photograph. But there are about 20% that I think should be just QI, so what do I know? ;-) --Tony Wills 09:42, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Karelj 20:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --WarX 09:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC) Should use numbered labels!
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Numbered labels are hard to read and reduce de value of the illustration, translated versions exist for/from all interested parties. Lycaon 10:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
    • so please read those labels on image in the nomination! --WarX 20:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • The nominated image is not this thumbnail! I trust you evaluate all images at full size!! ;-) --Tony Wills
  • So I hope you put full resolution image in Wikipedia, so everyone can read it ...--WarX 08:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Again a quality image. I expect that the general public will, like me, be ignorant of what it is of (the image page description didn't help, but the categories it belonged to did), and hence will be puzzled but not wow'ed. --Tony Wills 09:03, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Have to support my own. The work invested into this was substantial: both the research into the correctness of the image, and the drawing in pseudo 3D with all the different layers. Lycaon 05:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral - The picture is not geometrically clear for me. I don't understand the smaller cut "window" and its relation with the septum between segments and the orange structure at right (parapod?). Also, colours could be better; for example, the interior of the intestinal lumen should be darker. - Alvesgaspar 14:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree on both points. I think there should be edges where the section plane surfaces intersect. --Tony Wills 10:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Ii is a pity that we have no guidlines for illustrations. So i have to compare with other FP illustrations. This one is informative, it has no flaws, its clearly arranged and its superior to some allready featured illustrations. So for me it is a FP --Simonizer 10:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
result: 5 support, 1 oppose, 2 neutral => featured. Simonizer 06:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Vernier caliper.svg, not featured[edit]

Vernier caliper

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info A static vector graphics version of Image:Using the caliper new.gif with legends. Created and nominated by Alvesgaspar --Alvesgaspar 23:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Alvesgaspar 23:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. Not bad, but IMO not quite as good as the version that is already featured. --Dschwen 23:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - Yes, that was the reason why I haven't nominated this pic here though its is already a FP in the English Wikipedia. But I thought it over and realized that they serve different purposes. The animation illustrates the use of the caliper and can only be seen in a computer display or data show, the individual images are too small and of poor quality to be printed. The svg file if a high quality image intended to illustrate the various parts of the instrument and to be printed. There is already a similar example of two FP pictures: Image:Using sextant swing.gif and Image:Marine sextant.svg - Alvesgaspar 13:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Incidentely also two of your pictures. A bad precedence IMO. --Dschwen 15:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Jon Harald Søby 20:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support it has a different use than the animated one. Lycaon 05:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It's a pity to query this on the grounds that Alvesgaspar has done some similar excellent work in another format. The question should be "is this one of the best illustrations we have on Commons?" and the answer is yes. --MichaelMaggs 09:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose good work, but no "magic touch" that could amaze the viewer --Orlovic (talk) 14:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Definitely quality, but it's hard to get wow appeal into a picture of engineering tools. (Animation is one way though :-) --Tony Wills 08:51, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Moving version Image:Using the caliper new.gif was IHMO better, so why to repeat voting again?? --Karelj 20:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support agree with Lycaon --Simonizer 22:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 06:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Decek s cutaro (1 - edit).jpg, not featured[edit]

Boy with flask Boy with flask

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by smihael

Left edited version[edit]

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --smihael 16:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose how do you get such a noisy background with a 50 ISO setting??? Lycaon 16:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment My camera isn't good, I can't set values manually. Camera is too much avtomatic. It got noisy with computer editing in Krita and G. Picasa.
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Bad lighting and framing too tight. I'm afraid the subject is not very interesting either. Alvesgaspar 22:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Besides the things listed above, what's the educational value of this image? A (copyrighted?) statue in an arboretum seems only marginally useful. -- Ram-Man 03:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Right original version, not featured[edit]

  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral less noisy, but dark --smihael 16:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting delete.svg --smihael 15:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
result:Nomination withdrawn => not featured. Simonizer 07:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Flower Volcji Potok (macro photo).jpg, not featured[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by Mihael Simonic
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Mihael Simonic 16:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose underexposed, not sharp and above all, no identification. -- Lycaon 16:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as Lycaon + too dark --D-Kuru 16:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as Lycaon --Karelj 19:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose sorry, way below current FP standards. -- Ram-Man 03:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting delete.svg --Mihael Simonic 15:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
result: Nomination withdrawn => not featured. Simonizer 07:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Hawaii turtle.JPG[edit]

Green Turtle Green Turtle

#1, not featured[edit]

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Charlessauer 06:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Tbc 07:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC) people standing in background
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Beautiful and valuable. Its is not obvious for me the presence of people. Alvesgaspar 08:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice --norro 10:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment -- Cloning the people happened to be very easy. However, I don't know how to upload it with correct license and author information. If somebody knows how, and would like to upload it, I could send him the edited picture. I think it's worth it, it's a nice and valuable picture. Keta 10:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting info.svg Info: Just upload the edited image with a similar file name, copy the image description and replace the source section of the template by “Photograph by Mila Zinkova, edited by Keta”. --norro 11:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Beautiful --Makro Freak 13:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very nice. --Karelj 19:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --MichaelMaggs 21:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Vmenkov 22:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Jina Lee 05:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Vassil 23 May 2007
result: 6 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (other version has more support votes) Simonizer 06:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

#2, featured[edit]

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info This is an edited version, without people, which I think benefits the picture. Thanks to norro for the guidelines for uploading it correctly. Keta 16:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Keta 16:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Tbc 17:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- MJJR 18:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Vassil I support the edited version. 23 May 2007
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Karelj 20:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --MichaelMaggs 21:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Digitaldreamer 22:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--HereToHelp (talk) 23:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Pengo 07:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Alvesgaspar 09:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Jon Harald Søby 20:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --LucaG 08:55, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Simonizer 12:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Bergwolf 10:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- not bad for an underwater picture -- Lycaon 14:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -It looks like it's flying. I guess this photo will be at the top ten FPs of the year --Javier ME 09:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Erwin85 20:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Urban 03:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --norro 16:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Mbz1 19:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC) Mbz1
result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 13:45, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Orthetrum cancellatum top.jpg, featured[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created and uploaded by MichaD - nominated by Lycaon -- Lycaon 06:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Lycaon 06:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --MichaelMaggs 06:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Wonderfull picture (even with a framing too tight) - Alvesgaspar 07:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Very sharp! --typhoonchaser 10:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Sehr schön --Makro Freak 12:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC).
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --LucaG 19:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support excellent!! --Karelj 20:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Charlessauer 00:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC).
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Jon Harald Søby 20:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This is the image that the other insect images strive to be like. -- Ram-Man 04:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support nice !! --Quark 09:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Bergwolf 10:14, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--SB_Johnny|talk|books 11:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tony Wills 12:20, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support // tsca [re] 15:00, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nemo5576 08:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Orchi 19:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 13:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Ensifera left front.jpg, featured[edit]

.

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created & nominated by --Makro Freak 14:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC) What will you think next time if you come up against a grasshopper ?
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info A grasshopper in a leaf-halfpipe, waiting in front of his wooden Skateboard
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Makro Freak 14:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --MichaelMaggs 20:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Digitaldreamer 22:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Thermos 04:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Jon Harald Søby 20:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral There appear to be dust spots at various places on this image. Also, it's either noisy or oversharpened in a way that accents the noise. A few weeks ago, I might have said this was great, but we've had some really high quality insect images recently, so I think it's acceptable to desire a higher quality image technically. It has the wow factor. If the dust spots are removed, I'd change to support, but it probably won't matter. -- Ram-Man 04:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Understand your point of view. I dont like doing pixel manipulations on my own pictures. About file size: i think 1600 pixels are enough for online usage. --Makro Freak 13:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I still have to chuckle when reading the info line.
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Karelj 21:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Chuckling, too --Bergwolf 10:14, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. Great image. Love the composition. Decent quality too. --Dschwen 20:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportNemo5576 08:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support pfctdayelise (说什么?) 07:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Fantastic --norro 16:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Simonizer 13:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Sossusvlei Dune Namib Desert Namibia Luca Galuzzi 2004.JPG, featured[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Lucag - uploaded by Lucag - nominated by Digon3 --Digon3 14:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Digon3 14:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol support vote.svg Support A pretty good picture. Unlike many similar shots this on actually has a person in there which gives a great sense of scale. I only wished it was a bit sharper. --Dschwen 15:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The Windows XP style… Agree with Dschwen --Alipho 19:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Simonizer 21:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - There are much better compositions of this subject - Alvesgaspar 08:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose agree --DieBuche 13:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support based on this image alone. I don't have time to look for better compositions of this subject. Show them to me and I'll consider changing my vote. The person in this shot is vital to its success, as I had no idea the scale of these dunes. Also, looks good at 2MP. -- Ram-Man 04:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --MichaelMaggs 09:38, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Keta 16:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support-- Mbz1 03:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
result: 8 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 14:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Paver Blocks Exterior Circular 3008px.jpg, featured[edit]

#1 Circular paver blocks #2 Circular paver blocks

Picture #1, featured[edit]

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Ram-Man. 16:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It's not any type of plant or animal, for sure. In case anyone asks, I didn't crop out the upper left corner because it adds interest through contrasting elements and scale. Also, I corrected for barrel distortion from the wide-angle lens used, but made no attempt to adjust the perspective distortion inherent to such wide angles of view, since that's the whole point of this image. -- Ram-Man 16:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Makes me dizzy... :) Jina Lee 16:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The angles of the paves seem red (may someone remember me the physical term ?) and the image does not have a so good "psychedelic" effect. Sorry --Alipho 18:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I think you probably mean the reddish color fringing, or chromatic abberation? I replaced the old image with a new one to try and combat the effect. I think it looks a bit better now. -- Ram-Man 19:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I find my eye is drawn to what seems to be a drain cover at top left. --MichaelMaggs 20:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Why some stone cubes from footway, are there so interesting?? --Karelj 20:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - I'm not sure how to use this image to illustrate wide angle lens distortion. But I like it, the whole surface looks like a hill whose top is the centre of the pattern. Once again aesthetics prevails over objective value... Alvesgaspar 20:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Almost every (and maybe all?) picture I nominate is used in at least one article, even if just a stub. I used this one in en:Paver (flooring), but it could be useful in other places perhaps. -- Ram-Man 00:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment the only problem i see is the drain, have you tried cropping out the top left corner a bit so that the centre of the circle is in the frame, but the drain is removed. Chris huh 11:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I have, and I really didn't like the look. It's probably a personal artistic type of thing, but I think it looked monotonous without it. I uploaded a cropped version. -- Ram-Man 12:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, but for me, it is not aesthetically pleasing, there is no wow factor, and the manhole is disturbing. --Digon3 13:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I really like how you are being drawn by the repetitive pattern to the contrast of the manhole cover MichaD 16:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support wow, that's awesome. --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 07:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Can't let this slip by, and got to have the version with the manhole cover :-) --Tony Wills 22:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
result: 6 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 14:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Picture #2 - not featured[edit]

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I prefer the other one because the manhole cover adds contrast, interest, and balance to the scene, but this one is alright. -- Ram-Man 12:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 1 support, 0 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 5th day) - Alvesgaspar 20:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:White Trillium Trillium grandiflorum Flower 2613px.jpg, not featured[edit]

White Trillium

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Ram-Man. 03:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info White Trillium (Trillium grandiflorum) flower
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Ram-Man 03:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose While this is a well exposed sharp flower photo I fail to see a wow factor. The light isn't all too favorable as well. -- MichaD 14:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Direct sunlight can increase contrast (improving depth perception and detail) in the whites, like in this image by Tony Wills. I used a fill flash to balance out the harsh shadows. -- Ram-Man 14:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
    • While it's true that the petals benefit from the contrasty light the dark shadow beneath the blossom distracts me. A reflector could probably have helped there. -- MichaD 15:23, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Yeah, maybe I should invest in one :) -- Ram-Man 16:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
        • Or build one with some cardboard and aluminum foil. Cheap and works :-) --Dschwen 16:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
          • As a guest of the garden I was at, being the only one with a tripod also made me a bit of a freak. I can only imagine what a reflector would make me look like. Thanks for the advice though, as I had never really even considered this as an option. -- Ram-Man 16:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - I don't see the point, for me the white texture of the flower (even with the mild shadow) is the most beatiful thing in the picture. - Alvesgaspar 23:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Wrong composition and framing. Flower should be at the left side of the image (this way it seems to be escaping form the photo) and the picture should show a little more of green. A shame, because the flower is beatiful and technical quality excellent. - Alvesgaspar 21:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral a plus for the whites, a minus for the composition. -- Lycaon 21:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 14:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Nandu Rhea Amerikana Portrait 2.JPG, not featured[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created & uploaded by --Makro Freak - nominated by --Makro Freak 17:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Makro Freak 17:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- Blurred, too dark on face and neck. Keta 18:23, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too dark on the important elements, too bright elsewhere. If only they were reversed. What's amazing is that you just can't find high quality pictures like this (and many others) anywhere else on the internet and yet this is still not good enough. -- Ram-Man 22:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 14:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Segelboot Starnberger See Katamaran.jpg, not featured[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created & uploaded by --Makro Freak - nominated by --Makro Freak 17:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Makro Freak 17:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose There are black spots in the image and the boat is blurry. /Daniel78 18:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose There are dust spots, but those could be removed. More importantly, the 1/500 was not enough to stop the moving boat, and as a result it is blurry. With a proper focus on the boat, this could have been shot with a larger aperture to increase the shutter speed. At this distance, less DoF would have been a great tradeoff to cut the movement blur. Dust spots are also less visible at larger apertures, FWIW. -- Ram-Man 03:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As above. It is very nice though. --Digon3 15:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 14:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Tete de libellule juste nee.jpg[edit]

Tête de Libellule

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by J-Luc - uploaded by J-Luc - nominated by J-Luc --J-Luc 13:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --J-Luc 13:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Way below the 2MP (1600x1200) resolution guideline. It's too noisy and unsharp anyway, even if the extreme magnification is a sufficient mitigating factor. -- Ram-Man 13:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose 730 × 709 is too small. --Digon3 13:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Nuvola apps important yellow.svg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because too small. Images of less than 2Mpx are not normally approved here, even where they are of excellent quality. --Simonizer 19:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC) Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

Image:Amplexus de Bufo bufo.002.JPG[edit]

Amplexus of Bufo bufo

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info: Created, uploaded and nominated by --Drow male 15:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Drow male 15:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Nuvola apps important yellow.svg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because too small. Images of less than 2Mpx are not normally approved here, even where they are of excellent quality. --MichaelMaggs 16:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC) Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not only small size, but poor composition, frogs are minimum size compared with the rest of picture --Karelj 20:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Green carabidae-1.jpg[edit]

Oedemera lurida Oedemera lurida

1st version (left), featured[edit]

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Green beetle of the Oedemeridae family (Oedemera lurida) on a wild spike (thanks, Lycaon). Created and nominated by Alvesgaspar - Alvesgaspar 15:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Alvesgaspar 15:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Makro Freak 00:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support You'ld have to change the file name afterwards, though: it is an Oedemera lurida, fam. Oedemeridae, a common palaearctic species. -- Lycaon 05:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Jina Lee 05:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Poor framing, unsharp, bad lighting. Sorry! --Fir0002 www 05:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. Semi-Ack Fir, the size and quality of the main subject (it is the beetle per the caption, right?) is unsatisfactory for a featured picture. Composition is average (too much dead space on the bottom for my liking), but the soft lighting is actually a pro point, no blown-out highlights and harsh shadows. --Dschwen 12:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Ack Dschwen, a crop would improve it. --Digon3 12:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This is one of those cases that I would oppose this if it was a QI becaue the head of the beetle is unsharp. However, I disagree with Fir on this because of what I believe to be the "wow factor": The lighting is great, the contrast between the light and dark browns and the green is classical (except for the "distracting" top right light brown diagonal bar), and I think the framing is a strong feature because it emphasises the small size of the bug relative to the plant and the surroundings. (NOTE: There are FPs of similarly unsharp subjects that have more prominance than this one: this image for example)-- Ram-Man 13:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Luc Viatour 06:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Bergwolf 10:15, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support // tsca [re] 15:01, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support pfctdayelise (说什么?) 07:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
result: 9 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral => featured Simonizer 06:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

2nd version (right), not featured[edit]

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Green beetle of the Oedemeridae family (Oedemera lurida) on a wild Yellow chamomile - Alvesgaspar 13:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Alvesgaspar 13:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It's not the same picture, so it could be a different nomination. I support both, although version 1 is better. -- Ram-Man 13:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Until the flower is identified (after that support of course!). It features more prominently than the Oedemera. Lycaon 14:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC) flower IDed Lycaon 05:38, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info - To Ram-Man: I don't want to flood the FPC archive with various pictures of the same species, that's why I did it this way. To Lycaon: I think it is a Calendula arvensis, but it is hard to be sure, there are several species alike (And I'm not a botanist) - Alvesgaspar 15:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, I'm not a botanist neither, but could it be Anthemis tinctoria? I can't se the leaves. Lycaon 15:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Right on target! The leaves I collected are exactely those of Yellow Chamomile (as well as the relative size and number of petals). Here it is a photo of the leaves. I'm changing the info, thanks a lot- Alvesgaspar 16:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • It reminds me of this Senecio aureus, but the petals are shorter. It does have the same number of petals though. -- Ram-Man 15:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • It's not Calendula arvensis, nor Senecio aureus and most likely not Anthemis tinctoria (and it's not in my book on mediterranean flora :-(). The jury is still out on this one... Can you provide us with a picture of the leaves? Lycaon 15:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Jon Harald Søby 20:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support should be a separate nomination though. Lycaon 05:38, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Bergwolf 10:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Makro Freak 15:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I see no VALUE in the image. We have way too many similar images.--Mbz1 05:02, 3 June 2007(UTC)
    Sorry, the voting period is over - Alvesgaspar 10:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (other version has more support votes) Simonizer 21:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Grus antigone Luc viatour.jpg, featured[edit]

Grus antigone

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Luc Viatour - uploaded by Luc Viatour - nominated by --Luc Viatour 09:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Luc Viatour 09:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Nice detail. Too bad that the part of the head facing the camera is in the shadow. --Dschwen 09:13, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes, I sent a new upload corrected version --Luc Viatour 10:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
      • No, sorry, but the only difference I see less sharpening. --Dschwen 12:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
        • And now third version? --Luc Viatour 13:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nature photography is not Hollywood, the moment counts --Makro Freak 13:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Uhm, yeah, but this is not exactly a unique key moment. Plus people seem to forget that an oppose on FPC doesn't mean the picture is crap, but merely that is is not one of the very best pictures. Shure not every nature pic has to be perfect, but this is not about nature pictures, it is about featured pictures! --Dschwen 14:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
      • ... absolutely agree with you and welcome the exciting procedure to find out which is a FP or not. I like to read all the different opinions of the voters which sometimes makes me laughing or contemplative. Spoken for me, is that this pictures are donations and formerly used for describing things in Wikipedia. If a writer is searching for photographic content he will be very happy if he can find a detailed, crispy and enlightend picture like this. Surely it will be great if the bird will raise his head, doing some never seen before emotions but for a Taxo picture as a example this is great. You are a (really good :) ) photographer but your opinion differs a lot from a writer. Maybe iam wrong because of beeing new to Wikimedia, but for me Wikimedia isnt Tony Stone, thats why i like it. --Makro Freak 16:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Winiar 19:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - I agree it would better with a more favourable lighting but the picture is still very good, the detail in the head is not afected Alvesgaspar 22:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I don't see what the fuss is about. Looks really nice to me, ack Makro Freak. -- Ram-Man 04:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --MichaelMaggs 09:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Moreover i found out that many pictures by luc are taken with backlight, so i would say its his style --Makro Freak 10:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great detail --Tony Wills 12:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Orchi 19:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 21:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Ange jardins fontaine nimes.jpg[edit]

Photo de l'ange de la nymphéa jardins de la fontaine à Nîmes*Edit

Picture #1 - not featured[edit]

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by quark - uploaded by quark - nominated by quark --Quark 11:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Quark 11:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose very noisy -- Lycaon 13:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I sen a new upload --User:Quark 15:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, the statue in the background steals too much of the attention. Jon Harald Søby 15:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Composition is too cluttered in either version. --MichaelMaggs 17:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose ack opposers. -- Ram-Man 04:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose not interesting enough for a FP--Javier ME 16:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 1 support, 5 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 5th day) - Alvesgaspar 14:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Picture #2, not featured[edit]

  • I have made an edit, in which I blurred the background of the picture, so that it doens't steal the attention. Jon Harald Søby 16:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
    • thank you indeed it, then is better used this version?--Quark 16:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Composition is too cluttered in either version. --MichaelMaggs 17:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Blurring the background makes the background much less distracting, except as a thumbnail. -- Ram-Man 04:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Romary 06:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Karelj 21:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per MichaelMaggs. --Digon3 13:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose not interesting enough for a FP--Javier ME 16:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 21:41, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Red billed gull-02.jpg[edit]

Red billed gull (Larus scopulinus) in Wellington Harbour * Red billed gull (Larus scopulinus) in Wellington Harbour

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Tony Wills - uploaded by Tony Wills - nominated by D-Kuru --D-Kuru 13:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Picture #1, featured
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --D-Kuru 13:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice eyes, beautiful --Makro Freak 13:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very nice technique at maintaining the whites through underexposure. The shadows are fine and make the image look natural. -- Ram-Man 04:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Vmenkov 04:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Winiar 15:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Jina Lee 16:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tony Wills 12:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 21:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Picture #2, not featured
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info added a slight edit --Makro Freak 15:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Could you say what your edit does? --MichaelMaggs 17:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info added a slight edit with more lighning on the birds left side (right side for the observer), plus popped the background a bit, plus Macrofreak sharpening --Makro Freak 18:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support (second version) It was a surprise to see this here, good job on smoothing that background :-) --Tony Wills 20:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Its is nice in thumb size but the flaws are clearly visible when we enlarge it. There is little detail in the white body of the bird: the lighted part looks overexposed and the darker part is noisy. - Alvesgaspar 22:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The tone is much better on the original. There is no need to lighten the shadows here. -- Ram-Man 04:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I don't really like the pose and framing, quality is ok but not great MichaD 16:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose There's rely nothing special I see in this picture. Maybe I'm missing something.--Steinninninn 09:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 14:45, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Alitta succinea (epitoke).jpg, featured[edit]

Epitoke Alitta succinea

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Epitoke (reproductive form) stage of the polychaete Alitta succinea.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by Lycaon -- Lycaon 13:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Lycaon 13:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like common clamworms --Makro Freak 13:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • you mean to eat ;-)) ? Lycaon 13:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
    • i allways start with the crispy head, yummy ! :) --Makro Freak 14:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
      • kidding apart, they do eat epitoke polychaetes in the Pacific, you know: it's a delicacy!! -- Lycaon 14:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Luc Viatour 13:59, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Awesome! Jon Harald Søby 15:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Excellent (visual) quality. About the tasting quality, we'll see later... - Alvesgaspar 17:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Winiar 19:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Vassil 24 May 2007
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support but oppose to eat --LucaG 22:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support does it taste like chicken? -- Ram-Man 04:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I would say more like prawns --Makro Freak 19:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Glorious in its ugliness... -- Vmenkov 04:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support great light and color MichaD 16:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Bergwolf 10:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tony Wills 12:05, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Digon3 13:59, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Orchi 19:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 21:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Munich Airport plane handling at sunset.jpg, not featured[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created & nominated by --Makro Freak 13:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Makro Freak 13:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info I would crop to remove the intrusive vertical pole. A closer crop on the plane, plus the parts of the image to the left would create a better composition IMO. --MichaelMaggs 17:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - Agree. The quality of the picture is excellent, I could never shoot one like this... - Alvesgaspar 17:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Michael, lets do it. :) --Makro Freak 18:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC) The picture is worth doing this. --Makro Freak 18:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I've just tried it, but unfortunately the image is too small to crop to the extent I would like and still fall within the FP resolution guidelines. --MichaelMaggs 17:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Like it this way. It would be a different picture after being cropped --Alipho 20:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Agree with Alipho. Romary 20:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I prefer this way too. Vassil 25 Mai 2007
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Useful, technical quality, interesting composition (sunset doesn't hurt!). -- Ram-Man 04:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I don't like sunsets ;-)) -- Lycaon 08:43, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose IMO it's not a good nor an illustrative picture of an airport. Keta 10:55, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support A very nicely captured moment --Digitaldreamer 13:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The intrusive vertical pole spoils the composition. --MichaelMaggs 17:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question PP? --Makro Freak 17:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, what's your question? --MichaelMaggs 10:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Bergwolf 10:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The pole, and I don't think this is the best picture of an airport. --Digon3 14:01, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose ditto michaelmaggs -- Gorgo 13:43, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as Keta --Karelj 20:13, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Benh 11:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Alvesgaspar 08:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tony Wills 22:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Good quality, very illustrative, but don't really like the composition --norro 22:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
result: 11 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 21:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Convolvulus arvenvis with mites.jpg, featured[edit]

Flower with velvet mites

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info I'm nominationg this picture because of the unusual and beautifual colour contrast between the delicate white, blue and green of the Convolvulus arvensis wild flower and the saturated red of the tiny velvet mites (Trombidium spec.). A third species (the beetle) is still unidentified. Created and nominated by Alvesgaspar--Alvesgaspar 15:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Alvesgaspar 15:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Technically excellent. Wow factor: the velvet mites. -- Ram-Man 17:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Got to give you the mites. The mites are cool. --Dschwen 06:43, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --MichaelMaggs 09:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great pic. :-) --Tony Wills 12:01, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Mites make it special. --Digon3 14:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Javier ME 16:28, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 21:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Stacheldraht 93.jpg, featured[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Waugsberg - uploaded by Waugsberg - nominated by Tano4595 --Tano4595 17:24, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tano4595 17:24, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support this is dark ... --Makro Freak 18:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Certainly better than the original version, but I preferred the original background where you can still make out that it's grass --Tony Wills 20:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Me too :) --Tano4595 23:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Wonderfully educational through simplicity. Nice and crisp technically. Pretty. -- Ram-Man 04:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, because I think there was photoshopping done to this image to make the grass so blurry... while I don't mind that in itself, it needs to be disclosed on the page. gren 06:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I don't think this was photoshopped. It's different than the previous version (which was not featuerd): this one is shot with a Canon 30D, the other one with an Olympus. With a 100mm macro lens at F9 you can get this kind of background. --Atoma 07:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Way better than the previous one. --Atoma 07:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --MichaelMaggs 09:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Interesting image, although less blur would be better... imho. MatthewFenton 11:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as Gren --Karelj 21:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I would prefer Image:Stacheldraht 05.jpg, as featured picture, because the backround is (mostly) grren in green and in the other picture the grass makes it more real --D-Kuru 21:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - I don't like this background either - Alvesgaspar 22:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - if I'm not mistaken, the subject of the image is barbed wire, and the blurred background therefore entirely appropriate. Samsara 12:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Jina Lee 16:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
result: 9 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Simonizer 21:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Lovell Telescope.jpg, not featured[edit]

The Lovell Telescope The Lovell Telescope

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by Mike Peel --Mike Peel 00:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Mike Peel 00:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Very nice subject, but it's either blurry, soft, and/or out of focus. It should be much sharper at this resolution. There are some weird chromatic effects. -- Ram-Man 03:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting delete.svg You're right; something odd has happened here. Back to the camera I go, to try to figure it out... Mike Peel 09:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Non-HDR version on the right; it seems that the HDR algorithm was the problem. Mike Peel 10:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 21:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Grafted blossoming tree unidentified white pink.JPG, not featured[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created and uploaded by Jina Lee. Nominated by Ram-Man. 16:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info A flowering cherry tree in the Prunus genus with two different color blossoms due to grafting.
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This is a beautiful example of grafting for landscaping purposes. -- Ram-Man 16:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - This is a real difficult subject (I've tried it quite often) and the result shows it: the lighting of the flowers is not good (a fill-in flash might be a solution in these conditions), the picture is blurry and grainy, and some chromatic aberration /purple fringing) is clearly visible. - Alvesgaspar 17:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I knew someone would say that :) Except for the lighting, the major defects are only visible above 4MP. If you downsample the image to 1800x2400 (4MP), the noise and grain mostly disappear. Should I upload a downsampled version? 4MP is well above the 2MP base requirement and I think that the composition and beauty compensate for the lighting. Just my opinion. -- Ram-Man 18:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Its hard to do the splits. The white blossoms and the white clouds, a very difficult motif. More light on the blossoms and there is no more contrast to the clouds ... Remember the place and go there when you have a homogenious blue sky, that will be a burner! --Makro Freak 22:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
    • That would have to be next April. Some of us like the clouds :) -- Ram-Man 03:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 21:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Cappadocia Turkey.jpg, not featured[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Cappadocia - UNESCO World Heritage Site
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Mbz1- uploaded by Mbz1- nominated by Mbz1--Mbz1 04:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Mbz1 04:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Could you fix the tilt? --Digon3 14:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Is a higher resolution image available? For such a highly textured landscape the extra resolution is much desired. -- Ram-Man 16:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
    • No it is not.--Mbz1 20:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
  • Pictogram voting delete.svg Mbz1 15:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
result: Nomination withdrawn => not featured. Simonizer 21:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Mono lake tufa2.JPG, not featured[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Sunrise at Mono Lake, California
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Mbz1- uploaded by created by Mbz1- nominated by created by Mbz1--Mbz1 04:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Mbz1 04:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Overexposed and very little color contrast. This has a rather weak, undefinable "wow factor" for me as well. While not an opposition reason (but perhaps a reason not to support), I'd prefer more resolution for more detail. -- Ram-Man 17:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Bergwolf 21:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Jina Lee 03:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose ack Ram-man. --Digon3 13:27, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting delete.svg Mbz1 15:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
result: Nomination withdrawn => not featured. Simonizer 21:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Anemonejelly.jpg, not featured[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Sea Anemone is in process of consuming a jellyfish. Sea Anemones look as plants, but they are animals and they are predators.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Mbz1- uploaded by Mbz1- nominated by Mbz1--Mbz1 05:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Mbz1 05:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Confusing composition, low quality and above all no identification. Lycaon 05:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • It is not a composition. It is a real life drama and a rare shot. Those are not preserved specimens, but real underwater amazing wildlife in their natural habitat. -- Mbz1 05:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
    • I takes skill to make real life pictures look like they are staged ;-) Lycaon 05:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Technically, the picture is not underwater, but breaking the surface, which aids in the confusing composition. It is a rare shot, because this is not the anemone's standard food, but a chance catch and so rather an anecdotical picture. Lycaon 05:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The composition is unclear (and all photographs involve composition). The quality is not high enough. Some of the elements are blurred and there are overexposed spectral highlights. This may be educational (if identified), but it's not of high enough quality for a FP. -- Ram-Man 17:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Well, I knew that the picture will be opposed. The idea of nominating the picture was not to make it a featured picture, but to have more people to look at it and maybe learn something new. I'm a strong believer that Wikipedia should be l a learning tool and not a photo contest of high quality pictures. The thing is that some subjects are easier to see and to photograph than others, but does it mean that we should future dozens of sharp butterflies at sharp flowers pictures and no single and unique anemone picture?--Mbz1 18:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as above, too confusing and unclear composition. --Digon3 17:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
    • There's only one anemone (a green one) and one jellyfish (a blue one) Is it really so confusing?-- Mbz1 19:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
What makes it unclear is all the rocks and shells on the side. --Digon3 20:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
It is not just any rocks and shells. These rocks and shells were placed there by the anemone itself to camouflage its adhesive foot. Looks like the anemone did its job very well. If everybody is confused, it means that all predators and prey will be confused too and the anemone will do just fine. --21:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as above --Karelj 20:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Bergwolf 21:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm really sorry that me, the anemone and the jellyfish have confused everybody. Next time I'll make sure to tell an anemone and a jellyfish to take their fight in less confusing "composition". Pictogram voting delete.svg Mbz1 14:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
result: Nomination withdrawn => not featured. Simonizer 21:53, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Image-Siberian Tiger sf.jpg, not featured[edit]

A tiger on a tree

  • Pictogram voting info.svg InfoA tiger on a tree
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by Mbz1--Mbz1 20:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Mbz1 20:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Bad exposure. -- Ram-Man 05:25, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your "Oppose", Ram-Man. If I do not see one on my picture, I really believe there's something wrong with it. Pictogram voting delete.svg Mbz1 14:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
result: Nomination withdrawn => not featured. Simonizer 21:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:NYC_Public_Library_Research_Room_Jan_2006.jpg[edit]

#1NYC public library research room #2NYC public library research room

#1, not featured[edit]

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info: Yet another amazing shot by Diliff. Showing the NYC ublic library research room. Nominated by --norro 10:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --norro 10:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Yes, quite impressive. But there are at least two clear stitching errors: one at the left foreground chair and desk and another, less obvious, at right. Alvesgaspar 10:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Luc Viatour 10:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Stitching errors. --Digon3 14:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Stiching errors are minor, after 1 minute I couldn't find them. Even after reading Alvesgaspar's comments I could barely see them. Great photo. --Atoma 15:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Romary 15:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose for stitching errors only. It's a good image, but in a panorama any stitching errors shouldn't be visible when evaluated at my standard evaluation criteria. I'd support if the stitching errors were fixed sufficiently. -- Ram-Man 18:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Karelj 19:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Thermos 20:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose for now but will happily change vote once stitching errors are fixed. --MichaelMaggs 21:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose stitching errors. That one that Alvesgaspar mentioned and at the left and the rigt side of the roof. Just follow the lines of the bordure and you will see it. --Simonizer 07:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
result: 6 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 06:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

#2, featured[edit]

Pictogram voting info.svg Info I uploaded an edited version,trying to suppress stitching errors.I think it was a very fine picture anyway.Vassil

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Vassil 25 May 2007
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --MichaelMaggs 05:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Alvesgaspar 07:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Romary 07:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I didn't spend a lot of time looking for stitching errors, but none were obvious. -- Ram-Man 11:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Digon3 16:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --norro 16:31, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Atoma 11:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Karelj 20:21, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose stitching errors have not been resolved Lycaon 18:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 09:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Pulteney Bridge, Bath.jpg[edit]

Pulteney Bridge, Bath, UK Pulteney Bridge, Bath, UK

Left version, not featured[edit]

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Let's try something that's not a flower or an insect. --MichaelMaggs 16:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • *Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice. Jina Lee 16:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • *Symbol support vote.svg Support Thats right :) --Makro Freak 16:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)* vote moved for the edited version --Makro Freak 10:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Lycaon 16:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC) vote moved down Lycaon 07:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support ! -- MJJR 18:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC) vote moved to the second version -- MJJR 15:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Perhaps only 2 little spots (drops?) to remove at the bottom of your picture. --LucaG 20:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC) vote moved to the edited version --LucaG 08:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Digitaldreamer 22:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Rama 23:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The noise is visible at 2MP and the shadows are underexposed. I find the foreground tree distracting. The whole image has a "murky" feel. Although I wouldn't oppose for this reason, the reflections are a tad cliche. I like images like this, this, or especially this. -- Ram-Man 04:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 14:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Right version, featured[edit]

  • Pictogram voting info.svg InfoThe second version has been sharpened a little more, de-spotted, lightened and slightly downsampled. --MichaelMaggs 06:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --MichaelMaggs 06:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Careful and beautiful composition. I prefer the edited version, sharper and with better light. - Alvesgaspar 07:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Lycaon 07:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Good work, I prefer the edited one. --LucaG 08:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Rama 08:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Tolles Bild ;) --Makro Freak 10:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Digitaldreamer 13:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support as above MichaD 17:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Bergwolf 10:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Digon3 13:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- MJJR 15:24, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like this image, the colors are making great atmosphere. --Aktron 20:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Jina Lee 16:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 09:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Parus caeruleus feeding.jpg, featured[edit]

Parus caeruleus feeding.jpg

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Blue Tit (Parus caeruleus), created, uploaded, and nominated by Dschwen
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Dschwen 05:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question Is that a hair or a scratch extending from the parent bird's beak? --MichaelMaggs 06:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Saliva. The thing in the chicks beak is the food piece (not identified yet) that was just passed over by the adult bird. --Dschwen 06:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I'm a bit worried of the controversial hunting promotion... -- Lycaon 07:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
    • He he, yeah, I'd have removed that sticker, but I did'nt want to get too close to the nesting box. The picture was taken at a student dorm where a majority of forestry students live. --Dschwen 08:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I rather like the ironic juxtuposition of the "happy birdie-family" and the wording on the notice. --MichaelMaggs 09:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Quark 09:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Auf den Naturschutz --Makro Freak 10:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Keta 10:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Waidmanns Heil! ;-) --Simonizer 11:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Romary 12:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral terrific capture, great detail, just a tad dark on the bird itself, maybe pp it a bit? MichaD 17:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support For the saliva thread... Vassil 25 May 2007
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Karelj 21:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Bergwolf 10:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support // tsca [re] 14:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support ack MichaelMaggs -- Lycaon 09:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Composition, I don't think the sign fits with the image. The text itself is also quite controversial to the upper part of the image ("Hunting is nature conservation") -- Gorgo 13:39, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, the advertsiment text fits the bird scene somehow. Blue tits hunt insects that otherwise would damage trees (thought the tit itself may damage the tree as well in its search of prey). Humans who hunt herbivores might somehow identify themselves with an insectivorous bird. Anyway, I agree the message is controversial. Would you support to feature this pic if the advert was blurred or if the lower part was cropped out? --Javier ME 16:13, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support very cute --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 06:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Bergwolf 22:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC) This user has already voted - Alvesgaspar 22:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Uhm... ...if you've changed your mind, may I suggest striking your support vote five lines above ;-) --Dschwen 22:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
result: 13 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Simonizer 09:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Dragonfly macro.jpg, featured[edit]

Four-spotted chaser

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Four-spotted chaser (Libellula quadrimaculata), created, uploaded, and nominated by Dschwen
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Dschwen 05:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Keta 10:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Because I don't think there are too many insects' photos in Commons and this is one of the best - Alvesgaspar 11:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Agree with Alvesgaspar. --LucaG 16:55, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Vassil 25 May 2007
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Bergwolf 10:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tony Wills 11:51, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Digon3 14:18, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Karelj 19:31, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support If only you could have gotten closer and/or used a smaller aperture for more DoF. But this is really good anyway. -- Ram-Man 01:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nemo5576 08:23, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --MichaelMaggs 21:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Bergwolf 22:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Makro Freak 21:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 09:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Swan portrait.jpg, not featured[edit]

Swan (cygnus olor)

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Mute swan (Cygnus olor) head shot, created, uploaded, and nominated by Dschwen
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Dschwen 05:43, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice photo, but 'city' background. I would prefer a more natural background. --Atoma 08:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
    • That's a habitat too. Modern times... --Dschwen 08:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Same as Atoma -- Keta 10:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very good, i like the urban colors a lot, especially the olive green combination --Makro Freak 12:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
    • ... findest du Head shot nicht ein wenig brachial ? :) :) :)
      • Weisst Du was Schwäne für aggressive Biester sein können? ;-) --Dschwen 15:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
        • Ich weiß, es sind die einzigen Vögel vor denen mein Husky Respekt hat ;-) --Makro Freak 15:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Excellent portrait, but the background ruins it for FP - Alvesgaspar 15:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
    • From w:Swan on the Mute Swan: a common temperate Eurasian species, often semi-domesticated. --Dschwen 15:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
    • That's not the point, this background would have ruined a human portrait also. - Alvesgaspar 16:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
      • What exactly disturbs you on this background? Even with that background, this picture has a surprisingly clarity. --Makro Freak 17:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
      • What disturbs me is the geometrical pattern and the strong contrasts in the background. But it should be enough to say that this picture is short of perfection, giving the abilities of the photographer and the possibility of repeating the shot. Not promoting this picture now is clarly better than delisting it later, a practise that I don't normallt approve. - Alvesgaspar 18:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Unnatural background. --Digon3 14:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 09:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Cygnus olor flirt.jpg[edit]

Left version, not featured[edit]

Short description Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created & nominated by --Makro Freak 12:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC) A heart
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Makro Freak 12:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Good picture, but the head in the FG disturbs the composition and removes the WOW necessary for FP. Lycaon 12:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I have to agree with Lycaon --User:Quark 13:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Sweet and voyeuristic, the one in front looks envious --Digitaldreamer 13:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I like the picture, but I also agree with Lycaon Keta 14:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Agree. It's a shame the presence of the envious one in the foreground. Alvesgaspar 15:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Added a slight Edit --Makro Freak 15:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC) Did i ever told that i was a special effects supervisor for the entertainment industry in my old career ? I sweard after my retreat (because of a burnout syndrome) that i never ever will touch any postproduction tools in my life, but rather take my husky and enjoy life. Today i broke with that :( because of the loving swans :) :) :)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment You are really a special effects supervisor to me but you forgot a bit of swan in the bottom right corner. --LucaG 16:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment oooops, done --Makro Freak 17:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment And now you should insert the "retouched picture" template... Alvesgaspar 17:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question Where can i find this template, Alvesgaspar? --Makro Freak 18:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting info.svg Info - I put it in the description part of the pic file. But you still need to complete the task... Alvesgaspar 18:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 09:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Right version, featured[edit]

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Makro Freak 15:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support For the fixed version Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose There's a seam instead of a oof swan now, did you copy that from another pic? The new part seems to have more feather detail. MichaD 16:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Yes your right. That was the wrong version. Fixed. --Makro Freak 17:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment There's still a slight problem on the leg, sorry for nitpicking MichaD 18:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Bwah! .. fixed and :) --Makro Freak 18:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Still, I see it slightly tilted. Don't get me wrong, I like the picture a lot ;) Keta 20:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Bergwolf 10:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment This seems incredibly cruel considering the sterling job you've done of cutting out that scene stealing foreground swan ... but the reflection is not right, right most reflection is blurred and bits that were on the right side of that neck are now gone (If you can't fix it I might vote support anyway, because I wouldn't know the difference if I'd not seen the original :-) --Tony Wills 11:48, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, but this image is not worth the deceit. This amount of digital manipulation sould be strongly discouraged. As per project scope commons still is a repository for wikimedia projects, which largely (by usage) are encyclepedic in nature. --Dschwen 11:46, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Sorry I fail to see any deceit here, one out of focus foreground element was removed (like perhaps removing a distracting grass stem from a photo of a blackbird). The picture appears to be showing courtship behaviour (together with other versions on its image page), quite encyclopaedic and the heart shape between them adds interest. --Tony Wills 12:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Winiar 15:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. as Dschwen --Karelj 19:34, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question The two vertical areas look to me like reflections of the bird edges, I do expect to see some discontinuity there. Which detail do I miss noticing that would show these to be edit seams?--Klaus with K 12:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support decided to support --Tony Wills 00:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
result: 5 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 09:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Ussikeel.jpg[edit]

Viper's Bugloss Echium vulgare. Picture has been named "Ussikeel" (Estonian translation for Viper's Bugloss) as the reason this image is taken in Estonia, in a little island called Osmussaar.

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Viper's Bugloss Echium vulgare. Picture has been named "Ussikeel" (Estonian translation for Viper's Bugloss) as the reason this image is taken in Estonia, in a little island called Osmussaar. Image created and nominated by Ivo Kruusamägi --Iffcool 20:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Iffcool 20:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The sky is overexposed and the flowers are not super sharp and detailed. -- Ram-Man 20:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Ram-Man. You should try again this summer. It looks like a good place to make pictures of E. vugare. -- Lycaon 20:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Overexposed. --Digon3 14:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 10:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Northen Beijing Church.JPG, delisted[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Delist because of size (1136 × 852), angle, and overexposed sky. Link to original nomination. --Digon3 13:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist Mostly because of the angle.--Digon3 13:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist The foreground right element is blurry. It is much less encyclopedic and useful because of the unnatural angle and geometric tilt. If "wow factor" comes up, the reddish tinge (even if natural) in the windows is very distracting. Lastly, the low resolution doesn't win any bonus points. -- Ram-Man 13:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist for the reasons stated. --MichaelMaggs 16:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist Too small and blurred --Alipho 19:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist mostly size, a bit angle (low enc). --Dschwen 06:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
result: 0 Keep, 5 Delist, 0 neutral => delisted. Simonizer 10:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Pennsylvania Winter Sunset.jpg, delisted[edit]

Sunset Harleysville, Pennsylvania

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Delist because of uninspiring composition, largely blown colors, not being really sharp and there are far better sunsets around. Link to original nomination. --MichaD 19:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist --MichaD 19:42, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist --Dschwen 09:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist Severe over-exposure of reds --Tony Wills 10:40, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist Good size, but poor quality and the are better sunset pictures. --Digon3 20:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist lacks usefulness. The foreground elements are more disturbing than helpful. The colors look unnaturally saturated. We have better sunsets for encyclopedic purposes. -- Ram-Man 01:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
result: 0 Keep, 5 Delist, 0 neutral => delisted. --Simonizer 07:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Carnegie steel ohio panorama.jpg, not featured[edit]

Ohio Works of the Carnegie Steel Co.

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Library of Congress - uploaded by Bkwillwm - nominated by Korrigan --le Korrigan bla 10:28, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --le Korrigan bla 10:28, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support In general cases, panorama pictures should follow the guidelines as well as others. We can understand a panorama FP has lees than 1000 pixles of verticla resolution, but then horizontal res should compense it. In this case, total resolution is below 2,000,000, but it can be mitigated since its a 1910 photo. --Javier ME 16:18, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Vertical resolution way beyond mitigation. At this resolution quality cannot be assessed, so FP is not an option (neither is QI). Lycaon 16:23, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Vertical resolution should be at least 800px. There are some mitigating reasons for a historical photo, but 400px is just too little. --Digon3 18:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose To accept a photo with the smallest side at 400px, even a panorama, it has to be something extremely special to compensate. This is nice, sure, but not that special. -- Ram-Man 01:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 08:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Styrax obassia flowers 002.JPG, not featured[edit]

Flowers of Styrax obassia

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by SB_Johnny - uploaded by SB_Johnny - nominated by SB_Johnny ----SB_Johnny|talk|books 11:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- (definitely look at it at full resolution!) --SB_Johnny|talk|books 11:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - very clear and a nice balance for me --Herby talk thyme 12:05, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Composition, no wow -- Lycaon 14:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Don't get me wrong, I love shots like this and think the composition isn't that bad at all (the blue sky saves it), but the backlighting on the flowers doesn't look good at all. I'm not sure that a fill flash would have helped either. -- Ram-Man 00:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Fantastic picture but per Ram Man --Makro Freak 12:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It enfolds his beauty on the 2nd sight --Makro Freak 14:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Bergwolf 22:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support sharp and clear. Beautiful natural colors. Composition well balanced. Verdy p 22:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 08:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Firefighting exercise.jpg, featured[edit]

USAF firefighters

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by the USAF - uploaded and nominated by --Orlovic (talk) 14:15, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Orlovic (talk) 14:15, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support // tsca [re] 14:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support At full size the fire fighter on the right is not perfectly focused, but this image has a very high resolution and works terribly well at medium sizes. --Javier ME 15:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great picture. --Mbz1 17:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
  • Symbol support vote.svgSymbol support vote.svg Amazing--D-Kuru 17:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Romary 17:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Majorly (talk) 18:50, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Winiar 15:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Karelj 19:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Ram-Man 00:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose poor focus -- Lycaon 10:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Jon Harald Søby 11:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- MichaD 14:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I dont like the Army --Makro Freak 15:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I don't think this image highlights any army activities in particular. Those firefighters could've been from any commercial airport as well. -- MichaD 16:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Very few firefighters in the world are part of a military branch. There are tons of volontary people too, helping everyday civil workers. And in most armies, there are no personnal trained for fighting fires. Verdy p 22:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --MichaelMaggs 21:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Lack of focus on firefighters give poor resolution. This is even worse because of light saturation within grays (look at those plain white areas onthe heads, look at the lack of shadows within the grey uniforms). The front is also distracting, too much in focus. The composition does not show really their work, what is burning, and what they are using to fight the fire. The only subject is the flames to make the image artificially impressive (but the flames are finally completely out of focus and don't even need a so high resolution as they are completely blurred)! Verdy p 22:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
result: 13 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Simonizer 08:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:CampanileGiotto-01.jpg, featured[edit]

Short description Edit

Original (left), featured[edit]

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by Thermos --Thermos 15:51, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Thermos 15:51, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Beautiful! Great POV, are you able to fly? --LucaG 18:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Majorly (talk) 18:48, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Vassil 26 May 2007
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Wow. Just wow. Ben Aveling 23:51, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Original only --Dschwen 08:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Winiar 15:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Beautiful POV and composition. Strangely (8 Mb file!! → overprocessed??) low quality image full of artifacts (e.g. see forest in background and pavement all around). Lycaon 16:19, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Very good composition but poor quality. Apparently this picture was ruined by post-processing, which is a shame. Alvesgaspar 08:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Makro Freak 15:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose the picture looks strange when looked at real size. It's like an oil painting (but the effect is very slight). So lika Alvesgaspar I think there is a problem with post processing. Benh 11:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose artifacts. Sorry... Berrucomons 21:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support (I don't like the manual edit on the right which adds no value and is less sharp and overexposed.) Verdy p 21:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
result: 9 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 08:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Edited (right), not featured[edit]

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Edit. The edit is crap (sorry) it blows a lot of detail for a superficially sexy look. I also resized the thumbnails for fairness (before the resizing the original had an old unsharpened thumbnail and the edit had a thumbnail generated with the new settings which sharpen the thumbnails). --Dschwen 08:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC) Vote of Dschwen splitted between the two versions - Alvesgaspar 09:37, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Same as above, but worse... Benh 11:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
result: 0 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of th 5th day) Simonizer 07:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Marseille Palais Longchamp At Night JD 22052007.jpg, not featured[edit]

Palais Longchamp, Marseille

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Jan Drewes - uploaded by JDrewes - nominated by JDrewes --Jan Drewes (www.jandrewes.de) 21:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Jan Drewes (www.jandrewes.de) 21:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice. --Atoma 11:34, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very good! SeaSide 15:29, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good. --Karelj 19:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- MJJR 19:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Vassil 27 May 2007
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I think this would be better taken during the day, or at least taken without the pond. The weird lighting on the plants is really disturbing. --Digon3 20:39, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Too much distortion, doesn't look natural - Alvesgaspar 22:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose For a wide angle shot, some distortion is acceptable. This distortion is ok because it is well balanced/symmetrical. However, to quote the guidelines: "nightshots are pretty but normally more details can be shown on pictures taken at daytime". I realize a pretty picture like this has a "wow", but I'd rather have useful and with a nice daytime sky or even a sunset. The lighting here is unnatural. -- Ram-Man 00:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per other opposers -- Lycaon 10:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Distortion. Is there not a tool to revome distortions ? --Makro Freak 12:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I am pretty sure that you can remove distortions only on single frames. This is a stitched panorama, and while it would be mathematically possible to remove the distortion, it would warp the outline of the image requiring severe cropping. If someone knows a free/OSS tool that can do this without manually measuring all the parameters, please give me a hint, thx! --Jan Drewes (www.jandrewes.de) 15:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info When you look at the image in full size, and you scroll from left to right, you can see the landscape as if you were there instead of the camera. Modifying perspective would make the image look unnatural when seen in the above conditions. --Atoma 11:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I'm sure that the left and right images were tilted to make them fit with the central image, and the result is an image that looks as if the camera was not only rotating horizontally, but also vertically at the same time. The circle effect that affects the horizontals comes from the making up of the panorama, not from the original photos. Also, it's clear that color saturation was increased by manual edit (this edit of color saturation was excessive here!) The image is no more illustrative, but looks too much like an articial studio paint for a movie of the 1950's or the kind of colors that were initially added to old black and white films: too much artificial. So the articifial circular distortion of forms (sort of fish-eye effect) must be canceled, as well as the oversaturation of colors. Verdy p 21:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
result: 6 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 08:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Pelecanus onocrotalus closeup.jpg, not featured[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created & nominated by --Makro Freak 19:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC) Pelecanus onocrotalus
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Makro Freak 19:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I'd prefer if the animal wasn't cut off. -- Ram-Man 04:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose ack Ram-man on crop. Very good technical quality though. --Digon3 13:24, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 08:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Estoi 002.jpg, not featured[edit]

Gardens of the Palácio de Estoi, Portugal

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by MJJR - uploaded by MJJR - nominated by MJJR -- MJJR 20:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- MJJR 20:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Composition. --Digon3 20:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 08:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Estoi 001.jpg, not featured[edit]

Gardens of the Palácio de Estoi, Portugal

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by MJJR - uploaded by MJJR - nominated by MJJR -- MJJR 20:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- MJJR 20:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Composition, angle and doesn't really have a "wow" factor. It would have been better if taken more to the right. --Digon3 20:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The paintings are beautiful --Makro Freak 20:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 08:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Skyline Frankfurt am Main (jha).jpg, not featured[edit]

Reworked version of Skyline_Frankfurt_am_Main.jpg by -jha-

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info originally created by Nicolas17 - uploaded by -jha- - nominated by Tony Wills --Tony Wills 10:30, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info This was marked as FP, although it was its predecessor that was evaluated, so thought it should be evaluated, and the FP tag moved from the old version if this one is successful --Tony Wills 10:30, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose nothing crisp, noisy, glare. Lycaon 11:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support very nice -- Gorgo 13:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Sharpness is always one of the challenges in night shots, and this one is not really very sharp at full res. On the other hand, I like the nice composition and the general atmosphere -- MJJR 14:13, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Alvesgaspar 19:51, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Practically the same picture was on this page on 7. April and was successful. I do not see any reason for repeating of voting for picture taken probably form the very near place in the same time. Isn´t one evaluation enough?? --Karelj 20:07, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
It is the same image, but 'improved' - see the Pictogram voting info.svg Info lines above! :-) --Tony Wills 21:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose; the image is too noisy, as it was said. Maybe taking the image few minutes before with more sunlight could help it a bit. --Aktron 20:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I support replacing the old FP with this one, although I don't feel all that strongly one way or the other. -- Ram-Man 00:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice colors --Makro Freak 12:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Orlovic (talk) 13:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Jina Lee 16:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too many distracting reflections on water (the subject is lost, it is no more the skyline but a demo about colored reflections on water). The existing featured image is much more ilustrative without these artificial effects that are really abusive here, and at the cost of a much lower quality with more noise! Verdy p 21:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
result: 6 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Eta carinae IR.jpg, not featured[edit]

Eta Carinae nebula in infrared by Spitzer Telescope

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Eta Carinae nebula in infrared by Spitzer Telescope created by NASA - uploaded & nominated by Winiar --Winiar 15:46, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Winiar 15:46, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I prefer the already featured HST pic of the same nebula. --Dschwen 20:07, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It doesn't really stand out and as Dschwen said, this picture is better. --Digon3 20:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose We can't feature every NASA photo, and this one is clearly does not have the same wow factor or even technical quality that some others have. -- Ram-Man 00:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support-- Mbz1 03:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose ack Dschwen -- Lycaon 06:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Orion Nebula (M42) part HST 4800px.jpg, not featured[edit]

Part of Orion Nebula in visible light by HST

  • Pictogram voting info.svg InfoPart of Orion Nebula in visible light by HST - created by NASA - uploaded & nominated by Winiar --Winiar 19:39, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Winiar 19:39, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Some nebulas are masterpieces... Vassil 27 May 2007
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Beautiful. I think this stands out from most of the rest of the NASA pictures. --Digon3 20:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Ram-Man --LucaG 13:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC) Symbol support vote.svg Support WOW! I need this lens for my camera. --LucaG 22:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Symbol support vote.svg Support The Orion Nebula is one of the more famous ones, so it is clearly useful, perhaps more than many others. This picture is beautiful as well. -- Ram-Man 00:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Ram-Man Lycaon 06:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Ram-Man --Dschwen 08:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Ram-Man Chris_huhtalk 11:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Ram-Man -- Digon3 15:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Galactic Cntr half Edit 1.jpg, not featured[edit]

The Galactic Center The Galactic Center

Original (left), not featured[edit]

*Symbol support vote.svg Support --Imaninjapirate 20:57, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

result: 0 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Higher res (right), not featured[edit]

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I think this higher res one is better --Imaninjapirate 22:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral This is beautiful, but I like this one a little better and they both seem to show the center of the milky way (but I could be wrong). -- Ram-Man 00:35, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
* Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The two images are displaying the same thing, but in very different ways. In the current featured picture, the core is the main focus of the picture, not really too much else. This picture does exemplify the core very well, but it could also exemplify interstellar gas, nebulas, and, of course, stars. This picture shows a lot more than just the core, and should be judged upon as so. Imaninjapirate 15:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Hmmm... on a second look of the other one I suppose the other does show all the things I mentioned. Never mind.
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose ack Ram-Man and no WOW as a (large) thumb. Lycaon 06:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Orlovic (talk) 13:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Winiar 18:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose IHMO this picture has no quality for FP. There are thousands of similar space pictures from NASA source and I think, that here should apear mostly works of our wikipedists and only exceptionally pictures from some space agency. --Karelj 19:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Chemnitz-Marx-Monument.jpg[edit]

Original: Chemnitz-Marx-Monument.jpg Edited: Chemnitz-Marx-Monument2.jpg

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created & uploaded by Kolossos, nominated by --Tets 00:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg InfoNischel”, Karl-Marx-memorial from Lew Jefimowitsch Kerbel in Chemnitz, Germany
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tets 10:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Overexposed and poor composition. --Digon3 13:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
    better? --Tets 02:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
    Unfortunately, when a picture is overexposed like this, it loses details that cannot be recovered with any amount of editing. It happens to almost everyone, and the only thing you can do is retake the picture. --Digon3 02:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Nuvola apps important yellow.svg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because seriously overexposed. Sorry. --MichaelMaggs 21:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC) Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

PICT2037.JPG White Iris 2037.jpg[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Samdejonghe - uploaded by samdejonghe - nominated by samdejonghe
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose bad filename, missing species --Jeses 18:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Nuvola apps important yellow.svg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because normally expected that images showing plants are fully identified, and also that they have a descriptive file name. --MichaelMaggs 21:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC) Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

Image:Gruuthusehof 02.jpg[edit]

Bruges (Belgium): garden of the Gruuthusemuseum and St Boniface bridge in the morning light

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by MJJR - uploaded by MJJR - nominated by MJJR -- MJJR 19:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- MJJR 19:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Overexposed and lacking composition. --Digon3 19:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose No, it is a nice shot. But yes, the sky is burnt white. Berrucomons 20:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Nuvola apps important yellow.svg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because overexposed, and the composition doesn't really bring out the subject. --MichaelMaggs 21:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC) Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

Image:Aurora australis panorama.jpg, delisted[edit]

Short description NR version

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Vey seldom I propose an image to be delisted, but this one seems to be a clear error of judjement. The compression was so extreme that the sky looks like a mosaic of artifacts. This picture is a bad publicity to its author, one of our best creators. Initial nomination is here Alvesgaspar 20:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist --Alvesgaspar 20:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist As above. --Digon3 20:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, it was selected almost two years ago. And it still is a pretty impressive picture. I don't know if I had the nerve to create a pano of a sight this stunning. Anyways it was probably pushing the limits of his equipment so I wouldn't really call it bad publicity. The resolution (with respect to sharpness) is fairly low though. So I guess I'll go with a reluctant Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist . I'd like to hear fir's stand on the delist though. Was he notified? --Dschwen 20:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist the original ack Dschwen. Symbol keep vote.svg Keep: Replace with the new version.-- Ram-Man 20:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Symbol keep vote.svg Keep. Thanks first off to Dschwen for notifying me. And yes you're right it was really pushing my equipment and myself to get the images and I still rank this is one my best photographs! Far from bad publicity!! I've uploaded an edit with NR (I didn't have any noise reduction software back when I first uploaded the image) which should address issues of "extreme compression" aka noise. Personally I would really be sad to see this as being unworthy of FP status - this is the aurora! The holy grail of photography! --Fir0002 www 00:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist the original, re-enter new version for FP selection -- Lycaon 08:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question - I find it a bit too noisy for ISO 400 of a Canon 20D. Canon has a very little noise on ISO 400. Anyway, I think it's a good photo but because I'm not sure if that's the best possible, I prefer not to vote. --Arad 01:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
result: 5 Delist, 1 Keep, 0 neutral => delisted. Simonizer 07:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Hallgrímskirkja.jpeg, delisted[edit]

300px|Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Low quality and resolution (1024x768). Original nomination.
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist -- Ram-Man 03:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist A shame it's such low quality scan -- MichaD 15:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist Poor quality. --Digon3 15:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist per MichaD Lycaon 23:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist --Simonizer 08:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
result: 5 Delist, 0 Keep, 0 neutral => delisted. Simonizer 16:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Ixobrychus minutus 2 (Marek Szczepanek).jpg, delisted[edit]

Ixobrychus minutus

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Very low resolution (650x420). Original nomination. 02:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist -- Ram-Man 02:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist -- MichaD 15:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist --Digon3 15:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist -- Lycaon 08:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist --Simonizer 14:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
result: 5 Delist, 0 Keep, 0 neutral => delisted. Simonizer 16:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Japan Tottori MitokuSan Nageiredo DSC01248.jpg, delisted[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Blurry. Original nomination. 02:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist -- Ram-Man 02:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist Very blurry -- MichaD 15:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Reluctant Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist It is a great picture, but it is very blurry. --Digon3 15:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist there is also a colour cast and some overexposure. -- Lycaon 08:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist --Simonizer 08:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
result: 5 Delist, 0 Keep, 0 neutral => delisted. Simonizer 16:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:LilacBreastedRollerCropped.jpg, not delisted[edit]

Lilac Breasted Roller

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Low quality and resolution. Color fringing. original nomination. 01:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist -- Ram-Man 01:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist -- MichaD 15:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
It was cropped from this version. There are other picture of this type of bird here --Digon3 16:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg QuestionAre there other quality issues apart from size & fringing? --Tony Wills 22:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
    • It's not particularly sharp and the noise is visible, if that's what you mean. -- Ram-Man 23:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist --Simonizer 09:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
result: 3 Delist, 0 Keep, 0 neutral =>not delisted. Simonizer 16:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Keys.jpg, delisted[edit]

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Low quality, low resolution, and image is proposed for deletion anyway. Original nomination. 01:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist -- Ram-Man 01:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist --Javier ME 09:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist - No future in Commons for this pic. Alvesgaspar 12:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist I have notice that we might lose quite a few FP's from stock.xchng. --Digon3 15:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist -- Lycaon 08:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
result: 5 Delist, 0 Keep, 0 neutral => delisted. Simonizer 16:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Kings cross tunnel.jpg (new edited version Image:Kings cross tunnel edit.jpg), not delisted[edit]

Kings cross tunnel
Kings cross tunnel edit

Original image (left)[edit]

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Bad white balance, grainy, lowish quality and resolution. original nomination. 01:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist This barely passed in 2005. It wouldn't pass today. -- Ram-Man 01:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist Interesting, but not good enough for FP --Javier ME 09:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep Not a error of judjement, the picture is still nice and of good quality. The rules were then less strict. Alvesgaspar 12:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral If it weren't for the white balance I'd say the content would mitigate the low resolution -- MichaD 15:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep It is not bad enough to delist yet. Can someone correct the white balance? --Digon3 16:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment If someone fixes the white balance, we can keep this as a FP. Maybe perform some anti-jpeg compression noise reduction as well. -- Ram-Man 16:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep --Luc Viatour 04:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
result: 2 Delist, 3 Keep, 0 neutral => , not delisted. Simonizer 16:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Edit version (right)[edit]

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment You may compare with a new edited version on the right (denoised and lighter, and rectangle completely filled without the small bright triangles; I make it visible by adding a thin black border around the two images). It's difficult to denoise it due to low contrasting lines. I had to keep the person in the center and the display panels. Please override this new version if you can do something better. Verdy p 02:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Raspberries (Rubus Idaeus).jpg, delisted[edit]

Raspberries

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Very low resolution. Better raspberry FP here. Original nomination. 01:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist -- Ram-Man 01:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist -- MichaD 16:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment, size is low, but the comparison to the other pic is bogus. This pic shows the berries on the plant, with context. The other FP shows a heap of plucked berries. --Dschwen 18:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
    • The comparison was such that if we delist this, we at least have another picture of raspberries, albiet of different context. Personally I don't buy arguments to not delist because we don't have another legitimate alternative. We don't use that logic for normal FP noms. The main reason to delist is the size. It's just nice to know that we at least have one other raspberry FP. When the raspberries in my yard form in a few weeks, I'll be sure to take some similar pictures. -- Ram-Man 18:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist --Simonizer 12:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist Only for size. Someone needs to take a higher resolution picture just like this. --Digon3 13:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist ack Digon3 -- Lycaon 08:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
result: 5 Delist, 0 Keep, 0 neutral => delisted. Simonizer 16:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Primula aka.jpg, not delisted[edit]

Primula

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Very much overexposed. Original nomination. 01:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist It should be exposed like this current FP candidate. If a better exposed orange flower can't even get 5 support votes in 5 days, then this clearly should be delisted. -- Ram-Man 01:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 Delist, 0 Keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. Simonizer 16:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Monarch Butterfly Pink Zinnia 1800px.jpg, featured[edit]

Monarch Butterfly Monarch Buttefly

Version #1
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Ram-Man. 16:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Ram-Man 16:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Jon Harald Søby 11:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC) (the image wasn't listed on Commons:Featured picture candidates before, so this (28 May) is the date that should be counted when deciding.)
    • You found my hidden noms. I wasn't sure I'd submit this picture because it's my favorite picture (looks splendid printed at 11x14 and iridescent (real) on metallic paper) and I didn't want to suffer through opposition because it's "cliche" or some other typical response. The Monarch Butterfly article is one of the best illustrated articles, complete with an image lifecycle, that the english wikipedia has, IMO. -- Ram-Man 14:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Beacuse of the excellent colours and composition and despite the unfortunate crop - Alvesgaspar 12:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support nice relaxed composition, good colors -- MichaD 14:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I would see the eyes a bit more --Makro Freak 15:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very nice. --Digon3 16:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Looks splendid on my monitor too. It's a pity that cropped petal. --LucaG 17:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great! The cropped petal is not important, as the butterfly is the essential subject -- MJJR 19:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Karelj 19:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Vassil 28 May 2007
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --MichaelMaggs 21:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I'm always fooled by the blotchiness of the wing patterns with Monarchs. The only thing that almost really made me vote neutral was the cut petal. For the rest the picture is very good. -- Lycaon 05:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support 1 or 2. both wonderfully bright. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 06:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 16:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Version #2

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Maybe its not blurred anymore but it look very unnatural, like cutted off --Makro Freak 15:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I see no VALUE in the image. We have way too many similar images and much better ones by the way. --Mbz1 05:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
result: 0 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 16:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Trifolium repens (inflorescense).jpg[edit]

Trifolium repens*Edit

Original (left) , not featured[edit]

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by Lycaon -- Lycaon 21:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Lycaon 21:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Dust spots on the green background are annoying. Seems a little underexposed or low-contrast to me. -- Ram-Man 12:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 14:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Edit (right), featured[edit]

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Removed sensor dust spots, noise reduction, sharpened, contrast enhancement. I can modify it again if any of these changes are not desired or if brighter petals are desired. -- Ram-Man 02:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, though the 'dust' was on the flower, not on the sensor ;-) -- Lycaon 05:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I removed dust spots on the green background and a single large dark spot of a minor petal, because it was large enough to be a dust spot (though I wasn't totally sure about that one). I didn't think it would be a big deal one way or another.
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I'll support my own edit, or another similar edit, so long as the dust spots are removed and it looks a little less murky. I'm not even sure if I love my own edit, but I didn't want to go crazy brightening it up either. -- Ram-Man 12:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- MJJR 20:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very sharp. Vassil 31 May 2007
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Jina Lee 03:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The picture has no Value --Mbz1 13:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Anna reg 20:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
result: 6 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 16:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:eikel.jpg[edit]

300px|Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Samdejonghe - uploaded by samdejonghe - nominated by samdejonghe
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --samdejonghe 16.27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Please include the necessary license template as well as some information about the subject and a proper categorization. Otherwise the nomination will be closed in a short time. Alvesgaspar 22:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Nuvola apps important yellow.svg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because missing the necessary licence template and full subject information. The image needs to be propely classified, too. --MichaelMaggs 15:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC) Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

Image:slakkenhuis.JPG[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Samdejonghe - uploaded by samdejonghe - nominated by samdejonghe
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Underexposed, shallow DOF. --Digon3 16:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Nuvola apps important yellow.svg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because it is of poor photographic quality and no category or information about the species is given - Alvesgaspar 08:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC) Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

Image:Libya 4983 Tadrart Acacus Luca Galuzzi 2007.jpg, featured[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Luca Galuzzi - uploaded by Luca Galuzzi - nominated by Simonizer 09:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great atmosphere and good composition --Simonizer 09:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I love how the wind is blowing the sand, but I wish there was a human element to give this a sense of scale. -- Ram-Man 12:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Done. I've just uploaded 2 more shots of that moment. One with a man on the same dune and another one with people walking on the ridge ahead (different angle of light). I do prefer the candidate one with moving dune but feel free to candidate every one ;-) Take a look to the 2nd row of my gallery to see the whole sequence. --LucaG 22:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, per above. --KFP 13:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Alvesgaspar 14:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - MJJR 21:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --MichaelMaggs 21:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Digon3 21:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Which planet you said this was from? ;-) -- Lycaon 21:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very nice --Makro Freak 22:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Vassil 30 May 2007
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It just misses some stormtroopers :) As usual, remarkable shot of a remarkable place... Benh 09:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support pfctdayelise (说什么?) 06:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 07:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Turtle digging (4 panels).jpg, not featured[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by Ben Aveling 13:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This one's a bit of a punt. I think the individual images are nice, and that putting them together like this 'tells a story'. I'm aware that the resulting image is large, and for once, I'm not sure if that's a good thing. I'm open to suggestions on cropping, and downsampling, or anything else. There are two other images I could swap in instead, in Image:Turtle preparing to lay 6481.JPG and Image:Turtle preparing to lay 6483.JPG. However, I don't think 6481 forms such a good composition, and 6483 would require a bit of editing to repair the unfortunate cropping at the back of the turtle. --Ben Aveling 13:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not fit for FP. The images are too similar, there is no eyecatcher. This might be good for a smaller GIF animation if you have a more or less continuous series. -- Lycaon 21:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support A rare sight! --Mbz1 05:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment. It's not Caretta caretta but Lepidochelys olivacea, no ? 86.66.199.58 11:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment
      Turtle preparing to lay 6481.JPG
      The photo was taken at en:Heron Island, Australia, which normally gets Loggerheads and Greens. Now, I'm not sure I personally could tell the difference but the photo was taken during the day, which pretty much rules out the Greens, as far I understand it's almost unheard of them to lay during the day. While the Loggerheads prefer to lay at night, they do also sometimes lay during the day. And she wasn't small. Here's a more close up picture of the poor lady. Why do you think she's an Olive Ridley? Regards, Ben Aveling 13:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Pictogram voting comment.svg CommentCarapax dont look like Caretta's (color, form of the head) and it's taken during the day. If it's not an olivacea, it's perhaps a natator depressus, this kid of hole for nesting is typic and north of Gladstone is a nesting site for them. If you have -even bad quality- of prefrontals depressus, olivacea and caretta (NC french says "big head" for Caretta) 86.76.216.74, thanks 14:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
        • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment You're right that she's not a loggerhead. She has "4 paires d'ecailes costales, la premier paire n'est pas en contact avec l'ecaile nucale" which describes 'natator depressus' but also describes greens (Image:Chelonia.svg). As per the pages you list, Olivacea and Caretta each have at least 5 pairs of scales down the side, the front pair of which touch the scale above the neck. So she's neither of those. I guess I can't rule out 'natator depressus' but given that the location is known for greens, I'm pretty sure she's a green turtle (Chelonia mydas). Thanks, Ben Aveling 23:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Pussy Willow Stem 2000px.jpg, featured[edit]

Pussy Willow

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded, or nominated by Ram-Man. 13:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info A catkin of a Pussy Willow (Salix).
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I think the shallow DoF works in favor of this subject. The important elements are sharp and illustrative and the rest are not distracting. It's beautiful when taken as a whole. -- Ram-Man 13:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Jina Lee 16:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Nice and illustrative - Alvesgaspar 18:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support FP worthy !! -- Lycaon 21:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Makro Freak 22:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Looks good at thumbnail level but at full res the DOF is way too shallow - should have been shot at least f/11 - 5.6 was just asking for trouble IMO. --Fir0002 www 22:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I'd like a little more DOF, but it's really an amazing image --LucaG 22:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very nice. --Digon3 14:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I'm afraid I'm with Fir0002 on this; sorry. A good picture, but could have been great had the DoF been enough to show all or at least more of the strands in focus. --MichaelMaggs 19:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as Fir0002 --Karelj 20:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Bergwolf 22:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Although the DOF is a bit shallow I'd doubt you'd get the whole thing in focus even at f/11 or f/16 --MichaD 22:19, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
result: 8 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 07:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Messier 81 HST.jpg, not featured[edit]

Messier 81 (M81, NGC 3031) bared-spiral galaxy by HST

  • Pictogram voting info.svg InfoMessier 81 (M81, NGC 3031) bared-spiral galaxy created by NASA (HST) - uploaded & nominated by Winiar --Winiar 14:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Winiar 14:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral This one doesn't wow me like other NASA pictures. The only other spiral galaxy FP is Image:NGC 1672 HST.jpg, which has more of a "wow factor", but has an unfortunate lower resolution. -- Ram-Man 14:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Mbz1 18:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Luc Viatour 09:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose There are better ones Metoc 18:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The technical quality of space images is given in its resolution and number of colors or shades it supports. The image CAN'T be impressive by composition, because it would result in FALSE (non-scientific) information. So even colors can't be changed without scientific justification. There are still no illustration for this spiral galaxy, and we need such images for Wikimedia projects. Verdy p 21:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Anyway, recoloring using warmer colors would not be too detrimental to the scientific value of the image, if done correctly (but be careful when saving with digital artefacts because this is a lossy JPEG format; edits should be performed in lossless PNG formats for tests at various resolutions, only to prepare illustrations e.g. for an article!). Don't add any artistic effects when editing such high-quality images (the original is ALWAYS the best to keep, even if it does not look impressive). Verdy p 21:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
result: 4 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:The Bavaria statue.jpg, not featured[edit]

Short description

File:The Bavaria statue errors.jpg
edit that shows up all the stitching errors
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Makro Freak & Digitaldreamer, nominated by --Makro Freak 21:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info The Bavaria statue (German just 'Bavaria') is a bronze-cast statue of a female figure representing Bavaria's "secular patron saint", the Tellus (Mater) Bavarica ("goddess of the land of Bavaria"), located at the border of the Theresienwiese in Munich, Bavaria, Germany, where the Oktoberfest takes place each September.
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Makro Freak 21:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Watch the upside down 'Augustiner' beerbottle in the foreground :)) --Makro Freak 21:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Why not during daylight? Lycaon 21:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Its not illuminated, plus there are plenty pictures during daylight. I like it the most at night. Its somewhat crowded during the day because its one of the main attractions in munich. --Makro Freak 21:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This picture would be much better in daylight. IMO night pictures should only be used for cityscapes. --Digon3 21:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Bavaria 2.jpg
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It's purely a matter of taste. <-- Have a look :) During Daytimes its not possible to see the detailed sculptures in the building because the roof casts a shadow to the hallway. There was a complex planning, before taking this very detailed picture--Makro Freak 21:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - This time I don't agree with the opposers and think that the guidelines can't be applied blindly. The iluminated statue and building are a subject by itself and the picture has an excellent quality and a nice composition. Alvesgaspar 22:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The example daylight image isn't very good, but that's also no reason to support this one. This shot, like so many others, would likely be better taken either around dawn or dusk for less contrasty lighting. It would be a good tradeoff between a nighttime and daytime shot. Maybe if this was a shot of just the statue I'd be more inclined to support. -- Ram-Man 00:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I fully agree with Alvesgaspar. Romary 06:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I also agree with Alvesgaspar. F.H.B. 11:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I think it's technically good, but too dark, and there's a hard to miss stitching error on right part of the building. Benh 09:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Which one were you refering to? I have found about 15 hard to miss stitching errors which I have highlighted in my upload. I was unsure what info and licensing to put on the image so I just left it blank, it will be deleted soon and I don't suppose it matters since it has no use beyond this discussion?--Benjamint444 10:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC) (I am not against the image, just the errors.)
  • It's one in the middle of the front of the right wing. I think you haven't highlighted it. Benh 11:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Picture FBI ;) --Makro Freak 13:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Brief technical background info: This image has been composed from 24 images using different angles and exposures. The stitching had to be done manually to remove multiple foreground objects. If you only see stitching errors on pixel level, the goal has been achieved. --Digitaldreamer 23:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I believe it beautifully captures the Bavaria and its impressive lighting at night. --Digitaldreamer 23:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • NO, most are visible at 100% and the two largest ones are visible without zooming in at all. The pillar that I circled has two left edges at different angles And there is a huge smear to the right of that which I have circled. IMO nothing can justify such a large number of flaws and a much better job of the stitching could be made, or you could have cloned out those lines to an invisible level with ease. --Benjamint444 00:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
    •  :) Never mind! --Makro Freak 15:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The stitching first sufferts from parallax errors and then from poor transitions where these occur. Maybe use different software which does not give image ghosts. Editing with gimp after the stitch could repair some of the damage.--Klaus with K 21:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Brilliant image. MatthewFenton 17:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
result: 6 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Kosaciec 01.JPG, not featured[edit]

Iris

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by Lestat --Lestat 19:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Lestat 19:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral The lighting isn't great and the iris isn't species identified. I'd like a little more sharpness too. It's quite difficult to get good iris shots: because of the 3-dimensional nature of these flowers, a very small aperture must be used to acheive sufficient DoF, which results in distracting (natural) backgrounds (either requiring blurring in post-processing or just accepting it). Getting the color "right" is also near impossible since they look very different under different lighting conditions. The color is very nice on this one. -- Ram-Man 19:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Unoriginal David.Monniaux 07:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The lighting seems harsh. --Digon3 11:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 08:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Hunting tiger.JPG, not featured[edit]

Hunting Tiger Edit 1 - Sharpened - Contrast corrected and noise reduced

  • Pictogram voting info.svg InfoThe next moment after the picture was taken the tiger jumped, but missed his prey.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by Mbz1--Mbz1 20:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Original (left), not featured[edit]

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Mbz1 20:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I'm afraid that the grass is in focus, the tiger isn't. A great catch though. --MichaelMaggs 21:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
    • One can see each and every hair around tiger's mouth as well as many separate hairs inside the tiger's ears. Is it what you call "out of focus"? This is a rhetorical question. No reply is needed.-- Mbz1 22:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Yes, we can see the hair inside the tiger's ears but they are indeed out of focus, as well as the whole animal. Alvesgaspar 01:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Good shot, but animal and, most importantly, the face, is out of focus. Chris_huhtalk 01:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The tiger's hunting posture is greatly captured. I think we could accept how the mouth is focused -it might be starting a movement when captured, but as Alvesgaspar pointed, even the ear hairs are out of focus. Besides, the crop above its back is too tight while there is a wide background at its sides. Great photo, not FP --Javier ME 08:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Tiger is out of focus. --Digon3 13:24, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, I believe you are right. Now I do see that the hairs in the tiger's ears are out of focus. Sorry I took your time.Pictogram voting delete.svg Mbz1 14:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
result: Nomination withdrawn=> not featured. Simonizer 08:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Edit 1 (Right), not featured[edit]

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Sharpened - Contrast corrected and Noise reduced.
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - I like the position of the tiger. --Arad 20:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Quality is still too low and like Mbz1 would say: i can see No VALUE in this picture cause there are allready better tiger pictures available at wikimedia (second part of comment is meant to be ironical) --Simonizer 13:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 08:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Siberian Iris Iris sibirica Flower 2500px.jpg, not featured[edit]

Siberian Iris*Cropped version

EXAMPLE: The flowers and leaves are tilting left and right.

Original Version (left)[edit]

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Created, uploaded, and nominated by Ram-Man. 03:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Siberian Iris (Iris sibirica) flower against a background of the plant's leaves.
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Ram-Man 03:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Unoriginal composition David.Monniaux 07:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Though I don't think the composition is unoriginal, I don't like it. The flower is tilted and I think it would be better centered with a better crop. --Digon3 13:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Irises often grow on a tilt. -- Ram-Man 15:27, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Then could you find one that doesn't have as much of a tilt? --Digon3 16:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
How about this or this? -- Ram-Man 18:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Lestat 14:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support In fact, this is an excellent picture: good lighting, great DoF, perfect colors, and with encyclopedic relevance. It's tilted: so what? A lot of flowers in nature are just tilted. And what do you mean with 'unoriginal composition'? There are no many different manners to make a good picture of a flower! I agree with Digon3 and propose to crop the left side of the picture, although by doing so, it will be more 'classic' and even more 'unoriginal' in composition... -- MJJR 19:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
    • This picture was intended to solve the problems of this nomination where the flower was pointed to the outside of the picture, rather than the inside. In this picture the orientation of the cone was criticized because it didn't match reality. As for composition, there are many ways to show off an iris. No one way is correct since you can't show the entire flower in one picture. Cropping the picture (which is fine) will make it less compliant with the Rule of Thirds, making it, as you say, "unoriginal". -- Ram-Man 19:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
      • I wonder if the 'Rule of Thirds' is relevant for close-up pictures of flowers... -- MJJR 19:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - Not only the flower is tilted but also the leaves, which gives a clear sensation of tilt. I really don't understand why the picture cannot be rotated, since it is such a beautiful colour composition. Alvesgaspar 21:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
    • See the example of the entire plant. The flowers (and leaves) tilt in all directions. You can see in the nominated picture that the leaves on the left are leaning left and the ones on the right are leaning right. Rotating would be possible, but there shouldn't be any reason to require it, since it naturally tilts. Some of the "tilt" isn't tilt at all, but the angle that the picture was taken at. I have iris pictures from different angles, but I like this particular one. -- Ram-Man 21:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
      • I would support this example picture. Can you nominate it too? I like it! --Simonizer 14:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
        • Anyone can nominate it, including you. -- Ram-Man 14:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
          • I know! ;-) --Simonizer 15:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This is ultra-sharp, colors are perfect, and this looks more like an iris flower than the iris flowers in my garden! What else can we ask for? Berrucomons 21:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose All Versions Very unnatural looking as a result of the gaussian blur - the flower head is just floating there with no visible stem --Fir0002 www 02:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
    • The stem was barely visible in the original, due to the angle that the image was taken at. It blends right into the background. You might as well say any photo is unnatural because it doesn't show infinite DoF. I took a version of this picture at f/2.8, 4, 5.6, 8, 11, and 16. The background (including the stem) looks almost exactly like it does in the f/5.6 or f/8 image. The only difference between this image and the f/5.6 image is that all the petals are sharp. Would the f/5.6 image be acceptable as a FP? I doubt it. It's a photograph, it can't reproduce reality exactly. This picture is about the flower, not the stem. Its an f/16 foreground with a f/5.6 - f/8 background. I could reprocess the picture to keep the stem just a little bit less blurred, but it wouldn't really make much difference in the overall effect and it likely wouldn't change the outcome of a FP nom. -- Ram-Man 03:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Couldn't you just upload an original unblurred image? I'm sorry but it looks very unnatural. And that's certainly not saying that a lack of infinite DOF is unrealistic, because for starters the eye doesn't have infinite DOF, and a picture taken at f/5.6 etc (not an aperture for macro) will have a natural gradation between in focus and out of focuse. This does not. --Fir0002 www 09:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
        • Yes I can. -- Ram-Man 14:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting delete.svg Despite this being of high technical quality and beautiful, this version has no chance of success. -- Ram-Man 03:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
result: Nomination withdrawn=> not featured. Simonizer 08:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Cropped Version (right)[edit]

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info I've cropped the original. I didn't correct the tilt, because these flowers naturally tilt this way and that. 21:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Ram-Man 21:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral- The reason of the tilt is well explained in the picture of the whole plant, at right. But not in either of the nominated versions, which look unnatural. Alvesgaspar 00:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
    • What do you mean? The tilt of the flower matches the tilt of the leaves, which is shown in the whole plant as well. The only difference is the closeup view. -- Ram-Man 00:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
    • That is precisely the problem, if the leaves were straight then people would realize that the flower was indeed not vertical. This way it looks as if the camera was tilted. Alvesgaspar 01:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Why should a picture not be a FP because people make assumptions about it? There are two conclusions one can make: the camera was titled or the subject matter was tilted. Obviously the flower was tilted, but people making the wrong assumption out of ignorance is no reason to oppose. If it was rotated, they would make the wrong conclusion the flower wasn't tilted. Which is the bigger crime? Also, on the uncropped version you can see that while most leaves tilt to the right (since this was the right side of the plant), some of the leaves tilt to the left. It's only confusing if you don't pay close enough attention to detail. -- Ram-Man 03:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - I've changed my vote to neutral (for now, still waiting for common sense to prevail) because of the exquisite colour and texture of the flower, and despite the unfortunate tilt. Looking at a photo of a beautiful flower is not an intelectual exercise, either we get "wowed" or we don't. - Alvesgaspar 09:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose all. I see no VALUE in the images --Mbz1 16:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - An explanation about the lack of VALUE of this (and other) pictures is welcome. This is certainly one the best Commons pictures of this particular species (BTW, there are hundered of thousand of vegetal species in nature) Alvesgaspar 18:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Well, I believe that Wikipedia is not a botanical encyclopedia and I believe it would be too specific, if Wikipedia dispayed "hundered of thousand of vegetal species in nature" on its pages. This particulal image shows a very, very common flower and that's why I see no VALUE in the image.--19:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
        • This picture is currently nominated as a featured picture on the Wikimedia Commons, not Wikipedia. The two projects have different guidelines as to what qualifies as a FP. Anrie 14:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
          • I'd say before you write about guidelines, Anrie, it would be nice, if you go to the top of that very page and read them, but, if you cannot, here they are:"Value - our main goal is to feature most valuable pictures from all others. Pictures should be in some way special, so please be aware that: "almost all sunsets are pretty, and most such pictures are not essence different from others, nightshots are pretty but normally more details can be shown on pictures taken at daytime,beautiful does not always mean valuable." --Mbz1 22:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Anrie 14:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting delete.svg There seems to be no chance of success here either, at 2 - 2. I may resubmit a later version that erases the problems that Fir0002 has with it. -- Ram-Man 11:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
result: Nomination withdrawn => not featured. Simonizer 08:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Cerkev sv. Kozme in Damijana, Krka.jpg, not featured[edit]

Short description Short description

Version 1 (left)[edit]

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by Mihael Simonic
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Curch of st. Kozma and Damijan, Krka, Ivancna Gorica, Slovenia --Mihael Simonic 08:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - Very nice composition, but poor quality. I hope you have a better version. Alvesgaspar 09:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - Do you think litle lighter version (grass). Sorry but I haven't got good camera, I hope that I get better for my birthday :) --Mihael Simonic 11:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - Yes, the grass could be lighter but the main problem is the general unsharpness and the presence of ugly artifacts. - Alvesgaspar 21:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - Yeh. I will upload lighter version, but my camera support only 50 ISO settings. Yes this is Slovenia landskape - kozolec with ugly artifacts, but you can find some nicer places.
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - Those are not the type of artifact I'm referring too. Please check here what I mean. By the way, it is not supposed a ISO setting of 50 to cause digital noise in the pictures. That normally happens with high ISO settings (400+). Alvesgaspar 22:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
result: 0 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 08:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Version 2 (right)[edit]

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Some secounds later. Mihael Simonic 13:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Winiar 16:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, but the technical quality is still low and this picture is a bit overexposed and doesn't have as good of composition. I liked the other one a lot better. --16:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Overexposed and denaturated colors in #2. Just cropping #1 (with more correct placement of the subject) would have been better. But note that what makes #1 beautiful is the clouds in the blue sky, and what makes it awful is the dark grass area at bottom. But the subject still lacks details. Verdy p 20:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 08:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Red necked wallaby444.jpg, not featured[edit]

Short descriptionYoung red necked wallaby.jpg

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by, uploaded by and nominated by --Benjamint 11:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Benjamint 11:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info The one on the right is not a nomination, I include it only as a point of interest, it's the same joey three months ago (March). You can't get much of a sense of scale from the images but it's amazing how quickly they grow, it's about half again as big now as it was then.
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral - Correct, good quality picture, no wow. Alvesgaspar 23:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The tones are bad and the image formation is boring. Metoc 17:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as above --Karelj 20:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 08:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:British Columbia Parliament Buildings - Pano - HDR.jpg, not featured[edit]

British Columbia Parliament Buildings are home to the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia.

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by H - uploaded by H - nominated by H (Same as w:User:HighInBC and User:HighInBC[4]) --HighInBC 13:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Self nom. HighInBC 13:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeSymbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Because of the alternating bands in the sky and minor stitching errors. It is great stitching for 60 picture, good job! --Digon3 16:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Fix alternating bands in the sky and I'll support, the stitching errors are not very noticable. --Digon3 16:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I agree, it is an impressive image but the sky is not good enough for a FP. /Daniel78 16:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Did you folks look at the full sized version? If the sky is that big of a deal I will just retake it another time, but the sky is not really the subject of photo. I am confused as to what makes a FP here, I see some very poor images passing and some very good ones failing. HighInBC 16:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I looked very carefully at full size before I voted and it is an amazing picture. I suspect no one is voting only because of the bands in the sky. For me the bands are really distracting and unnatural. As for poor images passing and some very good ones failing, well, no one understands that (but it probably has to do with new voters not reading the guidelines well enough and thinking this is Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, oh well). Definitely fix the bands in the sky or retake the picture (if you have to) and I am sure this will get lots of support votes. --Digon3 16:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Fullsize, yes. And I will definitely support if the sky is fixed. /Daniel78 17:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 08:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Sonnenroeschen 2.jpg, not featured[edit]

Helianthemum apenninum

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info: Helianthemum apenninum. Created and uploaded by HeikeLoechel, nominated by Fabien1309 20:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Fabien1309 20:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - DOF. Berrucomons 21:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The quality is low and the DoF is too shallow to show off any major elements sharply. -- Ram-Man 21:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As above. --Digon3 23:53, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 08:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Tragopogon pratensis 3.jpg, not featured[edit]

Tragopogon pratensis (Meadow Salsify)

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by MichaD 22:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC) - uploaded by MichaD 22:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC) - nominated by MichaD 22:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC) --MichaD 22:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support lets try another centered flower --MichaD 22:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I looked at this picture for a while. It has some amazing elements: the little bugs and the water droplets. It also has a very high resolution. The downside: it's got a very shallow DoF that blurs the amazing elements. -- Ram-Man 23:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Maybe brighten up and crop. Metoc 17:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As above. --Digon3 16:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 08:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:BrickWall.jpg[edit]

300px|a brick wall

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Chris 73 - uploaded by Matanya - nominated by D-Kuru --D-Kuru 00:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I don't know why, but this image is fascinating me. Moreover I like the blue-yellow-orange colour composition in that picture --D-Kuru 00:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too small, even at full size on the website, and all I see is a brick wall. Sorry. --Digon3 00:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't know why Matanya hasn't uploaded the bigger version. I find the bigger version of it in the english Wikipedia - see en:Image:BrickWall.jpg. I asked Chris 73 if he wants to upload this picture (because he is the author) --D-Kuru 01:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose too small. -- Ram-Man 12:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I uploaded a bigger version --D-Kuru 12:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
It's still too small and still just a brick wall. A brick wall is rediculously easy to shoot, so it should be very high resolution as part of its requirements. -- Ram-Man 12:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Nuvola apps important yellow.svg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because is not large enough and there are no mitigating reasons for it being smaller than 2Mpx. --MichaelMaggs 05:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC) Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

Image:Nama Woman Smoking Kalahari Desert Namibia Luca Galuzzi 2004.JPG, featured[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created and uploaded by Luca Galuzzi nominated by Simonizer 14:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support We do not have many portraits at commons and in my opinion this one is a very good one --Simonizer 14:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I don't particularly support smoking, but this is a good portrait and we don't have many good portraits. It's high technical quality. -- Ram-Man 14:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Very good. We really need more people pictures. Alvesgaspar 15:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Yep. Excellent. So bad the cigarette is out of focus... Berrucomons 15:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - --Makro Freak 17:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I'd prefer the whole of her bandanna in view instead of being cut off. Majorly (talk) 17:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Vassil 30 May 2007
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- MJJR 19:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice portrait. --MichaelMaggs 21:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Lycaon 05:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support yay people! pfctdayelise (说什么?) 06:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support very good --Karelj 20:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Luc Viatour 09:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Romary 14:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I've some problem with its contrast or colours. But perfect from other views. --Martin Kozák 11:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Bergwolf 15:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
result: 14 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 00:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Hoverfly on flower.jpg[edit]

Hoverfly on a flower Hoverfly on a flower

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Hoverfly (Sphaerophoria scripta) on a Hawkweed flower (Hieracium spec.). Created and nominated by Alvesgaspar --Alvesgaspar 14:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Original (left), not featured[edit]

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Alvesgaspar 14:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- MJJR 19:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Ram-Man 20:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I'm missing light and contrast -- Lycaon 21:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Contrast. --Digon3 19:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 11:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Edited version (right), featured[edit]

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info - Slighty edited version with improved contrast and light. - Alvesgaspar 22:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Alvesgaspar 22:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support pfctdayelise (说什么?) 06:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Ram-Man 17:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Much better than the one above. --Digon3 19:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Composition --Karelj 20:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - This comment was really unexpected because the main reason for the nomination was exactly ... the symmerical composition. Well, we learn until we die. Alvesgaspar 20:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I see no VALUE in the picture. There are too many similar pictures --Mbz1 04:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - Please show me one (of these particular species, of course) - Alvesgaspar 18:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Well, I believe that Wikipedia is not a botanical encyclopedia and I believe it would be too specific, if Wikipedia dispayed "hundered of thousand of vegetal species in nature" on its pages.--Mbz1 19:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
        • The guidelines state that it must be useful and it is. Whether or not there are hundreds of thousands of Wikipedia botanical articles doesn't matter. The FP process is no place to reject a picture just because of what you want Wikipedia to contain. If it can be used in an article to illustrate that topic, then it is useful. -- Ram-Man 22:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
          • Plus this isn't Wikipedia, but the Wikimedia Commons, which contains pictures to be used by all Wikimedia projects, including, I believe, Wikispecies. Anrie 14:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Anrie 14:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
result: 5 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 11:59, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Perito Moreno Glacier Patagonia Argentina Luca Galuzzi 2005.JPG, featured[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Luca Galuzzi - uploaded by Luca Galuzzi - nominated by Digon3 --Digon3 14:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Digon3 14:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Simonizer 14:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Makro Freak 17:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --MJJR 19:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Ram-Man 20:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support wish I was there (at least I'll get to see the dunes in Namibia next week) -- Lycaon 21:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --XN 20:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Karelj 20:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Vassil 31 May 2007
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - MartinD 08:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Against the trend. Sure it's an great place and a good picture. But it doesn't really wow me. The composition seems a bit random. --MichaD 22:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Mbz1 01:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
result: 11 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 12:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Monarch Butterfly Purple Flower 3000px.jpg[edit]

Monarch Butterfly*Edit Monarch Butterfly

Original (left), not featured[edit]

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Ram-Man. 13:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus) feeding
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Ram-Man 13:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- MJJR 19:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Jina Lee 20:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Bergwolf 22:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too dark --Mbz1 19:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too dark. The correct light is somewhere between #2 and #3 Verdy p 21:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting delete.svg No point in keeping this open. -- Ram-Man 22:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Pictogram-voting-question.svg QuestionDo you withdraw only the original or the complete nomination with all edits? --Simonizer 07:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Just this one. I didn't nominate the third, so I can't withdraw that one. The middle one still has a chance of success if it receives a vote or two more. -- Ram-Man 11:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
result: Nomination withdrawn => not featured. Simonizer 08:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Edit 1 (centre), not featured[edit]

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Color corrected bad colors that were due to desaturation from bright direct sunlight. Sharpened as well.
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Ram-Man 16:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like this one as well, because of the sharpening. Jina Lee 20:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I prefer this edit. /Daniel78 21:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Yes, this edit is the best. --Digon3 14:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too dark, not a real macro --Mbz1 19:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
    • What do you mean "not a real macro"? Also, the luminance looks fine to me, perhaps your monitor is too dark? Lightening it up washes out the color. -- Ram-Man 19:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Well, if you do not know what a real macro is, here's example--Mbz1 04:53, 3 June 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
        • I know what a macro is, I just didn't understand why you were opposing because of it. The guidelines do not require images to either be or not be macros. The only legitimate reason to oppose because it is not a macro is if it doesn't have a sufficient "wow factor" because of it. Anything else is just an opinion and doesn't belong here, just as it would be inappropriate to oppose all pictures with the color blue because you don't like blue. -- Ram-Man 22:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
          • Let me put it this way: We cannot feature all Ram-Man butterfly pictures. They have no VALUE, there are too many of them even at that page. If at least they were macro, maybe they'd have some value (probably not). There is no "wow factor" in your pictures.--Mbz1 22:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too dark. The correct light is somewhere between #2 and #3 Verdy p 21:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
result: 4 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 16:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Edit 2 (right), not featured[edit]

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Edit 1 is better than the original but still a little shy. This version brings a little more colour and contrast, specially in the greens. - Alvesgaspar 17:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Alvesgaspar 17:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I don't think that the color of the butterfly matches reality. It is too yellow or green. Also, unless someone can identify the plant in question, I don't remember it being that green, especially for an adult plant in mid-summer at the end of July when this picture was taken. If anything, I worried that my changes went too far. The whole image looks unnatural. -- Ram-Man 17:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose "ditto" above comment Jina Lee 20:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I see no VALUE in that image --Mbz1 04:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Overexposed, digital artefacts. The correct light is somewhere between #2 and #3 (but you need a non linear filter to just it and avoid saturation of whites and decoloration! light of greens if OK, but oranges in the fly and magentas of flowers are washed out; to correct it, you must separate the image into at least 5 color planes, and adjust each color precisely before recomposing the image) Verdy p 21:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment This should be closed, rule of 5th day. -- Ram-Man 11:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 16:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Hoverfly on leave.jpg[edit]

Hoerfly on a leaf Hoerfly on a leaf

Original (left)[edit]

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Hoverfly (Sphaerophoria scripta) over a leaf of oleander. Created and nominated by Alvesgaspar --Alvesgaspar 14:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Alvesgaspar 14:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question What happened in the background, is there a mirror or something? --Makro Freak 17:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting info.svg Info - I have no idea. I tried to clone it off but it didn't result. Maybe someone less clumsy than me. - Alvesgaspar 18:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting info.svg Info - Done. - Alvesgaspar 20:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Ram-Man 20:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Lycaon 21:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support pfctdayelise (说什么?) 06:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I would prefer a less quadratic format. So i would crop the picture a little at the top. But it is a good picture. --Simonizer 07:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Karelj 20:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The picture has no VALUE --13:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - I'm trying to understand your votes (this one and the one below) and accept its seriousness (which is not easy). In the present case, and since the difference between the two versions is minimal, the lack of value must be caused by a poor background. Right?... Alvesgaspar 22:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
result: 5 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => Waiting for the result of the second version. Simonizer 00:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Edited (right), featured[edit]

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info - Here it is a slightly cropped version. - Alvesgaspar 09:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Simonizer 09:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Ram-Man 11:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Digon3 19:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Lycaon 19:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --LucaG 19:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Karelj 20:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like this format better. /Daniel78 21:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --MichaelMaggs 15:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Background --Mbz1 01:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support For the harmonic ensemble --Makro Freak 15:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Less square is definitely better --MichaD 22:22, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
result: 10 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 16:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Olesko - Zamek 01.JPG, not featured[edit]

The castle in Olesko (Ukraine).

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by Lestat --Lestat 08:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Lestat 08:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As a whole, the composition is weak: what are the important elements? the house? the statues? the steps? the trees? High contrast due to harsh direct lighting. The perspective distorts the perceived direction of the steps, leading to uncomfortable asymmetry. -- Ram-Man 17:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Bergwolf 21:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support nice --Mihael Simonic 08:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Although I agree with Ram-Man that the steps are a disturbing element, I like the whole picture. -- MJJR 19:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Ram-Man. --Digon3 23:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 16:53, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Tettigoniidae and Ranunculaceae 1 Luc Viatour.jpg, not featured[edit]

Tettigoniidae and Ranunculaceae

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Luc Viatour - uploaded by Luc Viatour - nominated by --Luc Viatour 09:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Luc Viatour 09:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Great colours, nice detail and good composition. But I would like it even better when the flower would be in focus too. --Simonizer 11:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Contrary to Simonizer, I think the OOF petals on the flower improve this picture. By the way WOW ! Benh 15:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose FP is not just about the wow factor, although a lot of emphasis is placed on it. The shallow DoF is artsy, but we don't promote pictures just because they are artsy. More DoF is needed, especially on the insect. -- Ram-Man 16:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Composition and theme are great, but I agree that more DOF is needed. Also, the picture lacks colour and light contrast. - Alvesgaspar 17:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Flower should be in focus. --Digon3 17:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support-- Mbz1 18:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support beside of some weaknesses... supporting because of "wittyness" - exeptional --XN 20:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Focus --Karelj 20:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I also agree on the dof. /Daniel78 21:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose focus --Bergwolf 21:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like it actually. Jina Lee 03:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support An exceptional shot which the small DoF enhances. We need to remember that Commons is not just for boring record shots that have to be sharp throughout; there is room for artistic photography as well and we should encourage that. --MichaelMaggs 06:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very nice colors. --Atoma 07:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose DOF would have been fine if it wasn't for the yellow flower on yellow background. Nothing to help you separate foreground and background. --MichaD 22:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I think the DOF is great. And the colours are great too. --Christoph Michels 23:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nuvola emblem-favorite.svgFocus where it matters --Tony Wills 12:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Winiar 16:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Due to the good DOF the background has a beautiful color. Nice Metoc 17:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support But would be good deeper depth of field. --Martin Kozák 12:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
result: 12 support, 7 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 16:56, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Baboon Papio Baby.jpg, not featured[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created & nominated by --Makro Freak 13:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC) Portrait of a sweet Baboon baby. Category People? ;)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Makro Freak 13:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral The face is a bit out-of-focus and half of the animal is cut off. -- Ram-Man 17:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - The expession of the animal is nice. But quality is not good enough: short dof and noise. - Alvesgaspar 18:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Framing, half of the animal is cut off. --Digon3 19:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Bergwolf 21:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I love the look on its face, but it's not quite sharp enough. If the whole face was sharp, I'd really have trouble opposing, but as is, it's not quite there. The bright light down the left isn't good either. Sorry, Ben Aveling 11:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 16:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:JD Estes fsac 1a34896.jpg, not featured[edit]

U.S. Navy seaman J.D. Estes

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Howard R. Hollem, United States Office of War Information - uploaded by Howcheng - nominated by Howcheng --howcheng {chat} 17:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --howcheng {chat} 17:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Great pose, great composition, technically well done. A little heavy on the propaganda (that's what it was meant for), but it's representative of its time period (World War II in the U.S.). howcheng {chat} 21:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose ehm, ehm .... ehm --Karelj 20:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Sorry, but could you explain your reasoning? howcheng {chat} 21:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Well, first of all - war propaganda as Lyacon and the second - this picture evoke in my mind the old communistic posters saying that working class will beat all American capitalists and so on. And I don´t like to see something similar again...--Karelj 20:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
      • There are some other images from the same period that have great captions like, "Hitler is sorry we have this man on our team!" I'll have to upload those here too. :) howcheng {chat} 21:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral --Makro Freak 21:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose war propaganda -- Lycaon 22:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, it's pretty tilted.  :-) But I guess that's no accident. It's certainly a high quality picture, technically. But I'm not sure it has a wow factor. The composition and the lighting deliberately move the eye away from the interesting part of the picture (him) and onto the lettering. So no opposition from me, but not moved to support either. Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral. Ben Aveling 12:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Ben Aveling. --Digon3 13:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Except that Ben Aveling was neutral. :) howcheng {chat} 17:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I only use neutral when its really close technically and in wow factor. Other people do it when its technically good but lacking a wow factor. --Digon3 19:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question Presumably the way the gun is held to look like a guitar is intentional? Homage to Elvis? --MichaelMaggs 15:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I presume that the pose is staged, otherwise his eyes wouldn't be along the same line as the words "U.S. Navy", nor would the gun be pointed at the same angle. This image is pre-Elvis though, so I would discount that theory. howcheng {chat} 17:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, I don't think the image is tilted... it's that the plane doesn't sit flat. And, sure, it's propaganda... but, what's wrong with featuring that? Technically very well done. The wow factor for me is that it is a staged promotional image of the archetypal American fighting man. 72.78.222.135 04:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC) Please log on to vote, thanks. -- Lycaon 05:16, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I did consider that the plane might not sit flat, but (in the order I noticed these clues) there appears to be a line of buildings visible behind the plane at the same angle, the gunner is also at an angle, there is a line of something on the concrete, and (and this is the big giveaway) there is the angle that piece of rope is hanging at. Regards, Ben Aveling 22:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral - Just because it was released as propaganda (and still is) doesn't mean it can't qualify as an FP. From the guidelines "Good photographs are not limited to evoking pleasant sensations…". Anrie 14:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support +++ Yes it is propaganda, but this propaganda was successful historically, and the subject is important and very illustrative. Excellent composition and technical qualities, the "message" passes very well (that's exactly why this image was made)! Verdy p 21:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Lerdsuwa 15:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 2 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 17:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Aythya fuligula Hires.jpg, featured[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created & nominated by --Makro Freak 19:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC) Aythya fuligula, Tufted Duck
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Makro Freak 19:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Beautiful and sharp. I like the smooth reflection. Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question I have some problems opening the description page but everything it's OK with the full resolution. Does it happen only to me? Now it works. --LucaG 20:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Its the same here. It happened often when i uploaded high resolution images. Thats why i prefer a lenght of 1600px, usually. --Makro Freak 20:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Alvesgaspar 20:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Bergwolf 21:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Er Komandante (messages) 22:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Digitaldreamer 22:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Jina Lee 03:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Ram-Man 04:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Please add information on where the duck was swimming on. Artificial or natural waterway? --Javier ME 09:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Excellent! --MichaD 22:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Winiar 16:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 17:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Episyrphus balteatus (De Haan).jpg, featured[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by Lycaon -- Lycaon 23:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Are insects on flowers the new sunsets? In particular this is the second Hoverfly on a flower on this page. Good image quality and better resolution though. --Dschwen 23:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Is it not the aim of this FP exercise to try to improve and excel? Even new sunsets can be innovative (though I still have to see them). The competitive element makes Commons an ever growing prime source of quality images. You don't want us to stop posting hoverflies, do you? It's the season B.T.W. ;-). Lycaon 23:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Insects generally get wide support, flowers get very few votes or fail outright (except for a few exceptions). It seems that a flower has to have an insect anymore to be a featured picture. -- Ram-Man 04:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Wonderful insect and amazing quality. I'm throwing my camera out the window (and start fishing instead...). Alvesgaspar 23:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Yeah yeah, another boring insect. -- Ram-Man 04:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It kinda looks like a cartoon insect :) Jina Lee 04:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --MichaelMaggs 06:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very nice. --Atoma 07:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It's a shame the DOF is so small --Benjamint444 08:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Benh 11:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Digon3 13:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Excellent! -- MJJR 18:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Yes, lots of flowers and insects around here but this one...WOWs --LucaG 19:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tony Wills 21:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Makro Freak 21:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Vassil 2 June 2007
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Winiar 16:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too many "featured images" of this same insect specy. Why is that one special (even if it looks good)? Please choose another specy, there are billions on earth! Verdy p 20:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Its not the fly at all. This picture is very special because of its whole composition and the harmonic colors. It charms me, everytime i watch it. --Makro Freak 23:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Shame on me, I nearly forgot to support this --Simonizer 10:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Bergwolf 15:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - I hate insects. I rarely support a picture of them. This one is a good photo, but I just prefer not to vote. And a bee is my nightmare. --Arad 03:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
result: 16 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 17:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Bodhisattva2 at MaiJiShan.jpg[edit]

Bodhisattva statue at MaiJiShan, Tianshui,Gansu, China.

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Farm - uploaded by Farm - nominated by Shizhao --Shizhao 01:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Shizhao 01:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info The same picture was already nominated. Is it possible to nominate a picture twice? --Chmehl 07:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Absent some significant improvement in the photo, it's certainly discouraged. In fairness, it was nominated by a different user the first time, and it has just been awarded FP at the Chinese wikipedia. But I still suggest this be unnominated. Regards, Ben Aveling 08:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
If a picture had been nominated recently and failed, then you might want to wait 3 or 4 months before renominating. --Digon3 15:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
And then, only if the passage of time has improved the picture in some way. Regards, Ben Aveling 21:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Nuvola apps important yellow.svg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because failed on a very recent nomination, and nothing has changed in the meantime. --MichaelMaggs 13:55, 9 June 2007 (UTC) Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

Image:A Rose By Any Name.jpg[edit]

Simple but effective

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by User:Vrtsman - uploaded by User:Vrtsman - nominated by User:Vrtsman --Vrtsman 19:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Vrtsman 19:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The red channel is significantly overexposed. I'm pleased to see someone using a Coolpix 8700 camera like I do :) -- Ram-Man 19:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Ram-Man. Majorly (talk) 08:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Ram-Man. --Digon3 12:08, 9 June 2007 (UTC)