Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/March 2008

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


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


Media:Arthur Sullivan - Festival Te Deum.pdf, not featured[edit]

Arthur Sullivan's Festival Te Deum (PDF)

  •  Info created by Arthur Sullivan - uploaded and nominated by Adam Cuerden --Adam Cuerden 11:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Info We don't have "Featured Vocal Score candidates" or "Featured PDF candidates", so I'm presuming that here is the right place, as it is a lot of images, anyway, just stuck together. Adam Cuerden 11:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Adam Cuerden 11:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Cool idea. Durova 11:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose why should this be featured? Quality is not great and it's tilted. I also don't think this is one of the finest images/books ever scanned. -- Gorgo 14:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment The composition doesn't convince me ;-) --AngMoKio 14:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I am wondering about the value when it comes to practical implications. The fact that it is a PDF seems to detract from the value imo as it is more difficult to access. I am a big fan of PDFs, but somehow loading up Adobe Reader (or whatever else you use) or the plug-in is slow, clunky - almost like a QuickTime video (whatever you do, don't do QT video or audio on your webpage :-) ). What I am trying to say is that browsers are adapted to view images (yes, SVGs are included) rather than PDFs and that imo hugely detracts from the value. I know that there are non-web versions of wikimedia projects, but how many of those were obtained/purchased as a ratio to the hits we get per day? Insignificantly few users look at it the non-browser way. I just cannot image the value to a Wikimedia project of something that does not live in the browser world but as a download (PDFs are meant to be downloaded). We now have an internal sound player to play OGG files to add to the value as they are part of the article rather than having to be downloaded. If we could use flash, I would recommend creating a FlashPaper [1] copy for easy viewing and navigating, but supporting it in its current form would be like having a 'featured ogg file' previous to the embedded Java player. It would be valuable, but the value would be crippled for the average user. Freedom to share 21:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose The book is an good idea, but the pages should be better aligned (rotation, etc.). --Niabot 21:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Sorry, not special enough for me, and novelty value does not override that. --MichaelMaggs 07:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Poor scan, no wow, inappropriate forum. Lycaon 14:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose - I'm agree with them...--Sabri76 19:23, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose As far as I know, PDF is not an appropriate format for the Commons. -- Ram-Man 22:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
pdf is an allowable format (see upload page) --MichaelMaggs 07:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 08:52, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Viandox.jpg, delete as Copyright violation[edit]

Short description

 Info The info is available on the "Viandox" entry of the French Wikipedia. I've just added it to the description. Romanceor 23:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you should try Commons:Quality images candidates first! --Beyond silence 13:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Bicolor Domestic Longhair.jpg, not featured[edit]

A cream and white domestic cat (Felis sylvestris catus) 

result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Mywood 08:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:VHHH baggage claim area.jpg, featured[edit]

Baggage claim area at Hong Kong International Airport 

result: 8 support, 0oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Mywood 08:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Cat by Laziale93.JPG, not featured[edit]

A red cat in Villa Torlonia, Rome. 

result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 08:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Junior Nationwide 2008.jpg, not featured[edit]

Junior at Daytona 

result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 08:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Stinkhorn Springbrook.jpg, featured[edit]

Short description 

result: 13 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Mywood 08:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Pale Grass Blue (For the new life).jpg, not featured[edit]

Pale Grass Blue

  •  Neutral Nice and valuable shot of a species in action and not just posing. The wings are really quite unsharp. So much that I really can't support it whole-heartedly, sorry. -- Slaunger 21:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Very nice, but with dof not featured from other simillar shots. Sorry --Beyond silence 13:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Nature did it's job here perfectly in a beautiful shot, but the technical aspects are not FP quality. There is reason why a shot like this shouldn't have better exposure and/or DoF. The posterization is just too much. Also, if you are going to change versions in the middle of voting, use a different upload and/or nomination. -- Ram-Man 22:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support I actually like it, and think it is not everyday you can take such a picture-LadyofHats 17:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 3 neutral => not featured. Mywood 08:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Samarkand-Madressa.jpg, not featured[edit]

Inside the Madressa 

 result: 6 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 08:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:QWERTY keyboard.jpg, not featured[edit]

Keyboard 

result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 16:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC) (Rule of the 5th day)[reply]

Image:ZM1210-operating.jpg[edit]

Nixie tube ZM1210 operating Nixie tube ZM1210 operating

 in the favor of Richard's edit below

Image:ZM1210-operating edit2.jpg, featured[edit]

result: 9 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Mywood 20:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:ZM1210-operating edit3.jpg[edit]

  •  Info photo by Georg-Johann Lay - perspective corrected by Richard Bartz - cropped socked cloned out by Slaunger - uploaded and nominated by Slaunger -- Slaunger 21:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Info I could not resist adding a 4th edit ;-) based on Richards edit above and attempted to clone out the cropped unused socket, which I find distracting. It is only the second time I attempt to do extensive cloning, and it can certainly be done better. However, I think it improves the composition. Feel free to improve the cloning in this edit by uploading another version of the image. -- Slaunger 21:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- Slaunger 21:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support I like this one best, it's very good. /Daniel78 22:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Imho, cloning out complete parts of a picture -- perceived as unaesthetic or not -- goes too far. --Georg-Johann 22:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
     Comment I agree cloning should not be done carelessly and it is much a matter of taste. I am normally concerned about altering an image by cloning too. There are ezxceptions however, and I think this is one of them. Here the subject is clearly the tube and nothing else. So to illustrate that well you need to see the tube and preferably how this interacts with its surroundings. In this case its own socket and by the very delicate lightning. We see that in the image. Now, the tube is actually a subcomponent in a device of yours consisting of several tubes and some electronics. However, this is not the subject and not what you intend to show. It is just a convenient holder of the subject. Therefore, I see the cropped, empty socket next to the tube as a distracting element which has nothing to do with the subject. I guess you have actually removed a tube from you device to make this photo already? If that is the case you have already manipulated reality to make the subject stand out - a kind of real world retouching which i have no problem with. Given these circumstances I find cloning is in order, provided the manipulation is clearly specified in the image page (which it is) with proper reference to the original. It is not like altering history by retouching away a person or so from a historic photo. Sorry for such a long comment, just wanted to explain why I did it. -- Slaunger 08:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment IMHO: This is not a matter of taste but a matter of priciples. Adjusting the orientation is all right, it is the analogon of rotating a real photo. Yes, I removed one of the six tubes because it would have been right in the background of the tube shown. But I did not clone it out, I just removed it before making the photo. And this is no "retouching" or cloning out because the removed nixie was never on the photo. If the socket is a reason not no tag one of the photos as FP it's a pity, but that's not a justification for the manipulation in question. (Note: The perspective was given by the cathodes, a direct shot from the front would have aligned all 10 cathodes behind each other. And as it is a still life, I could not ait until the socket was gone...) --Georg-Johann 19:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I dont know. The tendency is no. --Richard Bartz 13:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 I acknowledge that most users thinks this clone thing is a bad idea and that it is not done very well. I'd like to see a version promoted, and I withdraw this one to set the scene more straight in coutesy of the original creator. -- Slaunger 21:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Crepuscular rays in ggp 2.jpg, featured[edit]

Crepuscular Rays.In the middle left of the image one could also see a different set of the rays coming upward from the lake. The light source for these rays is the Sun's reflection.

  •  InfoCrepuscular Rays.In the middle left of the image one could also see a different set of the rays coming upward from the lake. The light source for these rays is the Sun's reflection.
    created,uploaded and nominated by Mbz1 --Mbz1 19:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Not bad. Valuable, informative and to me it also has a high WOW. It would be a real pity if this nomination lost out due to people nitpicking on the flare and technical quality. How many people have equipment that can avoid those pitfalls? Should images of this topic only be published by them? Freedom to share 20:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Ahh, finally! One of the best contributors on Commons is back! Could you add the location to the image page, Mila? -- Slaunger 20:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Thank you for pointing this out to me.--Mbz1 21:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
result: 24 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 16:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Oxalis triangularis Stereoscopy Richard Bartz.jpg, featured[edit]

Short description

Like always .. using a tripod ;-) --Richard Bartz 17:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Must be a very good tripod. How do you keep it still and how do you prevent the flower from moving? Freedom to share 19:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mikado stick --Richard Bartz 19:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Standard mikado or the Manfroto €200 carbon fiber special 'plant reinforcement' edition? Freedom to share 20:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer "Standard" because i often loose them --Richard Bartz 20:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 16:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Allium 'Lucy Ball' Pink Flower Head 2236px.jpg, featured[edit]

Short description 

result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 16:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Amur Tiger Panthera tigris altaica Cub Walking 1500px.jpg, not featured[edit]

Short description

  •  Info Created, uploaded, and nominated by Ram-Man. Edit by Lycaon. 23:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Info Siberian Tiger (Panthera tigris altaica) cub walking in the snow.
  •  Support -- Ram-Man 23:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Too bad quality, the head is very noisy, plus zoo image - Keta 00:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • All I ask is that you consider the web quality and usefulness when evaluated at 2MP, rather than the useless 100% that no one is ever going to actually use this at. If it was printed at a higher DPI it would look better. Categorizing this as bad is overly picky, IMO. As for it being a zoo picture, it is quite useful. This image has survived on en:Siberian Tiger while this FP was removed. -- Ram-Man 01:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with the quality argument of Keta because commons is targetting at print media and not only at web quality but I wished that people would finally stay away from this stupid zoo argument. This is actually a Siberien Tiger and zoos are part of the reality as well as nature. There is no reason to declassify a picture because of the location where it was shot. Andreas Tille 05:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • While I approve when images are great for printing, to say that is the Commons target does not sync with the guidelines. If that were the case, we wouldn't have a 2MP limit (we even allow smaller from time to time). Even if I were to ignore that point, on my 100dpi 16"x12" monitor, this image still looks fine. It would look even better printed at that size. I've said this about numerous recent nominations, but this is just overly picky. -- Ram-Man 22:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • What is wrong about a zoo image?! I totally agree with Andreas Tille concerning this. --AngMoKio 09:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I didn't say, or meant to, that the picture is bad, just that there are some concerns with noise for example, as others also noted. And for being a zoo image, of course it's a personal matter. I have no problem at all with zoo pictures, and I think that their value is great in most cases. However, for FP I'm looking for something else when it's about wildlife pictures, it's not only a good picture what counts, for me the location is also very important, i.e. if it has been taken in the natural habitat. In very rare cases would National Geographic accept a zoo image, and that's the kind of idea I have with all this, I'm looking for the best wildlife pictures. I say again, I'm not arguing about their value or usefulness, definitely they're quite useful, and of course perfect QI candidates, but in general I won't support them for FP, except for some rare cases. This may sound stupid to you, Andreas, but it's a valid argument for me. - Keta 16:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support--Mbz1 01:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Noise and crop. Sorry. --MichaelMaggs 06:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support amore sbalorditivo esso. Jina Lee 04:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Too bad quality, the head is very noisy --Beyond silence 13:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose missing light, low contrast, noisy.. in general low quality -LadyofHats 17:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 16:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Celandine Poppy Stylophorum diphyllum Flower Crop 2220px.jpg, not featured[edit]

Celandine Poppy 

result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 16:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Seascape_after_sunset.jpg[edit]

Short description

Original (left), not featured[edit]

result: 7 support, 6 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Mywood 08:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit (right), featured[edit]

  •  Info I added an edit with noise reduction (right version). /Daniel78 23:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support The right version. /Daniel78 08:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support the noise-reduced version (right) - much better --WikiWookie 03:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --AngMoKio 09:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Even better than the previous one. Freedom to share 21:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose For the same reasons as above: Missing location, questionable value for Wikimedia projects. -- Slaunger 06:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)Location is now there, and I am convinced it has value. -- Slaunger 20:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support - Without a doubt. We need more artistic interpretations of nature, like this one. -- Alvesgaspar 09:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I just don't get it. How can we seriously promote a photo of a landscape not knowing anything about the location - artistic or not? I am seriously worried about the gradual FP drift away from from usefullness/value towards artistic beauty which I have seen happening the last couple of months. -- Slaunger 09:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • why should this photo not be useful or shouldn't have value? What is wrong about an artistic landscape shot? I agree, to know where this place is would be better...but still the photo is valuable for me. How do you know what wikimedia projects there will be in the future? And this is a technically good shot with imho a very nice composition. --AngMoKio 10:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The photo has a strong visual wow for me as well, I do not argue with that. I think it is very beautiful and no, I cannot know what future wikimedia projects this might be usefull in. I am not arguing that the image is useless, I am just contemplating that for an image to become the top-of-the cream 1/2000 images on Commons which are featured we can expect that certain minimum requirements about the informative value of the associated image page has to be fulfilled. The links on the image page does not tell anything. It is OK that a landscape shot is artistic, but there is more to FP IMO. --

Slaunger 10:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Slaunger, I fully agree with you. This image as a landscape has little value. I did not intend it to show value as a landscape and I knew that the nomination is going to be hit by value problems. Just defending my decision, look at the categorisation of that image. The main category is "Blue hour". I looked up the article of that name in the Wikipedia once and saw that the image greatly added to it and was a great graphic representation of what the article meant. It also demonstrates landscape photography in dimmer conditions imo and also long exposure photography, but mostly the concept of blue hour. Hence, I feel that it has great value as it clearly enlightened me and presented an aspect of photography I did not know about. If you disagree with that, voice your opinion with an oppose please. Thanks for the comments you put in, --Freedom to share 19:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Freedom to share, these are valid points, and I see it can have value for Wikimedia projects. Hoowever, my biggest reservation with the image is really that there is no information available about the photo. No location. I think this is a prerequisite for going FP. (I have already stated my vote above previously, if location info is added I will change my vote to support). -- Slaunger 21:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to contact the original author on en:wp and ask him about the details. Freedom to share 08:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thank you. -- Slaunger 11:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
result: 9 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Mywood 10:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Weiße Baumnymphe Idea leuconoe 4 Richard Bartz.jpg, featured[edit]

Short description 

result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Mywood 10:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Lohengrin - Illustrated Sporting and Dramatic News.png, featured[edit]

Short description 

result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Mywood 10:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Inachis io top detail MichaD.jpg, featured[edit]

Inachis io 

result: 7 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Mywood 10:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Weiße Baumnymphe Idea leuconoe 5 Richard Bartz.jpg, not featured[edit]

Short description 

result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 12:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Weiße Baumnymphe Idea leuconoe 5 Richard Bartz edit.jpg, featured[edit]

Short description 

result: 10 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Mywood 12:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:SvartifossDetail.jpg, not featured[edit]

Detailed view on basalt columns at Svartifoss, Skaftafell national park, Iceland

There is definitely ice on it. Look here for a larger view on the scene. Andreas Tille 09:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 12:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Kosovo map-en.svg, not featured[edit]

Map of Kosovo

  • I want this map to be in English, but there is not English names for all the towns of Kosovo. So, for the english map of Kosovo, I have took the titles of the WP-en articles (see en:Wikipedia:Naming_conflict#Proper_nouns). But if you know sources with sure English names, please provide it to me, I will update this map. And as I said, if you give me Serbians or Albanians labels, in cyrillic or roman alphabet, I can do maps in this languages.
  • Yes Typhoonchaser, it is en:Dakovica. But, as it's only a redirect, I've modified the "D" in "Đ"
  • there might be more inaccuracies, there might be even wrongly placed towns : thanks for your deep scrutiny, as I see, not "made in a hurry"...
  • At least, you can conceive the Kosovo as a province of Serbia, or as an independent state, in fact its still a map ok Kosovo.
result: 14 support, 9 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 12:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Museo Man - Parque Balboa en California.jpg, not featured[edit]

Museon

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: has very unnatural colours and colour artefacts Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

. --MichaelMaggs 17:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Paperbark Maple Acer griseum Bark Closeup 3008px.jpg, not featured[edit]

Paperbark Maple 

result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 16:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative, not featured[edit]

result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 09:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:StrasbourgSiege.png, featured[edit]

Short description 

result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Mywood 09:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:FirePhotography.jpg, featured[edit]

Major fire photograph 

result: 15 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Mywood 09:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:San Benito de Palermo en Bobure.JPG, not featured[edit]

1:Fiesta de San Benito2:Fiesta de San Benito

1: 

result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 09:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2: 

result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 09:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Clone war of sea anemones 2-17-08-2.jpg[edit]

Clone war of sea anemones

  •  InfoSea Anemones,Anthopleura elegantissima are engaged in a clone war for the w:territory. The white tentacles are fighting tentacles. They are called acrorhagi. The acrorhagi contain concentration of stinging cells. After war ends one of Sea Anemone should move. Sea Anemones might look as plants, but they are animals and they are predators. The image was taken in Northern California w:Tide pools
  •  InfoIf I may, I'd like to provide some information about tide pools photography. The pools are often too shallow to put the camera in the water. On the other hand, if the camera is out of the water, it is hard to avoid the reflection.
  •  Info created, uploaded and nominated by Mbz1 --Mbz1 15:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I love the composition and the photograph as a whole, but the focus seems just a little soft at full resolution. This may well be unavoidable. Adam Cuerden 17:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The picture you are looking at is a rather rare shot of tide pool action. The camera was placed underwater to avoid the reflection. The distance between the camera and sea anemones was only few centimeters (too close to take a really sharp image). Probably much sharper picture could have been taken, if sea anemones were deeper in the water, or I had a much better camera, or I were a much better photographer. I go to tide pools very often, but I hardly see clone war of sea anemones more than 2-3 times per year. To me it is always fascinating to see sea anemones moving and hitting each other. That's why I wanted to share the image with you.Thank you for your comment,Adam. The most important part you like the image.May I please ask everybody to feel absolutely free to oppose the image. As a matter of fact I came back to show everybody how well I handle "oppose" votes now ;) I just nominated it because IMO it is an interesting and not well known behavior of the common tide pools animals. May I please also ask you, if you believe that downsampling could make the difference? Thank you.--Mbz1 17:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm more knowledgable about engravings than photography - a little downsampling might help, but you probably shouldn't go with my word alone =). Certainly, an image that deserves wide use throughout Wikimedia projects, even if the minor flaws mean it doesn't pass FP. By the way, why "clone" war? Adam Cuerden 18:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your very good question, Adam. Sea anemones could clone, as you could see from this even more rare image of mine.I send the nominated image to UC Devis professor Rick Grosberg.Here's his response:
Dear Mila,
Yes, these are certainly clone wars between individuals that belong to different clones of Anthopleura elegantissima.
The photos are terrific -- who took them?
P.S. I do have some photos of interclonal boindaries at the level of the entire clone.
Rick.--Mbz1 19:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 in the favor of Richard's edit

Image:Clone war of sea anemones 2-17-08-2 edit.jpg, featured[edit]

Clone war of sea anemones 

result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Mywood 09:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Cementerio de Conchas Marínas (3).jpg, not featured[edit]

Cementerio de Conchas Marinas en la Isla de Margarita 

result: 2 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 09:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Fernsehturm berlin.jpg, not featured[edit]

Detail shot of the Berlin television tower as seen from the roof of Berlin Cathedral.

... For the same obvious reason that virtually all stitched images are shrunk: maximum sharpness. The present size is reduced by half from the original shots, resulting in a resolution equal to a 20 megapixel shot. The resultion exceeds 300 dpi at A3 size, which is the maximum resolution used in common lithography even for huge Posters. So it's big. --Dontpanic 20:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FYI: an image doesn't get sharper if you reduce the resolution. →AzaToth 18:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But i think, that this resolution is far enough and makes a pleasent view at 100% zoom on a display. The larger version would not look so good at 100%. --Niabot 12:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't get me wrong, quality of pic is good enough, and crop is sufficient for an illustration of the tip of this tower, but not for FP, IMO. Lycaon 12:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
result: 9 support, 6 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Mywood 09:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Aker brygge.jpg, not featured[edit]

Aker brygge panorama

This is the harbor area in Oslo, Norway.
result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Mywood 09:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:17th century Central Tibeten thanka of Guhyasamaja Akshobhyavajra, Rubin Museum of Art.jpg, not featured[edit]

Short description 

result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 09:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Spider web Luc Viatour.jpg, featured[edit]

Spider web

  •  Question une question (car j'aimerai apprendre et faire pareil) : Aurait-il été possible d'avoir plus de bulles nettes en diminuant l'ouverture (quitte à monter un peu les ISOs ou à utiliser un trépied, ce qui était peut être le cas) ? -- Benh 07:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Je suis déjà sur pied, monter les iso c'est réduire la qualité, l'ouverture plus petite permet d'avoir plus de profondeur de champs, mais réduit la résolution à cause de l'effet de diffraction lumineuse. Mais peut-être que F9 au lieu de F6,7 aurait donné mieux... --Luc Viatour 07:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Mywood 09:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Cicada molting animated-2.gif, featured[edit]

Short description

1. It has improved, but why the shaking has not completely been eliminated is beyond me.
2. There is no proper identification yet.
Lycaon 13:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]
I believe it's more-or-less impossible to accurately identify a newly-hatched Tibicen down to the species level, as many of the colouration details only appear after sufficient time has passed for everything to harden. It's Tibicen sp., I think that's enough. Adam Cuerden 07:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
result: 14 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Mywood 09:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Wrocław-Jan Chrzciciel.jpg, not featured[edit]

Sculputure of John the Baptist in Wrocław (Breslau) 

result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 09:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Silver Whisper Split.JPG, not featured[edit]

Silver Whisper

  •  Info Silver whisper at Split Harbour, Croatia (photo is put togeher from 2 photos)

created by Pinky sl - uploaded by Pinky sl - nominated by Pinky sl --Pinky sl 11:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] 

result: 2 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 09:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Silver Whisper Split edit.jpg[edit]

result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 09:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Panorámica de Jerusalén desde el Monte de los Olivos.jpg, not featured[edit]

Panoramic view of Jerusalem in 2007

Sorry, you should try Commons:Quality images candidates first! --Beyond silence 16:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] 

result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 16:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC) (Rule of the 5th day)[reply]

Image:Three chiefs Piegan p.39 horizontal.png, featured[edit]

Proposed image 

result: 15 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Mywood 11:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Indian pigmentsa.png, not featured[edit]

Short description 

result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 16:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC) (Rule of the 5th day)[reply]

Image:Indian pigments.jpg, not featured[edit]

Short description

Sorry, you should try Commons:Quality images candidates first! --Beyond silence 16:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] 

result: 9 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 11:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Le Grand Palais depuis le pont Alexandre III à Paris.jpg, featured[edit]

Short description 

result: 8 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Mywood 11:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Knautia Knautia macedonica Flower Insect 1626px.jpg[edit]

Short description

Image:Spirit's West Valley Panorama (PIA10216).jpg, featured[edit]

Short description

Did you even read my comment? If you're talking about perspective correction, there's in reality no way to correct complex distortion like this. --Aqwis 21:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • yes I did, thank you and I don't agree with you. It's not that hard to fix the distortion and the crop. (see thumbnail)
    fixed distortion
There are also all (raw) images of that mission available [5] e.g. [6] so it should be possible to restitch them.
right now the technical flaws are way to noticable. -- Gorgo 04:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The crop causes the loss of some interesting rock formations on the left, and other such things. I'm just not sure it's worth it, though if someone fixed the stitching errors while keeping the information, I'd gladly support their version. Adam Cuerden 07:26, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Value is amazing. An almost true-colour pano of Mars... amazing. Yes, there are noticeable and embarassing stitching issues, but restitching here is not an option and I'd like to see you go to Mars within the next 6 months and take a comparable photo if you are complaining about that. :-) I wish we could restitch it though, Hugin would probably do the job. Yes, there are noticeable technical quirks, but it is not your average stitch of your local capital city done with a Manfrotto or Velbon pano tripod and I really think that those technical deviations can be ignored to promote that valuable and difficult image. As the FP guidelines state, "A bad picture of a very difficult subject is a better picture than a good picture of an ordinary subject. A good picture of a difficult subject is an extraordinary photograph." Freedom to share 21:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support It's surreal. Astonishing. Doodle-doo Ħ 21:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Beyond silence 08:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Mywood 11:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Bauernhaus Entlebuch 01.JPG, not featured[edit]

Farm in the Entlebuch region, Switzerland 

result: 10 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 11:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Seebruecke Prerow 002.jpg, featured[edit]

Pier Prerow and a Pinus sylvestris 

result: 11 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Mywood 11:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:The sun, street light and Parallax.jpg[edit]

Parallax

  •  InfoI've noticed that the reflection of the sun is seen at the reflection of the street light while the sun itself is much higher than the street light is. I've asked atmospheric optics expert Andy Young to explain my image. Here's what he says:
    "the answer is Parallax . The reflection in the water shows the view as seen from a point that is the camera's reflection in the water -- i.e., as far below the surface as the camera is above it.
    The street light is much closer than the Sun; so parallax mainly affects the position of the light's reflected image.
    These perspective effects are *always* present in pictures of reflections in water -- but not often as obvious as in your picture, which is a "textbook example" of the effect."
Thank you for your question, Freedom to share. I took this image because I noticed the effect. At first I just was taking images of the fog, the sun and the reflection . Then I decided that it would have been nice to "put" the Sun at the street light, so I started to move around, but as you know I was not able to find the position, from which the sun at the sky and the sun in the water was seen atop the stree light. It was either one of two ;)--Mbz1 17:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 I was asked why I did not support my oroginal nomination. The answer is because I was waiting for Richard to upload his edit ;)

Image:The sun, street light and Parallax edit.jpg, featured[edit]

Parallax 

result: 16 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Mywood 11:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Tagus River Panorama - Toledo, Spain - Dec 2006.jpg, featured[edit]

Short description 

result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Mywood 11:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Vanessa February 2008-1.jpg, featured[edit]

Short description 

result: 5 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Mywood 21:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Gasshukoku suishi teitoku kōjōgaki (Oral statement by the American Navy admiral).png - not featured[edit]

Short description 

2 support, 0 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 07:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

N.B. This nomination was run on a previous version of this file. Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:31, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Da Vinci Studies of Embryos Luc Viatour.jpg, featured[edit]

Short description 

result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Mywood 21:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Periclimenes magnificus.JPG, not featured[edit]

Underwater manicure coutesy of cleaner shrimp Periclimenes magnificus. Lembeh straits, Indonesia, December 2007. 

result: 2 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 21:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Eagle Canyon.JPG[edit]

Eagle Canyon, Utah

 in favor of Aqwis's edit

Image:Eagle Canyon edit.jpg, not featured[edit]

*conditional  Oppose until copyright status is clarified. Freedom to share 11:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you should try Commons:Quality images candidates first! --Beyond silence 16:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] 

result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 21:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Suikoden edit.jpg, featured[edit]

Suikoden 

result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Mywood 21:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Bhagvati thirra kerala.JPG, not featured[edit]

 Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: too small Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

Lycaon 12:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:COA Russian SFSR.svg, not featured[edit]

Coat of arms of the Russian SFSR

  •  Info created by - uploaded by - nominated by Pianist --Pianist 07:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support--Pianist 07:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Unsure. On the one hand, this is a valuable, useful work, and quite well done, and I don't think anyone wants to say that your work isn't appreciated. On the other hand, the original logo isn't particularly interesting, from an artistic point of view. We obviously need things like this, but I'm not sure if Featured Picture is quite the right category for it - Valued images (when they get off the ground) might be better. In short - great work by you, not so great work by the logo designer =) Adam Cuerden 12:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral  Support As Adam Cuerden said, the COA itself isn't quite FP material, but the way it was done definitely is FP-quality vector work. Very well done - better than some FP CoAs I've seen. - Rocket000 03:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC) Edit: On second thought, I don't know how it could be better either. The more I look at it the more I like it. - Rocket000 17:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support I don't know how it can be better. --Beyond silence 11:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Скучная фотография, хорошая для статьи, но не интересная как избранные изображения.--Mbz1
    •  Question Could you repeat in English? Normally it doesn't make a difference to me, but in this case your insight might be valuable to others. -- Ianare 06:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just said that while the image is good for the article it is used for, I do not find it to be interesting enough to get FP status.--Mbz1 16:18, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
She thinks this is photo. («фотография» is translated as photo) --Pianist 06:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not sure you could overwrite the original version as you did. All the votes before your correction are kind of invalid now because people voted for a different image.--Mbz1 17:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are two problems. First problem is that the image's creator might like his/her version better than your edit. The second problem is that people, who have voted for the image already, voted for the original version and might never return to the nomination and never notice that the image was changed.--Mbz1 15:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
result: 4 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 08:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Blue flowers01.JPG, not featured[edit]

Plumbago auriculata from the Honolulu Zoo.

It means that images of 1600 x 1200 are typically rejected. 1600 x 1200 = 1.92Mpx. I agree the wording is misleading. I will rephrase it.--MichaelMaggs 17:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is a guideline not a cutoff/limit/threshold etc, I have reverted the guideline to the original sense which was anything less than 1600x1200 is typically rejected (This was rounded up to 2MP by someone who didn't like 1.92MP about a year ago, I think my rewording clarifies the intent. --Tony Wills 12:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose The noise is too high relative to the expected standard of resolution. The image is also too unsharp. -- Ram-Man 00:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
     Comment And this is coming from the same person who just went on a long rant about how P&S (or should I say POS) cameras should be held to a lower standard? I totally agreed with the defense of your photo, but it seems my photo is held to a higher standard. In all seriousness, I understand the focus issues, especially on the left, isn't as sharp as it could be. The criteria state that a photo should be sharp and large enough for printing... but I seriously doubt many people see much more than the thumbnail of these photos when they are used in their respective articles over on Wikipedia. If you really wanted to print some high quality photos of a certain subject, you'd be better off paying for them, instead of being cheap and using public domain images. But.... thats just my opinion. --ErgoSum88 01:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I often give short answers, and you deserve a more detailed response. The problem with this image is not that it comes from a point-and-shoot. I rarely support images with low resolution. To put things in perspective, this nomination was borderline for me. What I meant by my comment was that this looks like it was cropped (which would only magnifies the apparent noise). The real problem, however, is the exposure. It is so strained that the dark spots (with high noise) take up way too large a percentage of the image. Noise is always going to be worse in the darkest areas, and this is just riddled with dark areas. With a different lighting conditions and a better focus, this exact same image would probably have received a support because I find the flowers quite pretty. -- Ram-Man 04:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I see your point. The image was not cropped, just taken at a lower resolution. This was just a vacation photo which I had no intention of using for anything other than saving on my hard drive and looking at occasionally. If I had known better I would've taken it at full resolution and maybed used a tripod... but of course I didn't, I was on vacation! I'm pretty new to this place, so next time I will take my photos over to Picture Peer Review first before bringing them here and wasting people's time. :) --ErgoSum88 14:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 08:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Trial by Jury - Chaos in the Courtroom.png, featured[edit]

Trial by Jury 

result: 7 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Mywood 08:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Wasp March 2008-1.jpg, featured[edit]

A paper wasp (Polistes dominulus) 

result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Mywood 08:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Żelechów-road.jpg, not featured[edit]

Minor road leading to Żelechów, Poland. 

result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 08:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:PlanDeCorones.jpg, not featured[edit]

Short description 

result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 08:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Plankton creates sea foam 2.jpg, not featured[edit]

Short description

  • Thank you, Daniel78. It is interesting to know. I'd also like to thank everybody for the looking at the other versions and sharing your opinion with me.--Mbz1 15:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • My reflection is the best part of the image. Just think about this - my reflection in plankton! Where else could you see something like this ;)--Mbz1 16:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose With the reflection, it becomes a art picture, more or less. Not a bad thing at all, but I'm personally I little stricter on the technical side for these types of pictures to balance out the lack of value. That doesn't mean it's not a great shot. - Rocket000 04:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your vote, Rocket000. Probably because of my limited English I could not understand what you meant under the lack of value. The image is used in four articles on English Wikipedia and is the only image of seafoam, which explains, where it comes from. The effect is studied by scientists. I would have never nominated an image, which lacks a value, or maybe you believe that the image lost its value because my reflection made it look as an art? May I please ask you to explain to me one more time what did you mean under the lack of value. Thank you.--Mbz1 04:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure, I think I used the wrong word. It does indeed have encyclopedic use, I just meant that it's more artistic to me than something I would expect to find in a encyclopedia (wikis being an exception). The reflections make me focus on the picture as a piece of artistic work instead of in an educational way. My attention is on the aesthetic side when I look at it, so I hold images like this to a higher technical standard. I think a shot of this foam (either macro or a shoreline with foam) without distracting reflections could illustrate the topic better. I hope that makes sense. :) - Rocket000 05:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment I'd like to talk about encyclopedic value of the image, please. The image is used in four articles. In reflection article it is the only images, which gives an introduction to Specular reflection at a curved surface. In w:Interference it is the only image which shows how Interference may occure in Nature,in w:Plankton article it is the only image, which shows how dead plankton looks, in w:Foam article it is the only image, which explains in details where seafoam comes from. Yes, IMO this image has lots of encyclopedic and educational values, and no, it is not a bad art image, but a good encyclopedic image, and I  Support the image.--Mbz1 05:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for you comment and for looking over my pictures, Simonizer. Do you believe I should add one of your choices as alternative?--Mbz1 17:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I dont know, but I would support it --Simonizer 19:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 21:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Plankton creates sea foam1 .jpg, not featured[edit]

Seafoam

Image:Plankton creates sea foam 6.jpg, not featured[edit]

Seafoam

Image:Michelangelo's Pieta 5450 cropncleaned.jpg, not featured[edit]

Short description

Although a marble texture is visible that doesn't show reality. --AngMoKio 14:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 21:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Michelangelo's Pieta 5450 cropncleaned edit.jpg, featured[edit]

The Pietà (1498–1499) by Michelangelo

  •  Info Cloned out the "annoying box" in the background. Created, and uploaded by User:Glimz - nominated by Bewareofdog2 -- Edited by ErgoSum88 03:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --ErgoSum88 03:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Normally encyclopedic value is not the most important thing for me but in this case I have to oppose because of it. We don't know what this box is so I think we shouldn't just clone it away. It changes the actual view on this statue. --AngMoKio 09:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Info Check out the original photo. Upon further inspection, it turns out somebody already did a partial cloning job on the reflection of a window. And it turns out we aren't the only ones who hated the background, check out this picture. I also discovered that the box is actually the bottom of a Christian cross, check it out here. Upon further consideration, I still support this edit. --ErgoSum88 09:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok the fact that this window already got removed gives me reason to also oppose the upper version. It is a big difference if I cut out the whole background or if I change things in the background. Btw there exists also a replica that has another background - so I don't know if your example with the other background really is this statue we discuss here. --AngMoKio 09:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Nice sharpness, light and value. Thanks --Beyond silence 21:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Value? You mean encyclopedic value? This picture shows totally wrong surroundings of this statue. A cross got removed and there is also a new marble texture. This might sound irrelevant to you...but for encyclopedic value it is relevant i think. there might be people who are especially interested in the marble texture. --AngMoKio 14:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment - This is a nice clone out, but on this one I prefer the real life situation un-manipulated. Jaakobou 17:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Adam Cuerden 07:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Don't care for the background. The object in the foreground is the subject here. --AM 21:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Serg!o 22:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  •  Comment In case anyone cares what I think... while I realize the importance of retaining encyclopedic value here, I think if the photo had been taken from a different angle, this same effect could have been achieved. As far as the marble texture goes, it all looks the same anyway, so the texture has no value in my opinion. If I had cloned out the entire cross, this would be unacceptable... of course. Cloning away reflections and distracting elements that could have easily been removed without retouching the photo is... in my opinion... entirely "ethical." --ErgoSum88 01:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You would have to take it from a very different angle and then the photo would be quite different and wouldn't look like this one here. Well it is still my opinion that such historical places shouldn't get changed by cloning. --AngMoKio 07:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --wau > 14:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support. James F. (talk) 12:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Agree with AngMoKio on this one. Lycaon 17:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
result: 7 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Mywood 12:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:VillaMelziLago.jpg, not featured[edit]

Short description

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: tilted - Freedom to share 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.

--Freedom to share 07:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:VillaMelziLago edit.jpg, not featured[edit]

result: 0 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Mywood 12:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:20050827 South Gippsland Hills In Morning Mist.jpg, not featured[edit]

Hills of South Gippsland in Victoria, Australia, partly shrouded in morning mist

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: too small (< 2Mpix) 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.

 See new version immediately below...

Image:20050827 South Gippsland Hills In Morning Mist 2.jpg, not featured[edit]

Hills of South Gippsland in Victoria, Australia, partly shrouded in morning mist (un-cropped)

Sorry, you should try Commons:Quality images candidates first! Please reneame without random numbers! --Beyond silence 11:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you should try Commons:Quality images candidates first!"? Sorry, I know the quality of my camera probably isn't up to the standard of "Quality Images", but I thought this section was for "Featured Images", which is primarily about the image itself. Ian Fieggen 00:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] 

result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 12:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Sweetbay Magnolia Magnolia virginiana Flower Closeup 2242px.jpg, not featured[edit]

Sweetbay Magnolia

  •  Info Created, uploaded, and nominated by Ram-Man. 02:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Info Sweetbay Magnolia (Magnolia virginiana) leaves and flower.
  •  Support A flower with leaves, providing more educational value than many solitary flowers or from a less important genus. Let's see if it continues to be true that only sexy flowers can be featured. -- Ram-Man 02:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose - too noisy and blurred to be featured material. --- Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Distracting background detracts from image. Freedom to share 07:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose This is a sexy flower and the composition is nice. But the image quality is far from acceptable for FP,specially the artifacts in the background and the lack of sharpness -- Alvesgaspar 08:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I must seriously object to the reaction to this nomination. If we have approached a level of technical strictness here that requires images from an SLR, then it is sad the direction that we have come. The guidelines clearly list 2MP as the minimum, and this is well above that level. The obsession with evaluating images on low-dpi displays at high magnifications (i.e. 100%) is causing perfectly good images to be rejected. We are moving past the point where the FP process features anyone who can take a good picture to anyone who can take a good picture with a good camera. I've had a number of perfectly good nominations rejected because of noise or DoF from a P&S, and have seen a good number of other people's nominations fail for the same reason. Specifically: the noise level is more than acceptable for a P&S. Canon images are usually cleaner than any of the other manufacturers, except maybe Nikon. This is about as good as you can get. As for the background, the problem again becomes that a P&S has more depth of field than an SLR, so this is really the best you can get. You can't have a shallow DoF AND a high level of sharpness. It's not physically possible. Had I merely taken this with my SLR + macro lens, as in this, at least two of these oppose votes would be eliminated. -- Ram-Man 12:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral Actually I'm amazed people are complaining about the quality. I could see maybe opposing on composition or wow (which is why I'm neutral instead of support), but I was surprised to see what camera it was. --Dori - Talk 18:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral I agree with Dori. The sharpness of the flower is excellent, certainly for that kind of camera. It's proved again that Canon P&S cameras are very good (I have one too... so I know the possibilities and the limits of it). This image is certainly QI, but perhaps just not FP... -- MJJR 21:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral Ack. Dori. Neutral as an FP, but for sure this is a QI. -- Relic38 02:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral Ack. Dori --MichaelMaggs 18:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support The shriveled petals detract from the beauty, but I agree with Ram-man. --ErgoSum88 01:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral - With a shallower DOF I would support. --Cpl Syx 03:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose as per above. -- RBID 09:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 5 neutral => not featured. Mywood 12:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Respiratory system complete en.svg, featured[edit]

Respiratory system 

result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Mywood 12:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:1863 Meeting of Settlers and Maoris at Hawke's Bay, New Zealand.jpg, not featured[edit]

1863 Meeting of Settlers and Maoris at Hawke's Bay, New Zealand 

result: 4 supports, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Benh (talk) 22:35, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ammonite lamp post at dusk, Lyme Regis.JPG, featured[edit]

Ammonite streetlamp

It could be, but I left it 'cause I like it. --MichaelMaggs 20:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Mywood 12:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:PlanDeCorones edited.jpg, featured[edit]

Panorama of Italian Dolomites 

result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. --Raminus (talk) 21:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Lyon Pont Bonaparte 8 Déc. 2007.JPG, not featured[edit]

 Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: noisy, dark and blurred. Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

Lycaon 10:59, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ortakoey Istanbul Bosporusbruecke Mrz2005.jpg, not featured[edit]

Ortaköy Mosque and the Bosphorus Bridge in Istanbul, Turkey 

result: withdrawn => not featured. -- Lycaon 22:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:TerragenLake.jpg, not featured[edit]

A alpin lake rendered with Terragen.

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: too small --norro 22:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] 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. 
result: withdrawn => not featured. -- Lycaon 22:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:1 1165512253.jpg, not featured[edit]

Ivan Vasof theatre in Sofia

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: too small. Please read the guidelines first :-) --Richard Bartz 16:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] 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:Green Flash in Santa Cruz.jpg, not featured[edit]

Green Flash

 and suggest removing the following FP selection criteria,  :"A bad picture of a very difficult subject is a better picture than a good picture of an ordinary subject. A good picture of a difficult subject is an extraordinary photograph" from the FP criteria list because IMO there any no use in keeping this critea on the list for nominating and voting on Commons FP. Thank you all for votes and for comments 

result: withdrawn => not featured. -- Lycaon 22:46, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Sun-lit raindrops in GGP.jpg, not featured[edit]

Sun-lit rain drops

 I withdraw my nomination 

result: withdrawn => not featured. -- Lycaon 22:45, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Tipulid March 2008-1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Short description

 we are not always the best judges of our own photos - Alvesgaspar 07:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] 

result: withdrawn => not featured. -- Lycaon 22:45, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Plant Buds clasification.svg, not featured[edit]

few commonly used terms applied to buds by botanists

Could you repair the Types of buds portion of the article in which this image illustrates rather well then? -- carol 19:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could you cite a reference for this? Seriously, it illustrates the article that is there and it does so very well. That section of the article is uncited as well -- but it looks like a language argument and no one is telling how they know that those 1)are the words or 2)arent' the words. -- carol 07:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Main problem comes of course from the list in the article. Open any textbook of botany to check the words, some may be discussed but for axillary buds they are in the axil. So just look at the third drawing : there are buds under the petioles. This never occurs (go in your garden and if you find something like the drawing, take a photograph, it would be featurable. So even just for this reason it can't be a FP. --B.navez 10:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Info here are some of my sources:[7],[8],[9],[10],[11],and ofcourse the list of Types of buds that one can find in the english wikipedia on the article bud. -LadyofHats 14:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • So as you can see on every source, axillary buds are always located above the leaf insertion (1)(2)(4)(5) and never underneath as it seems to be on the 3d drawing.
    • Bud scars only occur when the terminal bud die and is replaced by a subterminal (or pseudoterminal bud) (4); otherwise on the stem you can see bud scale scars (2)(4) arranged in a ring (and what is shown on 15th drawing are leaf scars)
    • Also flower buds (2)(4) are really buds and not grapes (not like the 5th drawing).
    • --B.navez 17:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ok someone helped me to make the list more acurate so until i am able to redo the illustration i will withdraw

 I withdraw my nomination-LadyofHats 17:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] 

result: withdrawn => not featured. -- Lycaon 22:45, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Fogbow glory spectre bridge edit 1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Fogbow

  • May I please mention that 8mm fisheye lens distored the image in general, but fogbow, glory and the Spectre look exactly as they do in the real life and as I saw them.I have 18 mm lens and 8 mm lens and nothing in between. I always use 8 mm lens to take a fogbow images (I bought it for fogbows) because fogbows do not fit in 18 mm. I'm afraid that, if my fogbow images have no value, it means that all fogbow images uploaded to Wikipedia and to Commons so far have no value because they all were taken by me and by my 8 mm fisheye lens.;)On the other hand it is really great that voters at Commons are thinking more and more about the value of the FP images.You might be interested to check this gallery of fogbow images at a very famous atmospheric optics site.--Mbz1 23:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Actually, a fisheye lens will not have distorted the fogbow in the way that a rectilinear wide angle would have. A fisheye projection will maintain circles as circular which makes it the better choice for photographing a circular object in wide angle. Mfield 15:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 I withdraw my nomination 

result: withdrawn => not featured. -- Lycaon 22:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Fogbow glory spectre bridge edit 2.jpg, not featured[edit]

Fogbow

 I withdraw my nomination 

result: withdrawn => not featured. -- Lycaon 22:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:CMA CGM - Bizet.jpg, not featured[edit]

CMA CGM - Bizet 

result: withdrawn => not featured. -- Lycaon 22:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Red Poppy Papaver Flower Closeup 2049px.jpg, not featured[edit]

Red Poppy 

result: 1 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. -- Ram-Man 15:47, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Contrail and tsunami warning sign.jpg, not featured[edit]

Contrail and tsunami warning sign

  •  InfoIt was the strangest w:contrail I've ever seen. What was even more strange that it looked kind of similar to w:tsunami warning sign, which you could see at the street lamp. It was almost as w:tsunami warning sign in the sky. I took few fast shots and run up hill to the safety :)
  • Thank you, Carol. It is a very good explanation, but I tend to believe it was more of a natural reason, something in the atmosphere I guess.--Mbz1 16:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Have you ever seen the wind do that without taking a few buildings down though? I have been on a airbus where I am quite certain the contrail would have looked like this -- the theory was that pilots were trying to upset the flight attendents. Nature is not just outside, but within people as well. -- carol 19:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No I have not seen anything like this, but I saw strange contrails before. They were even studied.You also might be interested to check this out w:Crow Instability--Mbz1 20:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 I withdraw my nomination 

result: withdrawn => not featured. -- Lycaon 22:43, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:VillaMelziLago2.jpg, not featured[edit]

Italian Villa in Bellagio, Lake Como 

result: withdraw => not featured. -- Laitche 06:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Bockwindmühle Trebbus.JPG, not featured[edit]

Windmill in Trebbus 

result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. --Laitche 06:46, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Grevillea 1.JPG, not featured[edit]

This is an Australian native flower called, Gravillea.

 I withdraw my nomination Withdrawn by nominator, see history of this page --Tony Wills 19:40, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] 

result:withdraw => not featured. -- Laitche 06:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Oxalis triangularis Richard Bartz.jpg, not featured[edit]

Short description 

result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 16:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Oxalis triangularis stereoscopic Richard Bartz.jpg, not featured[edit]

Short description Short description 

result: 5 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 23:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC) (Please renominate this picture, because its not clear which alternative got the support!!)[reply]

Image:Ivan the Terrible and Harsey.jpg, featured[edit]

Short description 

result: 8 support, 0oppose, 0 neutral => featured. --Laitche 06:45, 16 March 2008 (UTC)===Image:Flagellum base diagram.svg, featured===[reply]

the flagellum of a gramm negative bacteria 

result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. --Laitche 06:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Sadko.jpg, featured[edit]

Sadko in the Underwater Kingdom 

result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. --Laitche 06:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:William-Adolphe Bouguereau (1825-1905) - Sewing (1898).jpg - not featured[edit]

Sewing by William Bouguereau, 1898 

 1 support, 1 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 14:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: Image:William-Adolphe Bouguereau (1825-1905) - Sewing (1898).png - not featured[edit]

Sewing by William Bouguereau, 1898 

 1 support, 1 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 14:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit2: Image:William-Adolphe Bouguereau (1825-1905) - Sewing (1898) Edit.jpg - featured[edit]

Sewing by William Bouguereau, 1898 

 5 support, 2 oppose >> featured -- Alvesgaspar 14:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit3:Image:William-Adolphe Bouguereau (1825-1905) - Sewing (1898) Edit 2.jpg - not featured[edit]

Sewing by William Bouguereau, 1898 

 1 support, 1 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 13:59, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:SteamboatBenCampbellb.jpg - not featured[edit]

Short description 

 1 support, 2 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 14:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Moscou 1812.jpg - not featured[edit]

Etching of Moscow in 1812 

 1 support, 0 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 14:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)===Image:Eudocimus albus molt.jpg - not featured ===[reply]

Juvenile American white ibis molting into adult plumage 

 3 support, 3 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 14:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:MOSQUE-ON-WATER.jpg - not featured[edit]

 7 support, 6 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 14:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:MOSQUE-ON-WATER edit.jpg - not featured[edit]

 3 support, 2 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 14:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Mosque on Water V2.jpg - not featured[edit]

Sorry, you should try Commons:Quality images candidates first! --Beyond silence 23:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] 

 6 support, 5 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 14:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Fernão Vaz Dourado 1571-1.jpg - featured[edit]

Short description

  •  Info A pre-Mercator nautical chart of 1571, from Portuguese cartographer Fernão Vaz Dourado (c. 1520-c.1580), one the best cartographers of his time. It belongs to the so-called plane chart model, where observed latitudes and magnetic directions were plotted directly into the plane, with a constant scale, as if the Earth were plane. The text in the border reads: in this sheet it is drawn all the coast of Africa and Guinea up to S. Tomé Island (Portuguse National Archives of Torre do Tombo, Lisbon). This is the very first time that I bring my present work here... Created, uploaded and nominated by Alvesgaspar 10:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- Alvesgaspar 10:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak  Support I know this is a funny thing to say about such a large image, but a bit higher resolution would make the text a lot easier to read. Otherwise, excellent. Adam Cuerden 12:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support--Mbz1 15:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment geocode and an additional category once you determine 'where' it is? -- carol 15:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Question Geocode? Sorry, I'm not following you - Alvesgaspar 16:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would like to compare the location this hand drawn map (a compositon of navigation notes and while at sea scrawling?) to a satellite view of the same area from a more recent mapping of it. Eratosthenes determined the circumference of the earth and was accurate to 1% some 1400 years before this. I suspect that this map should be very good compared to a photograph. -- carol 03:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I suspect you'll need to adjust the photo to map from sphere to flat plane - this map covers a substantial chunk of Africa. --WikiWookie 03:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Eratosthenes was only lucky, that is the accepted explanation among geographers... We cannot compare this kind of nautical chart (or any kind of nautical chart, for that matter) with a satelite image because they have different methods of representation. In all charts of this period (until the middle of the 18th century) the latitudes, magnetic courses and distances observed at sea (and also on land) were plotted directly on the chart plane, ignoring the roundness of the Earth. Not because they were ignorant of that fact but due to the constraints imposed by the navigational methods of the time. Only when accurate time could be obtained on board (after Harrison's invention of the maritime chronometer, about 1750) and the spatial distribution of magnetic declination was known with adequate accuracy could the pilots abandon the use of the so-called "plane chart" and fully adopt the Mercator projection (which was presented in 1569, almost two centuries before). The reason? Accurate time was necessary to determine longitude on board and the knowledge of the magnetic declination was necessary to correct compass directions and use "true" geographic directions. Alvesgaspar 09:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Fascinating. --MichaelMaggs 17:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --WikiWookie 03:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support as per above --Booksworm 07:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support great detail for a photo --Ianare 18:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Nice, rare and valuable reproduction. Thanks Alves ! Sting 14:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 8 support, 0 oppose >> featured -- Alvesgaspar 14:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Apollo 15 flag, rover, LM, Irwin.jpg - featured[edit]

Apollo 15 

 11 support, 0 oppose >> featured -- Alvesgaspar 14:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Pink Nymphaea Hybrid Flower 2816px.jpg - not featured[edit]

Water lily 

 3 support, 5 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 14:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Kurskaya korennaya.jpg - not featured[edit]

Easter Procession in the Region of Kursk

* Support Vanrip 09:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Support High yield of information, concerning customs, pilgrimages and detail abundance. Pertinance for encyclopedic information. Excellent contribution. -- Johann Jaritz 06:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I have a problem with featuring photographs of paintings where there is no proof of the authenticity of the colour reproduction (e.g. with a second picture including a standard colour card). The image is very nice though. Lycaon 07:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 4 support, 2 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 14:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:To pot the red.jpg - featured[edit]

To pot the red

It is clean; that's just the way it is. --MichaelMaggs 07:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 5 support, 2 oppose >> featured -- Alvesgaspar 14:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Weeki Wachee spring 10079u.jpg - featured[edit]

Short description 

 18 support, 1 oppose >> featured -- Alvesgaspar 14:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Prorer Wiek 001.jpg - not featured[edit]

Prorer Wiek in february 

 2 support, 3 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 14:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Bartolomeu Velho 1568.jpg - featured[edit]

Geocentric Universe according to Ptolemy 

 12 support, 0 oppose >> featured -- Alvesgaspar 14:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Garden Strawberries in Germany.JPG - not featured[edit]

Garden strawberries 

 0 support, 0 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 14:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: Image:Garden Strawberries in Germany - edited.jpg - not featured[edit]

 0 support, 3 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 14:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Frozen droplet.jpg - not featured[edit]

Frozen water droplet 

 6 support, 5 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 14:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Sergei Rachmaninoff LOC 33969u.jpg - not featured[edit]

 2 support, 1 neutral, 3 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 14:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Spax Screws.jpg- not featured[edit]

Short description

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: of insufficient quality, particularly lighting, DOF, artefacts and composition Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

--MichaelMaggs 18:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Webcam Logitech.JPG- not featured[edit]

Your statement doesn't fall within the guidelines too. Can't you just state what is actually wrong with the picture? Why did you cross-out the support-vote? --AngMoKio 16:34, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I crossed the vote out because it comes from the same user, but had a different signature. I corrected this. Some of the things that are wrong in this image: Bad lightning, bad colors and bad shadow (all caused by the flash), cropped parts at the bottom, ugly background, boring centered composition. --TM 16:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The FPX template is for clear guideline violations. „Make it right“ is not part of the guidelines. --norro 09:31, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose. You must be kidding. This is a clear guideline violation. They require “value”, “composition”, “shape”, “texture”, “perspective” and “balance”. This image is far below as I wrote above. --TM 10:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then you should write those things in the template and not "Everything is wrong" (meaning "Do it right"). This template should help the nominator to improve his pictures and make it better next time. Your statement was not very helpful concerning that - and besides that also not very polite. (Quote from the guidelines "Above all, be polite.") --AngMoKio 13:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The template already said “it does not fall within the Guidelines”. I think it's pretty pointless to include the whole guidelines page here just to be polite. --TM 17:40, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: is cropped, has poor lighting and is not a sufficiently accomplished photographic composition. Sorry. Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

--MichaelMaggs 17:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Orange by Laziale93.JPG- not featured[edit]

 Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: blurred, bad lighting, boring composition. 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.

--TM 16:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Katta Lemur catta.jpg - featured[edit]

Short description

Hy, Lycaon. May I please ask you why were you so sure that the image was not taken at Madagascar. I took this image at Madagscar. Why Richard could not? ;-) --Mbz1 15:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe because this picture was shot at 10:22, 9 March 2008 and the Scarlet Ibis he also posted is South American and was shot at 10:41, 9 March 2008? :-)) Lycaon 19:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Great detective work!--Mbz1 20:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 12 support, 2 oppose >> featured -- Alvesgaspar 16:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Aphidoidea fight.jpg - featured[edit]

Short description

At 5x magnification it's indispensable to use a flashlight as the tubus of the Canon MP-E 65mm is aprox 2 cm in front of the subject and cast a unfortune shadow. The flashlight is used to clear the shadow. Same here as there is lately no difference as without flash --Richard Bartz 21:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's why you used flashlight. I see. Thanks. -- Laitche 21:45, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 10 support, 1 oppose >> featured -- Alvesgaspar 16:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Mooring bollard at sunset, Lyme Regis.jpg - featured[edit]

Short description 

 7 support, 3 oppose >> featured -- Alvesgaspar 16:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:CampodeiMiracoliPisa.jpg - not featured[edit]

Piazzo dei Miracoli 

 1 support, 1 neutral, 4 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 16:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Gymnopithys-leucaspis-001.jpg - not featured[edit]

Short description

 Question Isn´t it 90 degrees rotated? I guess from the direction of growth of green ?leaves? on branch. --Karelj 20:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think so. Mdf knows what he's doing. Even this image is the right way up. --MichaelMaggs 21:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I usually like Mdf photos but this one has too shallow DOF and also red eye (on a bird!). --Dori - Talk 01:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Sorry, I hate flashed photos, looks so unnatural. DOF --Beyond silence 20:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral for now.  Oppose Tough one. Great catch, nice composition, etc, etc as an Mdf photo is supposed to be, but the flash(like) exposure and the oversharpening of the feathers can make it swing both ways for me. (BTW, the mosses grow the right way up.) Lycaon 06:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose DOF too shallow. Freedom to share 18:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support May be you should have asked it to keep quiet and remove the little mosses that make not enough actor studio (but I suppose that in a national park, it was not allowed). Colour of eye is natural : it is the colour of iris (when flash makes "red eyes", red colour appears behind the pupil, as you can see here). --B.navez 17:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support The detail in the eye is nice and not coming from 'red eye' (you'd expect a steel-blue tint rather than red in the first place). DOF is what it is at F11, not much to be done about it and face and beak are perfectly in focus. Wwcsig 18:32, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 7 support, 2 neutral, 4 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 16:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Allianz arena daylight Richard Bartz.jpg - featured[edit]

Short description

  •  Info created , uploaded & nominated by -- Richard Bartz 02:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Info The Allianz Arena is a football stadium in the north of Munich, Germany. The two professional Munich football clubs FC Bayern München and TSV 1860 München have played their home games at Allianz Arena since the start of the 2005/06 season. It can change its color, depending on which soccer club is playing.
  •  Support -- Richard Bartz 02:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral for now  Support. Nice shot of the Allianz Arena aka The World's Biggest Toilet Bowl ;) I wonder if the light could have been better, the front is a bit dark. I guess it was early in the morning? --AngMoKio 08:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As the building is wrapped in plastic you get some overexposure easily, so i prefered a time aprox 40min before the golden hour to get a metallic look. Lets google around and find out that the building has always a dark shadow caused by transluscence and if not its overexposed --Richard Bartz 11:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I changed my vote. I guess it is difficult to get a perfect shot of this building. Best example for your explanation might be this photo Image:Allianz Arena Pahu.jpg. --AngMoKio 12:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 12 support, 1 neutral, 6 oppose >> featured -- Alvesgaspar 16:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Isla de la Luna from Isla del Sol.jpg - not featured[edit]

Isla de la Luna 

 1 support, 1 neutral, 5 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 16:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Schizophyllum commune with Pollenia sp. male on Betula.jpg - featured[edit]

Short description 

 13 support, 0 oppose >> featured -- Alvesgaspar 16:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Prokudin-Gorskii-08.jpg - not delisted[edit]

Short description

  •  Info It's serious C/A on girls, saturated color, not focused on subject and anywhere, a girl of the center is not positioned in the middle as poor composition. (Original nomination)
  •  Delist _Fukutaro 18:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep This is some of the first colour photography, and, as I recall, at the time the photographer didn't actually know how to combine the three images into a colour picture - only hoped that someone eventually would - and the work was only rediscovered and completed in the last couple decades. So we're looking at a unique, full-colour photographic view of a time period when no other colour photography existed, and, furthermore, which the Russian revolution would soon change irrevocably. Adam Cuerden 06:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 I withdraw my nomination 

Withdrawn >> not delisted - Alvesgaspar 21:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

== Hamza Issa Farid est un Djiboutiens,et il est un etudiant .Il a commence L'etude de 1 er année jusqu'a second;ecole Champion et Lycée Mandela.Et Mantenant,il passe L'anticipe blanc.Il à une belle Famille,les noms des freres: Mahomed,Ibrahim,Abdi,Idriss,Sadik,Hamza,Bilal,Youssouf;et les noms des soeurs:Moumina,Rahma,Zamzam;les noms des parents:Issa Farid Adaweh,Fardoussa Sayed Idriss.Et aussi son couleur préferée est: Rouge;son matieré est:Arabe.Il est Muslumans; il decteste les menteurs et les voleurs;il aime ses familles et ses amis; et il aime trop voyage comme Dubai;Turkey...


  1. REDIRECT Nom de la page de destination

Image:Turdus migratorius 4473.jpg - not featured[edit]

An American Robin 

 1 support, 2 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 5th day) - Alvesgaspar 21:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Turdus migratorius 4473 2.jpg - not featured[edit]

An American Robin 

 1 support, 1 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 5th day) - Alvesgaspar 21:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Turdus migratorius 4494.jpg - not featured[edit]

An American Robin 

 1 support, 1 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 5th day) - Alvesgaspar 21:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Sunset off the Philippines.jpg - not featured[edit]

Image taken off the coast of the Philippines showing a beautiful sunset. 

1 support, 5 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 5th day) - Alvesgaspar 21:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Common skimmer.jpg - not featured[edit]

Common skimmer

I know. --Richard Bartz 08:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 23:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Glasgow-cathedral-may-2007.jpg - not featured[edit]

Glasgow Cathedral

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: not very sharp, the sky is uninteresting, and the composition is insufficiently compelling - neither exactly centred nor clearly off-centre Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

--MichaelMaggs 19:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Julesn84 15:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] 

Withdrawn >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 23:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Antelope Island State Park Map.jpg[edit]

Antelope Island State Park

  •  Comment Using ArcGIS to make a professional looking map is almost a joke. I've just learned lots of little tricks and to hit the save button every change I make (lol?) Justinmorris 04:26, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- Adam Cuerden 00:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral for now --Very clear and clean professional type map but I've got some remarks : the shape of the bathymetry looks sometimes strange, like the first level in the Bridger Bay. Can the author confirm this ? The bathymetric scale is missing. Also, the choice of the grey / white colours is imo surprising : I know it highlights the representation of the relief but at first sight these heights seem to be tremendously high (like covered by eternal snow), which is not the case. But the most important is that I would like a SVG version (for the labels) being available : the purpose of a map is also to be easily translated and used through the whole project. A JPG version alone makes this task very difficult. Sting 02:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment No bathymetric data for the Great Salt Lake exists. It's buffered for cartographic purposes, although the representation is not far from reality. The map looks extremely plain with a solid color. I would not have added it if I felt it was being misleading/inacurate. Perhaps a note on the map explaining this would be appropriate. SVG is pointless when there is raster data, I can provide a blank JPG for labeling in other languages. Justinmorris 04:14, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If there's no data available for the bathymetry I don't see the point to simulate it because it gives the wrong impression that the whole map is drawn with a 1;30,000 scale. With Inkscape you can embed a raster image (your background map) in a SVG format file in which the labels are in this last format, allowing an easy modification of the text without having to modify the raster image and loosing information. Sting 12:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's quiet simple : open your raster background map in Inkscape then add a layer in which you write your text (best with Times New Roman or Arial fonts). To embed the image, go to Effects -> Images -> Embed all images (or something like that : I have it in French) and then save the whole in SVG format. Sting 14:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Bathymetry fancied ! If there are no data do not show any representation. Just from a google Earth view one can see bathymetry is not so regular.--B.navez 09:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't vote "oppose" anymore but I'm not yet convinced. What is a map for? To make Earth surface understandable by simplifying. So I find microrelief too sharp (sharper than real becaused merging vegetation and stones), choice of standard colors make this island in the Great Salt Lake look like an island north of Siberia, file size is useless too great (picture not easy to upload) and text is too small for web uses.--B.navez 18:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Because it is impossible to translate to other language and colors are quite flat. --QWerk 16:30, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment - ArcGis is a powerfull tool and the result of your work is nice to see. I won't vote because I have no effective way of assessing the accuracy of the map. But there is one aspect that I think could be improved, which is the representation of the relief. There is a quite steep slope in the east-west direction (an average value of about 30º 12º ) which is not well illustrated. In the map, it seems that the terrain is quite flat from the coast up to very close to the mountain's top, which is not the case (see the aerial photo in Google) Alvesgaspar 20:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Uhh, I didn't make the data, and it's not inaccurate. Know what though? Nothing seems good enough for some people, so fuck this site. I withdraw this nomination. And yes you do have the ability to check it. Go here and to download the DEMs/NEDs. Looking at an aerial from, of all places Google Earth, one cannot determine the accuracy of slopes. Justinmorris 03:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's a bit unfair ! Critics help to improve and those above are not inappropriate. Modern maps have isolines, otherwise from just colours and shades everyone makes his own interpretation. And raw data though genuine include artefacts which are not really relief, so it is necessary to make some smoothing. --B.navez 09:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • In this case a fancy elevation scale, taken from the ArcGis default options, was used. That was a quite poor solution, as no quantitative information can be taken from that scale. It would have been better to use a monochromatic sequence complemented with elevation contours (and shadows). As for the slope, it can be calculated from the map itself, by dividing the height above the water (at the peak) by the distance to the lake. Anyway, the author has withdrawn the nomination and doesn't look very interested in constructive technical advice. -- Alvesgaspar 10:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
... which is a shame as some users here, Alvesgaspar among them, are extremely knowledgeable about cartography and can help by providing professional feedback. Alvesgaspar teaches cartographic sciences at university level Commons:Meet our photographers#Joaquim Alves Gaspar; why not welcome his expertise rather than swearing at him? --MichaelMaggs 13:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Withdrawn >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 23:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:View from Gile Mountain fire tower in autumn.jpg - not featured[edit]

Autumn foliage in Vermont 

1 support, 2 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 5th day) -- Alvesgaspar 08:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Girona panoramic.JPG - not featured[edit]

Girona's city panoramic view

Sorry, you should try Commons:Quality images candidates first! --Beyond silence 09:17, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] 

1 support, 3 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 5th day) -- Alvesgaspar 23:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:EPO 0980 wiki.jpg not featured[edit]

The Orsay Musem, Paris 

0 support, 3 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 5th day) -- Alvesgaspar 23:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:STS-123-launch2.jpg - not featured[edit]

Endeavour into the Night 

1 support, 2 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 5th day) -- Alvesgaspar 23:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Tipulid March 2008-5.jpg - not featured[edit]

Short description 

1 support, 3 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 5th day) -- Alvesgaspar 23:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Spider and fly March 2008-2.jpg - featured[edit]

Short description 

 7 support, 1 neutral, 1 oppose >> featured -- Alvesgaspar 17:06, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:PiedCormorant MC.jpg - featured[edit]

A Pied Cormorant on one of the golden beaches in Abel Tasman National Park 

 15 support, 1 oppose >> featured -- Alvesgaspar 17:06, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Kosovo map-en.svg - featured[edit]

Map of Kosovo 

5 support, 1 oppose >> featured-- Alvesgaspar 22:44, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Fly March 2008-1.jpg -not featured[edit]

Short description

 despite the gorgeous colours and composition ;-) -- Alvesgaspar 00:12, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] 

Withdrawn >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 09:45, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Stazione alghero sant agostino.jpg - not featured[edit]

Railway station in Sardinia

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: unsharpness, low quality Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

--- Anonymous DissidentTalk 22:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] 

1 support, 4 oppose >> not promoted (rule of the 2nd day) -- Alvesgaspar 23:15, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Monkey grass droplets.jpg - not featured[edit]

Water droplets on monkey grass 

7 support, 5 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 10:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:AucklandPano MC.jpg - featured[edit]

Short description 

9 support, 0 oppose >> featured -- Alvesgaspar 10:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Zvole, kostel.JPG - not featured[edit]

Church in village Zvole in Central Bohemian region of the Czech Republic

Hmm, obrázků jsem nenahrával málo, dělat detailní popisek ke každému to bych to taky nahrával dva dny. Jako pokud by tahle nominace prošla (haha) tak bych to samozřejmě vylepšil. --Aktron 22:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2 support, 2 neutral, 4 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 10:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Joseph Albert - Ludwig und Malwine Schnorr von Carolsfeld - Tristan und Isolde, 1865e.jpg - not featured[edit]

Short description 

3 support, 2 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 10:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate - not featured[edit]

1 support, 1 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 5th day) -- Alvesgaspar 23:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Synchiropus splendidus 1 Luc Viatour.jpg[edit]

Original - not featured[edit]

Synchiropus splendidus 

13 support, 1neutral, 6 oppose >> not featured (alternative version featured) - Alvesgaspar 10:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative - featured[edit]

Synchiropus splendidus 

15 support, 2 oppose >> featured - Alvesgaspar 10:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Young boy reading manga.jpg - not featured[edit]

A boy reading manga

Can you tell me tell what exactly you mean when you talk of value? --AngMoKio 11:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
True. Personality rights issues should get clarified. --AngMoKio 13:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

* Oppose As above. Please sign your vote. --MichaelMaggs 17:52, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] 

 2 support, 1 neutral, 3 oppose >> not featured - Alvesgaspar 10:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:ZionPark amk.jpg- not featured[edit]

Short description 

 3 support, 3 oppose >> not featured - Alvesgaspar 10:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Pinicola-enucleator-001.jpg[edit]

Original - not featured[edit]

Pine Grosbeak 

 2 support, 3 oppose >> not featured - Alvesgaspar 10:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative - not featured[edit]

Pine Grosbeak 

 1 support, 1 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 5th day)- Alvesgaspar 10:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Zitronensäure im Mikroskop mit Polfilter besser.jpg - not featured[edit]

Citric acid crystal under polarized light, enlarged 200x 

6 support, 4 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 09:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Lac Peyto.jpg - not featured[edit]

Impressive landscape. 

5 support, 1 neural, 10 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 09:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Flower March 2008-4.jpg - not featured[edit]

Short description 

3 support, 3 oppose >> not featured - Alvesgaspar 23:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Scorpionfly March 2008-2.jpg - not featured[edit]

Short description 

3 support, 1 oppose >> not featured - Alvesgaspar 23:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Scorpionfly March 2008-1.jpg - not featured[edit]

Short description 

2 support, 2 oppose >> not featured - Alvesgaspar 23:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Jenni.svg - not featured[edit]

Peinado Neoclásico

  • {{FPX|material which is not featurable}} - Anonymous DissidentTalk 12:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I striked this template out, because I don't see a clear guideline violation, that makes this image unfeaturable material. --norro 18:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support partially because of the opposes... definitely not Wikipedia featurable but very well done SVG. gren 11:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose This is not a nice portrait. Neither a painting nor an illustration. Here the technical accomplishment stands in the foreground. Metoc 17:02, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose It's not so bad but I see too many weaknesses in the drawing. As we don't know the model and the likeliness is not important, the nose and the nostrils looks like to big comparatively to the eyes and mouth for instance. The light gradation on the chin is rather rudimentary and it tends too much towards a greyish tone. There are interesting effects in the hair but the lock of hair on the cheek doesn't fit with the remaining, it's not at all in the same style. The reflections on the lower lip are symbolic too much. The composition is not well balanced. Etc. All those little errors give the feeling of a first try, not completely mastered. -- Basilus 03:10, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, interesting --libertad0 ॐ 13:32, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2 support, 7 oppose >> not featured - Alvesgaspar 23:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Panorama Bussumerheide.jpg - not featured[edit]

360° view of heathland at the Bussumerheide, Bussum, The Netherlands 

6 support, 4 oppose >> not featured - Alvesgaspar 23:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Château de Chiry-Ourscamp (Oise).JPG- not featured[edit]

Château Mennechet 

3 support, 2 neutral, 4 oppose >> not featured - Alvesgaspar 01:46, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:ChampagnePool-Wai-O-Tapu rotated MC.jpg - featured[edit]

Short description 

 21 support, 0 oppose >> featured - Alvesgaspar 01:48, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Glaucus atlanticus 1.jpg - featured[edit]

Glaucus atlanticus

  •  Oppose Though properly masked creatures can have their uses, in this case the cutting out was poorly done. Additionally, I have doubts about the two individuals being of the same species (G. atlanticus and G. marginatus??). And lastly, there is rather a bit of noise... Lycaon 07:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment This image is well-taken, sharp, and on the whole, very good, but I think that with something like this, the natural environment really would add to the picture. I'm not going to oppose, but I can't bring myself to support either. Adam Cuerden 18:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support This is a pelagic species floating upside down where water meets air. It would be incredibly difficult to photograph in it's natural habitat, and dangerous too as they feed on the Portuguese man of war jelly fish. I've actually come across this very image in a reference book and I was a bit surprised to see it here. I wonder if the the copyright is as it should be. Anyway, a fantastic picture in my opinion. --Jnpet 20:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support very well done, but I miss something for size comparison, maybe something like this even though that's also not exactly it's natural environment. -- Gorgo 04:10, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Karelj 21:46, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I'd rather see worse quality image, but in their natural habitat. --Mbz1 19:36, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral Very good image, but on the other hand i agree with Mbz1 --D kuba 11:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support FRZ 18:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
8 support, 1 neutral, 2 oppose >> featured - Alvesgaspar 07:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Maçarico.jpg - not featured[edit]

Limnodromus griseus 

2 support, 7 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 07:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Gasshukoku suishi teitoku kōjōgaki (Oral statement by the American Navy admiral).png - not featured[edit]

Short description 

2 support, 0 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 07:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

N.B. This nomination was run on a previous version of this file. Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:31, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image:2007 Nagaoka Festival 004 Edit.jpg - featured[edit]

Fireworks 

7 support, 3 oppose >> featured -- Alvesgaspar 07:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:2006 Ojiya Festival 042 Edit.jpg Alternative - not featured[edit]

Fireworks 

3 support, 4 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 07:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Przystanek kolejowy Jasienica Mazowiecka(2).jpg - not featured[edit]

Short description

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: lack of sharpness and proper lighting. 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.

--- Anonymous DissidentTalk 11:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  •  I withdraw my nomination
Nomination withdrawn >> not featured >> Alvesgaspar 09:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Calypte anna performs personal grooming.jpg -- not featured[edit]

Calypte anna performs personal grooming 

Nomination withdrawn >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 21:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/Log/March_2008&oldid=637440996"