Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/May 2008

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


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


Contents

Image:turdusmerula.jpg - not featured[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Stulli - uploaded by Stulli - nominated by Stulli -- Stulli 18:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support waited more than 10 minutes for the best light and the ideal position of this turdus merula Stulli 18:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice, but a tighter crop would be needed. --Freedom to share 19:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose ack FtS --Leafnode 05:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose agree with Freedom to share --Dsmurat 15:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose poor composition --Taraxacum 13:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
1 support, 4 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 5th day) - Alvesgaspar 23:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:Listi vrtnic in kapljice.jpg - not featured[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by Mihael Simonic
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Young rose leaves taken in our garden after rain some days ago.
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I think that this is good enough. --Mihael Simonic 14:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment If anyone is interested in this image I can nominate it too. --Mihael Simonic 14:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - DOF is just not enough. The extensive out-of-focus foreground is distracting -- Alvesgaspar 14:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - In my opinion foreground is not so important here, because light stress is in region, where drops are dominated. Maybe you can help me how to take photos with popper focusing from this position (I relay hate to take photos from "bird perspective").--Mihael Simonic 18:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
To get a good depth of field you need a smaller aperture, say f20 rather than f8. That will mean a slower shutter speed and of course a tripod which you'll find essential for photos like this. --MichaelMaggs 20:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks it helped for newest pear flowers shoots. After next rain I'll try this with roses. Just a question which lens are good for macro on Nikon D series (I'm going to buy new lens this year, because now I have just Nikon D40's kit lens). --Mihael Simonic 12:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not bad, but not enough for FP. Agree with Alvesgaspar. --Karelj 22:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose ack Alvesgaspar --Leafnode 10:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not bad. Agree with Alvesgaspar. --Myminpins 23:13, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Taraxacum 13:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
1 support, 5 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 5th day) -- Alvesgaspar 23:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:Chelonia mydas albino p1440273.jpg - featured[edit]

An albino green turtle

I have wider shots but... This turtle was surfacing in a shallow basin and was very close to the edge, so wider shots show some unpleasant concrete wall. :-) David.Monniaux 09:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
That couldn't be cropped out? Cirt 11:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. Not bad, now contrast seems to be OK, thanks. --Karelj 18:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I enhanced the contrast. David.Monniaux 19:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. Blanche est une star. Thierry Caro 20:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Lerdsuwa 18:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Ludo 20:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support with enhanced contrast. --MichaelMaggs 22:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Really beautiful. Fred waldron 18:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Impressive... Vassil 23:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support FRZ 02:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 9 support, 0 oppose >> featured -- Alvesgaspar 16:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Original subject and good picture. --Pymouss44 Tchatcher - 11:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:Larus michahellis LC0046.jpg - not featured[edit]

Yellow-legged gull (Larus michahellis)

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info A Yellow-legged gull; created, uploaded and nominated by LC-de -- LC-de 17:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- LC-de 17:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Myminpins 23:19, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support reduced to the max --Taraxacum 15:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Feathers could be better exposed. --Freedom to share 19:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I agree with the above. Also I see nothing special in the picture. Barabas 23:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose FRZ 02:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
3 support, 3 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 22:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:Hite Crossing Bridge HWY95 view2 MC.jpg - featured[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Chmehl 19:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The second panorama has a view from beneath the bridge showing the Colorado River. -- Chmehl 19:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I prefer this one. Impressive composition but also a great stitching job. --AngMoKio 19:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Agree with AngMoKio --Simonizer 20:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Richard Bartz 00:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Very high quality shot, nice framing, the perspective is just great. Cirt 01:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Thermos 04:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I prefer this one too. Very good. --MichaelMaggs 06:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Aqwis 06:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support top --Böhringer 09:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This is good stuff. It would be valuable if you could document in the image page the tools and process you have used to generate this image. -- Slaunger 21:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Done. Chmehl 07:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good. --Karelj 22:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice photo. Too bad thumbnail is so poor. --Leafnode 05:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This one is very nice... --Dsmurat 15:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Myminpins 23:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Taraxacum 13:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very nice. /Daniel78 22:38, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Excellent pano. --Freedom to share 06:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. Very good image. --Johney (T∀LK) 17:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support That is a fine example of a excellent panorama. Fred waldron 18:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question That one doesn't look natural to me (still very good and impressive though). It's of course hard to be sure, since I've never been there. was the tripod's rotation axis set vertical, or do you fix this during sitching ? Benh 19:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
    • I used the Nodal Ninja [1] nodal point adapter which has a spirit-level (or water-level, what is it called in English?) built-in. So, the rotation is exactly around the vertical axis. I think the "bending" of the bridge is due to the cylindrical projection on the image plane. (I tried a rectangular projection also but for this large field of view you don't get usable results.) Chmehl 19:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
      • thanks for explaining :) Benh 18:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support FRZ 02:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
20 support, 0 oppose >> featured -- Alvesgaspar 22:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:Ptilinopus melanospilus male.jpg - not featured[edit]

South-East Asian bird

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info colourful South-East Asian bird. Created , uploaded and nominated by Magalhães -- Magalhães 08:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Magalhães 08:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

FPX| out of focus --Richard Bartz 13:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC) Magalhães is certain that the focus is sufficient for FP --Richard Bartz 15:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I agree and on top of that the resolution (1.8 MP) is really not up to the technical standards expected for a featured picture. However, I think it is a well composed photo and a good illustration of the species and thus of great value to Commons. I suggest you try to test nominate it as a Valued image candidate within the scope Ptilinopus melanospilus. There, the emphasis is more on the value of the subject and not so much on the technical side. In that forum I think the image will have a good chance of being promoted. -- Slaunger 14:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Out of focus/blurry and a bit 2 small --Richard Bartz 15:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry Magalhães, but Richard is right. Saudações!(with that name I assume you read Portuguese...) -- Alvesgaspar 17:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose for the same reasons. --MichaelMaggs 05:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Resolution is low, it's blurry. Try again but with higher resolution and less blurry picture. --Kanonkas(talk) 12:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Myminpins 23:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Where is the color? --Taraxacum 13:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose poor exposure --Leafnode 08:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose FRZ 02:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment please state reason for opposition as a courtesy to the author/uploader. Lycaon 06:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
2 support, 7 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 17:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:WMAP spacecraft.jpg - not featured[edit]

Artist's impression of the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe.

  • What clutter? Do you mean the instrument at the centre of the spacecraft? That's like objecting to a picture of Paris due to that pointy tower thing in the middle... Mike Peel 08:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I mean that aesthetically the image is not strong enough to be featured. FYI, this image looks much less cluttered: [2]. Barabas
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose FRZ 02:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment please state reason for opposition as a courtesy to the author/uploader. Lycaon 06:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Rendering could be much more detailed, I personally find it to be oversimplistic geometrically. --Freedom to share 06:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
1 support, 3 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 17:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:WMAP receivers.png . not featured[edit]

Illustration of the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe spacecraft receivers

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Illustration of the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe spacecraft receivers. Created by NASA / the WMAP Science Team, uploaded and nominated by Mike Peel 13:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Mike Peel 13:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I do not see anything special about it. Barabas
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose FRZ 02:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment please state reason for opposition as a courtesy to the author/uploader. Lycaon 06:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
1 support, 2 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 17:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Image: EPO 2537.jpg - not featured[edit]

Louis XIV and Marie-Antoinette in front of Versailles Palace

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Eric Pouhier - uploaded by Eric Pouhier - nominated by Username -- Eric Pouhier 18:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info -- Please note that the white balance was calibrated on site and that there is no perspective issues, thank you for your support Eric Pouhier 18:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support nice mood good background high res very sharp. Featured imo. --Ikiwaner 18:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Excellent colours, details and composition. Vive le Roi Soleil et la reine! -- Alvesgaspar 19:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Richard Bartz 21:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I do not like this composition, metal fence as background... Photographic quality is good. --Karelj 23:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Strong Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose agree with Karelj, shame you couldn't all have been the other side of that fence. Mfield 00:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC) The more I look at it, the more distracting it is. Mfield 04:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as other opposers. --MichaelMaggs 05:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment category? what is EPO? Przykuta 06:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Composition! --Simonizer 07:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • weak Symbol support vote.svg Support it is true the fence is for sure no the nicest background. But please put this photo in a category or gallery. ...I thought this is a requirement for a FPC, but couldn't find it right now. It should get added. --AngMoKio 19:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain High quality but composition... -- Laitche 18:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Incredible quality, I could care less about the fence. Serg!o 11:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The fence provides a bit of interesting tension, without it would be too pompous --Taraxacum 13:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Aqwis 16:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The fence ruins the picture. --Lerdsuwa 18:02, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I think the fence also make thie image look tilted (even if it's not in reality). /Daniel78 22:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The fence is not bad background, as long as it's not garbage dump fence ;) --Leafnode 08:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It is always too good to be out of fence. We are all ordinary people! :) --Manco Capac 21:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose bad composition --Herrick 08:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Where do people see a "good background" :-o ? Fred waldron 18:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Would love to support this one, but the fence ruins it. Barabas
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose FRZ 02:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment please state reason for opposition as a courtesy to the author/uploader. Lycaon 06:35, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
9 support, 10 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 09:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:Cuphea pn.JPG -not featured[edit]

A Cuphea hyssopifolia‎ blooming

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by penubag - uploaded by penubag - nominated by penubag
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --penubag (talk); 09:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I find the composition cluttered, I see no clear idea with the composition. Nor do I see any significant value for Wikimedia projects. Nothing much is in focus except the central small flower (that one is nice though with a good separation to the background). Colors are good too. -- Slaunger 21:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

{{FPX|out of focus and a confusing composition -- [[User:Alvesgaspar|Alvesgaspar]] 23:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)}}

This image is not out of focus and it being of confusing composition is an opinion. --penubag 00:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, I agree. --Aqwis 09:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Confusing composition and poor image quality. Most of the picture is out of focus -- Alvesgaspar 10:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - Please notice that the intention of the FPX template is not to humiliate the nominators. On the contrary, it was created with the purpose of permiting a quick closing of obvious sub-standard nominations, thus avoiding a pile of oppose votes and drawing the attention to the FP criteria in the guidelines. A better place to start is Quality images candidadtes-- Alvesgaspar 11:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
      • No humiliation taken, I just think that it was an inappropriate use of the template --penubag 19:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As above - first of all composition. --Karelj 18:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose confusing comp --Richard Bartz 23:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Good species picture, probably QI, surely not FP (no wow) yet still valuable. Lycaon 20:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose FRZ 02:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment please state reason for opposition as a courtesy to the author/uploader. Lycaon 06:35, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
2 support, 1 neutral, 5 oppose >> not featured

Image:Istanbul1.jpg -not featured[edit]

View from Galata

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Alphascorpii - uploaded by Alphascorpii - nominated by Alphascorpii --Alphascorpii 16:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Alphascorpii 16:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Cluttered, disorganised composition does not appeal to me. --Freedom to share 20:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, very interesting. --Aqwis 21:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As Freedom to share. --Karelj 22:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Istanbul is a beautiful city with many landmark buildings and I do not see any of them in this image; not even mentioning image's poor quality... - Noumenon talk 05:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral in my opinion this "clutteredness" is the whole thing about this photo...and this is a very nice idea. I would even crop away the part with the church and the tree to get it more cluttered. There is no need to show only the nice spots of a city. --AngMoKio 06:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Noumenon. --Dsmurat 15:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral per AngMoKio, this image captures large parts city of Istanbul very well from my visits there. Mfield 00:59, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose unfortunately not extraordinary and additionally, poor quality --Taraxacum 13:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Johney (T∀LK) 17:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support FRZ 02:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
4 supprt, 2 neutral, 5 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 16:43, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:Below Chestnut & Broad.jpg - not featured[edit]

Short description

  • Not wikipedia! They bite there ;) You can't be NPOV and you don't feel superior and elitist if you vote in POTY. I don't wanna go back! ;) (former WP FP reviewer) --Freedom to share 19:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As above. --Karelj 19:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support FRZ 02:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
3 support, 4 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 10:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

image:Ouareau JPS0029.jpg - not featured[edit]

Ouareau River Quebec

Nuvola apps important yellow.svg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because the DOF is too shallow 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 06:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

1 support, 2 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 10:31, 4 May 2008 (UTC) 

Image:Pont Neuf at Sunset.jpg not featured[edit]

Short description

Nuvola apps important yellow.svg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because too small 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 22:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

 1 support, 0 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 10:31, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:718smiley.svg - not featured[edit]

awesome

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by east718 - uploaded by Howcheng - nominated by Vipersnake151 -- ViperSnake151 17:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- This, is starting to turn into one of the most popular and parodied emoticons in the world right now, known to some as the "awesome face". It's just that epic. And also, this nomination is not a joke. ViperSnake151 17:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I can't undestand the point --libertad0 ॐ 18:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I don't know any of those parodies and the first results in some search engines don't show it to be epic. --norro 19:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Well FP is not connected to popularity. /Daniel78 19:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose And nevertheless, I think this is a joke ;-) --Taraxacum 20:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Agree with Taraxacum. --Karelj 16:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose ??? FRZ 01:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • 718smiley.svg Oppose --Finn Rindahl 07:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
It looks like we finally found an image to replace all the other comment images. I made you a template. Rocket000 09:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
1 support, 6 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 21:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC) 

Image:NMMP dolphin with locator.jpeg - kept[edit]

dolphin with locator

Please note that delisting does not mean to delete the image. The image still could be uniq image without being a FP. --Manco Capac 21:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Thank you! It is great to know!--Mbz1 17:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your sarcastic response on this, I can not understand how a person wrote this may act like this. I am appologising from others that I had to give an answer to such a sarcastic comment--Manco Capac 06:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep as above PMG 12:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep /Daniel78 20:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist per nom: lousy quality, oversharpened, noisy, (probably upscaled) and badly cropped..., Lycaon 21:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist nice composition but unacceptable quality considering its modern origin Movieevery 08:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • May I please ask you what do you think about this Commons FPC 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." ?Isn't this a picture of s very difficult subject ?--Mbz1 15:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
    • I don't believe this is a hard to reproduce shot, these are trained dolphins and probably do tricks like this on a regular basis (as opposed to a wild dolphin), so the technical flaws of a 2003 image can't be forgiven so easily since the U.S military has expensive equipment to produce high quality images but this looks rather poor for a 1/500 shutter speed, also very noisy and oversharpened. Movieevery 17:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Maybe U.S military has "expensive equipment" maybe not, maybe U.S military did not care to let their "expensive equipment" to get wet in order the picture would pass FPC, maybe it is easy to reproduce, maybe not. I do not know. What I know that right now Commons do not have a better image of the unique and interesting subject and IMO the image should stay at least untill a better one will be availabale.Thank you.--Mbz1 18:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)17:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep Very good, valuable and high wow image. This is what an FP is about, not constant bickering about technical quality. --Freedom to share 15:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist Strange discussion about whether it's hard to reproduce, like the picture gets burned and destroyed when it's no longer an FP? FRZ 02:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep Very interesting capture; the composition is very good also. Technical imperfections are not that bad and should not outweigh in this case. Barabas
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep The uniqness of this situation makes up for the techical "mishaps". --Hebster 12:56, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
8 keep, 6 delist >> kept -- Alvesgaspar 21:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:Ophelia - Hybrid Tea.jpg - not featured[edit]

Ophelia - Hybrid Tea

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by Laitche -- Laitche 11:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Laitche 11:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting delete.svg Thanks. -- Laitche 19:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Withdrawn >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 22:05, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:Mandarin drake.JPG - not featured[edit]

Mandarin drake duck

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Seahamlass - uploaded by Seahamlass - nominated by Seahamlass -- Seahamlass 23:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Seahamlass 23:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Noisy. -- Laitche 05:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support A bit noisy background, but that's not matter. I like it. --Mihael Simonic 07:45, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment, looks more like artefacts than noise. --Aqwis 08:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question hmm...it was a 40D...did you have a special setting in the camera? For example the tonal value priority (is it the right english term?!), it can creat more noise at times. But i also think that is doesn't look like the tyical noise. Did you do sth with the picture afterwards, like heavy sharpening? --AngMoKio 08:50, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Myminpins 23:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Taraxacum 12:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Noisy, overexp, detail.

Sorry, you should try Commons:Quality images candidates first! --Beyond silence 17:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As Beyond silence. --Karelj 19:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I wish to withdraw the nomination. Many thanks to those whose supported the picture. This was my first pic with a new camera - and I like it! I won't bother again - you people are just unbelievably snooty! (And, having seen some of your pics, without any justification in some cases) --Seahamlass 19:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

For withdraw just type {{withdraw}} --Richard Bartz 23:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I think human being is not perfect creature. Please don't be disappointed. This pic's composition is very good, anyway. :) -- Laitche 20:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Agree with Laitche. Such short statements behind an opposing vote sometimes seem harsh. But they are not meant mean or something. Your picture really has artefacts that shouldn't be in an FP. I am sure those artefacts are not from your camera (I have the same)...you did a wrong move in the post-processing. This happens... But when you nominate a picture you have to expect that you also get opposing votes. Don't take it hard and try again with another photo. In the end all this is helpful for you to improve. --AngMoKio 21:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I hope you come back with new contributions because this image is very nice; although I too agree about the noise issue mentioned. And always remember that images might be just as valuable to Wikimedia Commons even if they are not promoted to FP. And note that FP is supposed to be some of the finest on Commons, not just good images. /Daniel78 22:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Please don't take offence. The most important thing in the image - the composition - is great. Had you selected 100 ISO rather than 400 ISO the noise would have been much lower and I strongly suspect you would have been successful. Do please try again. --MichaelMaggs 22:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • It's not the fault of the ISO - even my D50 gives far less noise than this at ISO 400 and the 40D is much better at ISO 400 and up than a D50. I think it's just too much compression combined with oversharpening of the compression artefacts. --Aqwis 22:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose There is no need to come unglued and call opposers snobbish. Let's call a spade a spade - yes, there is a heavy amount of noise/artefacts caused by sharpening the image, furthermore the white feathers on the neck lost any drawing caused by slight overexposure. As we have a ringed bird here a location info in which zoo you took the picture would be great --Richard Bartz 05:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

{{withdraw}}

  • Withdraw not considered (anonymous user) -- Alvesgaspar 22:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support // tsca [re] 10:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
5 support, 4 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 09:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Lake Kreda (NW Slovenia) - Bufo bufo mating.jpg

Image:Enfant d'Ouzbékistan-691bis.JPG - not featured[edit]

Mère et enfant à la fenêtre à Bukhara

{FPX} * Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeNot a good composition: the baby's face is partially hidden and the window grating is distracting -- Alvesgaspar 10:43, 3 May 2008 (UTC)}

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support for now. I can imagine that the window bars possibly indicate some cultural context. -- Klaus with K 11:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question what about these people's personal rights? Have they agreed on the license of this photo? --Leafnode 11:30, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment J'ai parlé avec cette femme, ravie qu'on la prenne en photo avec son enfant (ça se voit sur son visage, non?). Mais je n'ai évidemment pas son autorisation formelle quant au dépôt sur Wikimedia ! Si cela doit poser problème, je commence à comprendre pourquoi on voit si peu de photos de personnes de chair et de sang sur les galeries! Quant à l'avis d'Alvesgaspar je le trouve très "théorique" et un peu formaliste : visage partiellement caché? oui, mais as-tu vu ses yeux? La grille, elle, me semble justement faire la petite originalité "technique" (et peut-être symbolique) de la prise de vue! Amicalement ! --ANGLO 13:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As Leafnode mentioned, obtaining and recording the consent of the subject is a must here. Lycaon 20:13, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Legal perhaps, but a little stupid! Long live insects, wasps, crabs, dragonflies, beetles, big butterflies and small flowers!

I withdraw my nomination.--Anglo 23:13, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Withdrawn >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 10:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:Sunset from Internation space station.jpg - not featured[edit]

Sunset from Internation space station.jpg

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by NASA - uploaded by Anonymous101 - nominated by Anonymous101 . I'm not sure if this is featured picture quality but I think t might be.-- Anonymous101 19:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Anonymous101 19:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment, so much dust! --Aqwis 21:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The dust as mentioned and there are some vertical lines visible. /Daniel78 22:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination. After looking at it more carefully I have decided its not featured picture quality `Anonymous101 06:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Withdrawn >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 09:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

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

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Dear all,
    I've decided to stop my contributions to Commons because uploading images without nominating them on FP is boring, while nominating them on FP is depressing to me. I am probably not right, but it is the way I am, and I cannot change it. Sorry. I will continue upload my images to Wikipedia, but not to Commons. Here's one last thing that I believe I should do before I go, and it is about the image, which I am nominating for delisting. Before I nominated the image to get FP status I e-mailed it to the expert, who wrote a book about sea anemones in California. He said the image was of Anthopleura elegantissima engaged in a clone war. After the image passed I found more info about Anthopleura elegantissima and now I believe my image is of Anthopleura sola (not of Anthopleura elegantissima). I did e-mail image to other expert, who also believes that the image is of Anthopleura elegantissima, but he did not convinced me. I am almost positive that my image is of Anthopleura sola. If it is the case, it means, that not only ID was made incorectly, but it is not a clone war, but simply a war because Anthopleura sola do not clone. Sorry for the confusing explanation. Richard, you've done a great job with the image and I am sorry I have to nominate it for the delisting. It is still a rare and very interesting IMO image of sea anemones action, but, if you decide to keep it, I believe it should be renamed (I mean I believe it should be renamed in any case). Thank you.--Mbz1 04:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

(Original nomination)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist --Mbz1 04:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep and rename I like thc olours and the action :) --norro 16:50, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep --Lerdsuwa 17:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep As long as the description is updated with the concerns and info given here I think it can be kept. And hope you return to contributing, although it can be very hard to please everyone. If everyone were too easy to please than the FP process would become a little pointless I think... /Daniel78 20:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I've decided to stop my contributions to Commons because uploading images without nominating them on FP is boring
    but it has value for other wikipedias ! hope you will keep uploading to commons rather than wikipedia (I guess english one ?). This would just add pain to some other guy who will need to transfer to commons. Benh 18:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your comment, Benh and Daniel78. I will continue to upload my images to Commons and sooner or later I probably will nominate one on FP. The thing I have no interest in taking pictures at all, if I do not upload them to Commons.--Mbz1 19:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep FRZ 02:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
4 keep, 1 oppose >> kept -- Alvesgaspar 09:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I've changed the name of the file and updated Commons FP accordingly. Thank you.--Mbz1 14:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:Ischgl church interior from below.jpeg[edit]

Ischgl Ischgl Edit2
Original Edit2 by wau
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Self nom -- Freedom to share 16:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info The inside of the St. Nikolaus Catholic Church in Ischgl. -- Freedom to share 16:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Unless the GIMP's grid is wrong, this image is not tilted from what I saw, although I could be wrong. -- Freedom to share 16:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Original - not featured[edit]

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Freedom to share 16:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment What do you say if we cropp a little bit more more left and right (Just few pixels) in order to let the window lights out of image? --Manco Capac 20:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Interesting idea. I thought about that while stitching and even tried it, only to see that such a crop did not show the grand nature of the inside of the church. --Freedom to share 21:46, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
1 support, 0 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 5th day) -- Alvesgaspar 23:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit - not featured[edit]

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Thanks for the edit. It is very impressive. --Freedom to share 08:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The picture is of good quality, but in this case, HDR would help giving the dark parts more brightness and color. Personally, i don't like the shabby carpet and the interior of the church is not that extraordinary. --Taraxacum 13:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - A very difficult subject due to the high dynamic range. What I really don't like is the extreme geometric distortion, maybe that could be corrected. -- Alvesgaspar 23:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - ultimately, I appreciate the artistic technique applied so far as the capturing of the subject. I like it. --- Anonymous DissidentTalk 12:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Much better now, in my opinion. I liked the dark parts and the other parts equal. The darkness of these parts is the part of the atmosphere, and without them the room will be different. --Manco Capac 12:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This is a very beautiful image, but nowhere enough wow factor. Barabas
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support FRZ 02:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Disturbing stitching errors (e.g. bench down left, window right). Lycaon 17:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
4 support, 4 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 08:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:Oxya yezoensis November 2007 WUXGA.jpg - not featured[edit]

Oxya yezoensis

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded & nominated by Laitche -- Laitche 17:05, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Laitche 17:05, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Noisy. -- --79.68.252.64 22:04, 26 April 2008 (UTC) Please log in to vote. Thanks, Freedom to share
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Myminpins 23:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Technically real good quality, but composition lacks a bit of creativity, so really good, but not excellent. --Taraxacum 12:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, noisy?!? --Aqwis 16:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Excellent compositin, well-controlled depth of field, good sharpness. --Freedom to share 16:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As Taraxacun and colour of object and background practically the same. --Karelj 19:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I think that is called camouflage. :) -- Laitche 20:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The background and subject merge into one another, making it confusing. I had to enlarge the picture just to see what it was. That is NOT the sign of a good picture.--Seahamlass 19:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support noise? where? --AngMoKio 21:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Agree with Taraxacum -- Alvesgaspar 23:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nemo5576 08:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Good macro, nice composition. The lighting is a tad 2 harsh, causing overexposed highlights. Can be avoided by making a slight shadow 2 the insect with a stretched nylon sock or pantyhose. A very thin plasticbag works very well, too. --Richard Bartz 17:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not enough separation from background. Barabas
  • I am afraid my Symbol support vote.svg Support vote will not change anything, but I really like the image.--Mbz1 18:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment BTW the image passed quality nomination. --Mbz1 18:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose FRZ 02:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment please state reason for opposition as a courtesy to the author/uploader. Lycaon 06:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
7 support, 7 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 08:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:WMAP 2008.png - not featured[edit]

The Cosmic Microwave Background as seen by NASA's Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe. Projected from full-sky using the Mollweide projection.

  • By the way, for the photographers: this picture is the result of 5 years' cumulative exposure on a camera with effectively 16 pixels continually being sampled, which have a resolution around 10 times worse than the human eye . While it does have a lens that is one and a half metres wide, the photons it is collecting have a wavelength of around 1-15 mm, about 2,000 times longer than visible light, making it an effective optical lens of about 0.75mm in width. The image is after subtracting off a baseline that is over a thousand times stronger than the signal. The camera cost a couple of billion dollars, and made a trip of over 1,500,000 kilometers to take the photo. Oh, and the image has been used to weigh the universe, and to calculate its age. Mike Peel 22:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This definitely needs to be featured. It is the definition of value like few other images imo. --Freedom to share 21:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Really excellent scientific work, very impressive conditions and costs to produce a picture like this. And surely, the meaning for mankind is oustanding. I'm glad having such pictures in WM-Commons, but I think a FP should touch a viewer by itself and not by additional information. edit made by Taraxacum 14:37, 28 April (UTC) - Alvesgaspar 17:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC) Sorry, forget to sign... --Taraxacum 07:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Must agree with Taraxacum. No doubt the picture took a huge amount of work and represents an important scientific achievement. But it is little more than a symbol of the actual results, which cannot obviously be all taken from the image (which is 2D and has a limited resolution). And, as a symbol, it is not particularly beautiful or meaningful by itself -- Alvesgaspar 17:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This is a great document, of a great quality. Not beautiful, but really useful. More images of the sort are really needed. Fred waldron 18:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per above. Barabas
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support FRZ 02:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support If scientific images are within the scope of FP, and I believe they are, then this image should defitiviely be featured. -- Klaus with K 11:08, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, wonderful. James F. (talk) 12:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Mbz1 15:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As Taraxacum. Masur 20:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per above. — Lycaon 18:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
7 support, 5 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 14:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:Glen Canyon Dam MC.jpg - featured[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Chmehl 08:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This panorama image shows the Glen Canyon Dam and the Colorado River. -- Chmehl 08:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Karelj 18:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I find it amazing. -- Benh 19:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment How many Canyon river bend FP's are we going to have :) ? /Daniel78 19:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great work! Barabas 20:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very nice detail for an image of this scope. Cirt 00:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --MichaelMaggs 06:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Gordo 16:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support FRZ 01:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Urban 04:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --factsquatch 18:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC) — No anonymous votes allowed. Lycaon 21:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
9 support, 0 oppose >> featured -- Alvesgaspar 08:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:Orchid blue.JPG - not featured[edit]

Profile of an orchid

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info This is a photo of an orchid I took some years ago. Uploaded and nominated by Taraxacum
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Taraxacum 16:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Depth of field too low. Sorry, --Freedom to share 20:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, have to agree with Freedom. --MichaelMaggs 06:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Orchid is not identified (main subject). Lycaon 20:15, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Nuvola apps important yellow.svg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because of insufficient depth of field and the orchid is unidentified 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 07:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

1 support, 3 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 07:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:barbula_fallax.jpeg - not featured[edit]

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Fabelfroh 10:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This image of dozens of very tiny moss plants (about 4 mm each in size) was made with the MP-E 65 1x-5x lens at 3.5x. 12 single photos were "stacked" together to reach reasonable dof and sharpness. This exceptionally peculiar photo has the "wow" effect on me. Fabelfroh 10:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Your license terms ("a commercial use of the image is only possible with the permission of the author") are not acceptable for Commons ("Media licensed under non-commercial only licenses also are not accepted.") Effectively your license amounts to by-nc-sa. --Stefan Vladuck 11:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Sorry for uncommenting you, but I've made up that license text to be compatible with both flickr, korseby and private websites. I'm really tired of all these license discussions here on the commons that arise from time to time. If you and other people think that this license is incompatible with the commons, then please go on and delete all the other 1888 photos (including Featured and QI) I've uploaded so far. Your oppose vote is a non-issue here. Fabelfroh 12:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment, I am sorry, but NC-licenses are strictly forbidden on Wikimedia Commons per Commons:Licensing. If you do not change the license of your pictures, we will sadly have to delete them. --Aqwis 13:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment How comes he can upload 1888 files, get some past FP and QI, without anybody noticing this restriction? Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 13:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Only images uploaded since 26/12/2007 have this licence and will have to have their licence changed or (sadly, but necessarily) be deleted. Lycaon 13:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • And that's why custom licenses suck. People can just change them at will. Fortunately, you can't add restrictions on top of cc-by-sa-3.0. All that text after the "cc-by-sa-3.0" means nothing. Either it is or it isn't under that license. Since we know the author's intent, is it legally binding? ...probably not since she didn't fully understand what the license entailed. Rocket000 16:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
"Fortunately, you can't add restrictions on top of cc-by-sa-3.0." Of course you can. The CC licenses can be treated as templates, and nothing stops you from adding additional restrictions on top of them. --Aqwis 16:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Indeed. There's no "can't" here: a copyright holder can do whatever he or she pleases. If he says it's under "cc-by-sa plus a ton of restrictions", then it's under cc-by-sa plus a ton of restrictions. That's just how licensing works. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 16:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
What!? If you say it's under a specific Creative Commons license, then that's it. If you add anything on top of that then it's not really under that license. Those license tags are "templates" but the legal document it links to isn't. You can't just customize it to your liking. They mean something. Otherwise, I could say my work was CC-BY plus all rights reserved. Yeah, that doesn't make sense. Anyway, I just noticed the EXIF data: The author of this image is Kristian Peters. He owns the original copyright. This work is licensed under Creative Commons 3.0 cc-by-sa-nc license. Rocket000 16:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
If you add anything on top of that, then it's not really that license anymore. You're right on that count: the license grant that the copyright holder has given will consist of the terms of that license, plus those restrictions. To use a dodgy analogy, if I say "you can eat this whole cake, but save the cherry on it for me" you can't go and eat the cake, cherry included, and say in your defense "but you said I could eat the whole cake!". Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 16:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

But the thing is he did release under that license. So the rest is meaningless. This License constitutes the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the Work licensed here. There are no understandings, agreements or representations with respect to the Work not specified here. Licensor shall not be bound by any additional provisions that may appear in any communication from You. This License may not be modified without the mutual written agreement of the Licensor and You. - Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported §8(e) Rocket000 16:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm guessing he didn't read that bit. That, I think, is where we run into informed-consent-type issues. The intent of the copyright holder is clear: he doesn't want it to be used for commercial purposes. That intent is also clear to anybody that has read the image description page. He could very easily argue that he didn't understand what he was consenting to (and before you say anything, I find that troubling too -- as far as consequences go, the difference between this and revocation is rather small). Courts won't look too well on license "traps" given that he has clearly stated his intent so clearly... Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 17:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I'm not saying we should (or could) hold him to the license. At least not in good faith. But it is the licensor's responsibility to understand the terms and conditions they are willfully agreeing to. Otherwise, there'd always be a easy way out. All you would need to do is plead ignorance. And how many people do you think that use these licenses have actually read the legal code? How many really understand the implications? Rocket000 17:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Crap. I forgot where we were. Sorry everyone else for the copyright talk. :) Rocket000 17:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Nuvola apps important yellow.svg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because subject of licensing issues. --norro 15:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC) Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
1 support, 1 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 09:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:Dyavolski bridge.jpg - not featured[edit]

Devil's bridge in autumn

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info uploaded by Laveol - nominated by Laveol -- Laveol 10:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Laveol 10:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Nuvola apps important yellow.svg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because too small 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 10:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It is with great pity that I insert this FPX tag, for this is a truly amazing image, with an excellent composition and atmosphere. Freedom to share 10:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It is an amazing composition indeed, although I'd recommend less post-processing which is very visibly in the clouds, in case the author were to upload a higher resolution image. -- Klaus with K 11:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
1 support, 0 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 08:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:Petrovatnight.JPG- not featured[edit]

Cathedral of St. Peter and Paul in Brno city, CZ at night

Nuvola apps important yellow.svg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because too small 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.

Do you have a larger version? -βαςεLXIV 14:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question Excuse me, but I mean that the picture is big enough to see if it´s good or not! For what do you need a bigger resolution? --Gothic2 15:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Could you read the guidelines, please: Resolution - Photographs of lower resolution than 2 million pixels are typically rejected unless there are 'strong mitigating reasons'. Note that a 1600 x 1200 image has 1.92 Mpx, just less than the 2 million level. --QWerk 16:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Hey man (QWerk) RELAX, RELAX :-) --Gothic2 16:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Pictures just ain't high quality if they are low-res... The guidelines are there for a reason. 81.224.104.150 15:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:Vendeuse d'arachides.jpg[edit]

original - featured[edit]

Peanuts seller in Ouagadougou

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created and uploaded by Romanceor - nominated by Thermos -- Thermos 15:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Quite simply, a stunning work of photography, where the colours, composition and athmosphere are perfect. Excellent bokeh too. -- Thermos 15:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great photo. I really enjoy looking at it --Leafnode 16:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like the original one. Great job! --Manco Capac 21:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The colors are off, everything has a red tinge. --Calibas 21:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Sometimes, at the end of the day, colors and light are just like that and that's what is great. --B.navez 03:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • temporarySymbol oppose vote.svg Oppose ... until the colors are tweaked correctly. No sandstorms 4 me. --Richard Bartz 04:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose due to colour cast. --MichaelMaggs 05:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very nice mood and atmosphere. I trust the creators statement that the colors in the original best resembles how it really was. -- Slaunger 06:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The original has a low dynamic range and I don't like the contrast. Unfortunatley, the first edit eliminates this together with it's warm evening atmosphere. Maybe a second edit keeping its original colour temperature would enhance the picture's quality, but in general, a suitable candidate... --Taraxacum 07:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose bad contrast --Herrick 07:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like this one the best out of the three. I find the colours natural. Popperipopp 16:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The colours of this one give it all its charm. Colours don't seem natural on first edit, and there is too much light on the two edits. Fred waldron 17:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support FRZ 01:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
8 support, 3 oppose >> featured -- Alvesgaspar 09:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, odd colour cast, even if it's natural. --Aqwis 07:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

edit 1 - not featured[edit]

Peanuts seller in Ouagadougou                      Peanuts seller in Ouagadougou

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment a great composition, I also noticed it in the QICs. I added a new version. I am not the best concerning colour-balancing...maybe someone can make it better (Richard..are you there? ;)) but i thought that the sky is too brown in the original version. --AngMoKio 17:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment _Please_ link all edits/versions with each other. It's so often forgotten. /Daniel78 19:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I did it. /Daniel78 10:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Your edit looks good. --Richard Bartz 17:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Nice new balance but the "true" colors are more like in the original ; sky isn't blue in Ouagadougou. --Romanceor 17:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree that the colors could be more like in the original, but the original has not the original/true colors IMO. When looking at the histogram on circle1 the blue channel isn't congruent like it should. Furthermore its hardly imaginable 4 me that we have a twilight or a rainy situation here as the shadows in circle2 are nicely drawn and the afternoon sun (arrow4) causing overexposed highlights in circle3, even at 1/1000s. The truth is somewhere between the original and AngMoKio's edit --Richard Bartz 04:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
At 18:18 under tropics night is very soon, you can also see that by the enlightening of the cushion very horizontally. And you can have dusty clouds in the background but not necessary around you. --B.navez 15:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


  • Symbol support vote.svg Support have to rethink --norro 19:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment This edit copleteley changed the photo. In the original version the day light is close to a rainy day and wich is great with the colors of the dress of the lady. But in the edited version it is a sunny day and I didi not liked the colors in that way. --Manco Capac 21:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose artificial change of colors --B.navez 03:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The moody atmosphere in the original is lost for me. -- Slaunger 10:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose FRZ 01:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as it was said, colors are unrealistic now --Leafnode 20:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
1 support, 4 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 09:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

edit 2 - not featured[edit]

Peanuts seller in Ouagadougou

  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question What is your opinion to this version? --Taraxacum 07:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This one works for me too. -- Slaunger 10:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This is also fine for me. --Manco Capac 10:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support FRZ 01:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment please state reason for opposition as a courtesy to the author/uploader. Lycaon 06:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Leafnode 20:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose ALL versions. Not enough wow, aesthetically not very strong, and I do not like the tree in the background (composition). Barabas 23:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting info.svg Info - Sorry, but each nominations has its own poll. The vote only counts for this one -- Alvesgaspar 11:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
4 support, 1 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 09:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:Ap4-s67-50531.jpg - not featured[edit]

Saturn V rocket

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by - uploaded by Papa November - nominated by Happy-melon -- Happy-melon 21:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I just saw this on and thought "WOW". I gather it's very slightly under your recommended size for featured pictures, but it strikes me as a stunning photo. Happy-melon 21:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose An extremely dusty and scratched scan, rather too small, and the artificially-added moon disturbs me. Sorry. --MichaelMaggs 22:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
    How do you know the moon is artificial? Just curious. Happy-melon 08:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC) Duh perhaps I should actually read the image page :D Happy-melon 09:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose ack Michael, but replace extremely with quite. -- Slaunger 06:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Aqwis 17:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Same as Michael... Sorry :( Fred waldron 17:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Karelj 18:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not sharp enough, resolution is below guidelines; fake Moon, and aesthetically not good enough. Barabas
    • I accept your other points, but how is it aesthetically lacking, in your opinion? Happy-melon 21:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I guess I looked at it when my monitor was too dark. The top of the mast blended with the dark sky. I retract that. Barabas 23:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose ack opposers. Lycaon 08:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose FRZ 01:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment please state reason for opposition as a courtesy to the author/uploader. Lycaon 06:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose grainy/dusty, and the composition isn't that great. Naerii 04:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It's just the moon-part that bothers me. Popperipopp 08:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
3 support, 8 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 09:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:Temple Saint Sava.jpg - not featured[edit]

Temple Saint Sava.jpg
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Fred waldron - uploaded by Fred waldron - nominated by Fred waldron -- Fred waldron 00:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Fred waldron 00:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I am not sure if it is sharp or striking enough for FP, but I felt it deserved an edit to correct distortions and crop out the unsightly background buildings. Mfield 01:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Thanks, the edit is better indeed and I replaced the original ;) Fred waldron 07:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question/Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment
    1. I am confused about the categorization of the images. The first one is categorized to Category:Belgrade, which is a relevant category, but I would like also a category referring to the type of building.
      • I put back the category "church". That is the right term in english. But the official name is "Temple", and many languages use the term "temple" for non-catholic churches (for example in French, "église" would be used for a catholic church, and "temple" for a protestant or, sometimes, an orthodox church). A category "orthodox church" might be a good idea... Fred waldron 07:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
    2. This brings me to my question: Is it a church or a temple? The image title indicates it is a temple, but the building bears symbols of christianity, which for me indicates a church?
    3. The edit has the additional categories Category:Churches and Category:Temple. Once the church/temple question is sorted out a relevant base category shall be selected and explored to a specific subcat relevant for this building. Note, by the way that the plural forms Category:Churches and Category:Temples are the correct base categories to explore, the ones chosen are in fact deprecated.
    4. I suggest the creator geocodes the original and edit. Adds value to the image page.
    5. I agree the edit is better than the original.
      • I agreed too, and even replaced the original : minor changes only, and real improve. Fred waldron 07:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
    6. I have looked at both images in full res and in the preview size of 400x600pixels. In the preview size there is a very clear fringe all way around the building - especially around the crosses in the blue sky. I do not know if this is an artifact caused by the Wikimedia software or whether it is a residue from non-optimal masking of building/sky in some postprocessing step (e.g., selective sharpening).
      • No sort of postprocessing was used on the original. And, by the way, I can't see that fringe :( ? Fred waldron 07:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
    7. If the above issues are addressed in a satisfactory manner, I will be happy to support the edit. -- Slaunger 06:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Are they ;) ? Fred waldron 07:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
        • Almost, expect for the categorization. Try to read again what I wrote about cats, explore the large Category:Churches base category for one or more specific church categories, which match the image. With pedantic regards, -- Slaunger 09:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
        • Oh, and regarding church vs. temple: In Denmark, where we mainly have protestentic churches, they are called...churches, not temples. -- Slaunger 10:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
          • I changed the categories and I think that will be okay now. Fred waldron 17:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
            Yes the specific cat for the temple is the right one. But you do not need the Orthodox churches cat as that cat is already a member of the categorization tree for the temple itself (I have therefore removed it), see Commons:Categories#Over-categorization for a more thorough explanation and an example. Sorry for being such a pedantic on this point, but I find it very important to categorize properly in order to maximize chances that other Wikimedia editors can actually find this nice image. -- Slaunger 19:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support As promised. -- Slaunger 19:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sharpness is average and the white haloes are disturbing. Good composition and light though. Lycaon 08:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As Lycaon. --Taraxacum 16:47, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support FRZ 01:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support the composition is really nice --AngMoKio 20:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
4 support, 2 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 09:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:EtaCarinae.jpg - not featured[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Jon Morse (University of Colorado) and NASA Hubble Space Telescope image, published by STScI - uploaded by Yann - nominated by MichaelMaggs -- MichaelMaggs 05:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- MichaelMaggs 05:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Wow and value -- Slaunger 06:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support impressive --Herrick 07:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support dito --Taraxacum 14:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support hermosa Comu nacho 16:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I know this represents work and the result looks really good, but I can't see what the interest of such edits is : this image is of no big scientific value. Just compare to the NASA original... Sorry. Fred waldron 17:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As Fred waldron. --Karelj 18:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Fred waldron. Lycaon 20:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too dark and unclear what this actually is Gordo 16:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I feel better knowing that not only mine images, but amazing NASA images also get opposed.--Mbz1 18:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Depending on how you define color, all of these space photographs are subjective versions of the object. If you define color as what a human eye would see looking through an eyepiece attached to Hubble (and that would have been really awesome, btw!) you would see this object as mostly white with the darker regions going towards green. Back in the days of images on film, the colors of the astrophotography depended greatly on the brand of film that was being used, for instance. One of the major brands captured more blue than its rival which grabbed the reds. I have no idea what to expect from digital image grabs -- is it dependent on the brand of camera or on the brand of the cf card? I was and still somewhat unclear with the explanation for this human eye phenomena; the explanation was that the eye sees more green -- the color that is inbetween the color of the sun and the color of the sky and the predominate color on the planet (I think). Then, ten or twelve years after that, I learned that the moon is not larger on the horizon due to refractive things with the atmosphere as I had thought and taught, but instead due to a psychological thing that the brain does when it makes object that are on the horizon bigger than objects that are more towards the zenith. Our bodies are sad excuses for measuring tools, it is somewhat impressive that our toys work at all. -- carol 23:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support FRZ 01:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Urban 04:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment please state reason for opposition as a courtesy to the author/uploader. Lycaon 06:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question/Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment
    1. I have done a little research on the subject and I am now quite sure this picture is a mix between Image:Eta Carinae.jpg and Image:Etacarinae-001.jpg. I would like to have confirmation on that.
    2. That leads me to a first question : what is the purpose and scientific interest of such an edit, when each of the two pictures is useful in itself, and shows different things.
    3. Then, I think the author of that edition should at least be mentioned (it seems to come from the University of São Paulo [3]) ? Can we still consider that it is a NASA image, hence in the public domain ? Vol de nuit 15:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
7 support, 5 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 10:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:Sd.Kfz. 250-1 (alt) 01.png - not featured[edit]

Sd.Kfz. 250/1 (alt)

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Spike78 - uploaded by Spike78 - nominated by Nemo5576 -- Nemo5576 08:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Nemo5576 08:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Marvelous! Masur 09:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

{{FPX|too small and lacking proper image description. --[[User:Norro|norro]] 09:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)}}

  • FPX can't be used when there are already two support votes. --MichaelMaggs 11:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info I've just added sources. Render at 2000x1500px is in prograss (it will take a couple of hours). Im waiting for more conclusions, so I could correct/unify rest of my work. Spike78 11:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
    Theres a small technical problem with bigger render. Ill try to fix it but ill take some more time. Spike78 17:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question Could you please supply more detail about what is shown and why it's of interest, and also about the program you used to create it? I'm a bit concerned about the sources you used; you give ISBNs but not titles and dates of publication. Were the sources within those books photographs or drawings, and are you able to show that they are out of copyright? Otherwise, there may be a copyright infringement problem. --MichaelMaggs 11:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
    Well, this is a 3D model drawn in Autodesk Autocad 2007, i dont understand Your concerns about copyright: 2D plans were published as well as photos as copyrighted. So I redrawned 2D plans in acad and then made 3D model and then corrected the model by comparing it to several photos... well I think details of whole algorithm isn't worth writing. This picture isn't even similar to any of graphics nor photos published in sources. I will add full (and then redundant) information about sources and anything You like. I've (unfortunately) never disputed seriously about these works so im grateful for Your comments. Spike78 12:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Has been contructed, as I understand it, essentially from plans and photos published in two recent books. Unless we have a reason to suppose those plans and photos are in the public domain my concerns that this is a copyright infringement remain. --MichaelMaggs 17:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
    Errrr... if I'd do a photo of modern building would You be concerned if "plans are copyrighted" because building is "recent"? I don't undersand it. Oh, do You have a permission to use this Chess piece - White bishop.JPG for a photo from the manufacturer? 'cause there may be a copyright infringement problem. Spike78 01:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Completely irrelevant. 3D based on published 2D plans cannot be a subject of any "copyrights" (regarding 2D plans authors). If so, all models (especially modern ones, like airliners) would be violating these, because we dont think that Boeing has relased its design and plans into PD? 3D modelling of any form is far beyond of any "derivativeness". Please think about it, and verify your vote. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Masur (talk • contribs) 05:39, 30 Apr 2008 (UTC)
      • My oppose is based on the copying of 2D plans into another 2D form in acad. That is copyright infringement unless the original plans can be shown to be in the public domain, or you have a licence. The chess example is different since (a) I did not do any 2D -> 2D copying of any original plans, and (b) that design is out of copyright. To answer the question about buildings: yes, buildings do have copyright, which normally expires 70 years after the death of the architect. There are special provisions in some countries, though, which allow photographs to be freely taken in spite of that. See Commons:Freedom of panorama. --MichaelMaggs 06:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
        • So? Plans were coppied and? We don't have them anymore in the final work. Pls think about those Boeing models. One can say, that capturing and publishing a photo of that models was a copyrights violation of 2d plans, because 2D plans were included in a box with model and "derivative" work (3D model, not even 3D, but photo of it) was finally released under GNU license. Dont be ridiculous. In your oppinion, as far as I understood it, ANY 2D/3D work based on existing template is copyvio... What concerns also buildings, airplanes, models, and so on... photos. Oh, another example - one can buy a architectonic plans and legally build a house based on them. And now, when I take a photo of that house, and relase it, i will make a copyvio? I think that somewhere is a limit of "derivativeness", and it is closer than you think. Otherwise we wouldnt be allowed to build any models! Masur 06:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
          • Please see Commons:Derivative works. --MichaelMaggs 16:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
            • So i think all is about: In short, all transfers of a creative, copyrightable work into a new media count as derivative works. But creating (because its creating! not reproducing or simply changing media) 3d model basing on 2d plans, is, IMO, not a transfer to a new media. Because I create (build) sth completely new and uniqe, as well as my interpretation of those plans is original (i.e. color schemes, details). And you just gave me the link to that page , but you didnt answer what about other models? Those plastics ones i.e. If this particular work (3D digital construction based on 2D (i dont go deep into how accurate is that reconstruction, cosit may be that changes of original concept from plans can be so large that no copyrights can be potentially aplied anyway) printed plans) is for you copyvio, ANY other model is a copyvio too. Cos in most cases they are constructed basing on plans prepared and sold by certain company (i.e. Italeri, if I remember the name of one of them). Pls notice also that those plan were not intended to be basis of any 3D digital reconstruction, I assume that they were more or less simple profile drawings or projections. And once again - plans are only recipe and NOT a work themselves. Masur 18:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support PMG 12:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I don't like it for FP, because it does not WOW me. --Taraxacum 14:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Wow for me though -βαςεLXIV 14:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Ala z talk 14:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Good modeling but standard rendering & cheap lighting. The wood shader is very poor, same for the metal shader on the tools. The MG 42 has a poor antialiasing same here with the shader. I miss decals. It's 2008 now and there are much better renderer around such as Maxwell or Vray. --Richard Bartz 17:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
    Decals hmmm... I've done models with and without them. If theres a need (and I also like them) i can make them. But i wanted to show "standard vehicle". Spike78 22:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Johney (T∀LK) 17:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice idea for a rendering, but would need a bit more work done on it such as lighting etc. --Freedom to share 18:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
    Ill try to make better ambient. Spike78 22:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Good but I agree it needs a bit more work. /Daniel78 19:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
    Work on what? Spike78 22:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
    Sorry I should be more clear :) I was mostly thinking about the lighting as mentioned by others. And perhaps there could be some sort of texture on the metal plates ? I do not know how it looks in reality but currently it looks slightly plastic instead of metallic to me. /Daniel78 11:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
    Ill try to find better texture for it. Using better lightning is now for me out of question. I've rendered this under Acad (and the ambient light is simulated by approx. 100 point lights placed spherically), now i will do it (and the others) on my gf comp under 3dmax. I didn't care about it 'cause I've allways considered these works as "technical" not "artistic". Take a look at my earlier models - they have even more simplified lightning, Ill correct them too after this discussion but I want to "collect" any "cons" so I could do it absolutely-total-good-and-nice. I just want Wiki to have the best pics in this matter all over the net. That's why I'm asking about any "cons" to be precise. And thank You for Your opinion. Spike78 12:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral for now --Amazing 3D model with lots of details of this vehicle, but some small issues should be corrected as the overall quality deserves it : the lightning could be much better, the dim shadow around the vehicle looks like it has been made with MS Paint and as R. Bartz wrote, some anti aliasing corrections are needed. Well done ! Sting 19:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose poor antialiasing and small size. Lycaon 20:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Dull lighting, I am sorry. Barabas

Pictogram voting info.svg Info All negatives ale better than positives for me. I've allways wanted to know how to do it better. I know that 3d-model alone isn't all - but I've got a pretty dull comp, so the lightning is also dull ;) My GF agreed to help me with her hot-machine ;) Spike78 22:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Beyond silence 17:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Laziale93 18:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Lycaon--Mbz1 18:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose FRZ 01:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment please state reason for opposition as a courtesy to the author/uploader. Lycaon 06:31, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment If you do a new rendering, I would prefer a version with more space around the vehicle. This version is far to tight for me. It looks like a lot of work to me to create such a model. I am just curious, how much time did you spend? --Chmehl 12:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Hebster 12:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As Lycaon. --Karelj 20:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
9 support, 10 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 10:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:Shea Smith.JPG - featured[edit]

Shea Smith

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info The quarterback Shea Smith in the moment before passing. Public domain, uploaded by Earthfighter, nominated by --norro 19:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support A high quality sports photograph --norro 19:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral --Taraxacum 20:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Barabas
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Nice focus. Cirt 00:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --MichaelMaggs 05:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice moment, but photographic quality is low. --Karelj 16:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting question.svg Question: Hmmm, could you please elaborate on this? Quality is very good in my opinion. --norro 16:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Beyond silence 17:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support FRZ 01:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support great freeze --Leafnode 20:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Simonizer 19:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportLycaon 18:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Böhringer 22:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
10 support, 1 oppose >> featured -- Alvesgaspar 22:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:Dragonfly-Brown-070624.jpg - not featured[edit]

Brown dragonfly (Anisoptera)

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Loadmaster - uploaded by Loadmaster - nominated by Loadmaster -- Loadmaster 18:10, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Loadmaster 18:10, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I'm sorry, but you will have to identify your dragonfly before it stands a chance at becoming an FP. Lycaon 20:10, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Thanks for the advice. As this is my very first nominated pic, I didn't expect it to pass muster. How does one go about identifying the species without wading through hundreds of images? - Loadmaster 22:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Well, the guidelines help you to get an idea, how a FP could look like. And becoming a FP SHOULD NOT depend on scientific identification of the subject. It helps categorizing a picture and maybe someone knows the species on this picture and gives you a hint. But an excellent picture stands for itself. --Taraxacum 08:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - I was before a "victim" of that requirement but agree with Lycaon. FP is not (only) about aesthetics and technical perfection though the artsy side plays an important role IMO. Because of the yellow pterostigma I'm tempted to bet on a Sympetrum fonscolombei (a female, which are sandy coloured). But I'm not sure, the bulge in the abdomen is puzzling. Please check these too-- Alvesgaspar 09:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose- This is a wonderful composition (one of the best I saw, for this subject), a pity that the body and head of the darter are not sharp enough -- Alvesgaspar 09:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Thanks for the positive critique. As I recall, it was a bit windy that day, so I was forced to use a faster shutter at the expense of a wider focal field in order to reduce motion blur. -- Loadmaster 14:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
1 support, 2 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 22:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:Submarine cable cross-section 3D plain.svg - not featured[edit]

Undersea cable cross-section

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Mysid - uploaded by Mysid - nominated by OmegatronOmegatron (talk) 22:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Just a nice, clear diagram. — Omegatron (talk) 22:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It could use a legend Mfield 22:43, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • There is a proper (text) legend on the description page. -- Dontpanic 08:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • The legend is in the image description, where it belongs. Images are not supposed to have text in them, so that they can be used on different-language projects without creating a new version. — Omegatron (talk) 20:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Fair enough. Mfield 05:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Agree with Omegatron: just a nice, clear diagram. QI for me, but now wow to be featured. --norro 09:05, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Should I try it there instead? — Omegatron (talk) 21:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not even QI for me, some of the steel wires have no circular cross section (the rearmost ones). Lycaon 19:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Fixed. — Omegatron (talk) 21:01, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Better, but still not enough wow for FP for me. Lycaon 07:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose nice and useful, but not special. /Ö 09:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
1 support, 4 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 22:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:Schronisko PTTK przy Morskim Oku-protestuję.jpg - not featured[edit]

Hostel in Polish Tatras

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by User:Samson6 - uploaded by User:Samson6 - nominated by User:Samson6 --Samson6 00:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Samson6 00:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose poor colors (probably due to poor weather), poor perspective (due to photographer's location), size slightly below threshold --Leafnode 08:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Agree with Leafnode. Furthermore it's leaning (look at the trees). --norro 16:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Nuvola apps important yellow.svg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because is leaning and has poor colours 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 19:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

1 support, 2 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 22:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:The surfers in santa cruz california.jpg - not featured[edit]

Surfers

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 16:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Mbz1 16:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Low quality, small size. --Karelj 16:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • 2.5 mega pixels should be enough IMO.--Mbz1 16:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Uninteresting composition with a huge dark foreground, poor quality -- Alvesgaspar 23:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Pictogram voting delete.svg Thanks for the comments

Withdrawn >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 08:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:Scandinavian Airlines Kiruna.jpg - not featured[edit]

Kiruna airplane contre jour Scandinavian Airlines Kirunaedit.jpg
Original reduced excessive blue in snow and shadows
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Markus Bernet - uploaded by Markus Bernet - nominated by Ikiwaner 16:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like this one for its excellent composition and perfect exposure. It makes me feel the cold there. -- Ikiwaner 16:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry but this would have been much better shot from the other side of the aircraft so that it wasn't in shadow. Plus the wingtip is clipped Mfield 16:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Ack Mfield. --Freedom to share 16:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment When I say excellent composition I mean that ist's shot contre jour and you still see details in the shadow. I think the picture would be boring when shot from the other side. --Ikiwaner 17:17, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
    • It looks to me like a snapshot that is being justified from this side because the photographer didn't have permission didn't have permission to walk around the other side. If doesn't feel like a shot that was deliberately taken contre jour. It's a weak justification for a boring underexposed snapshot of an aircraft with one wing clipped off. Sorry if it sounds harsh but this is not FP material. Mfield 19:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support In this case the shadowside is the better solution. The reflection would be to hard on the sunside. --Niabot 19:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good atmosphere. --Karelj 19:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose bad lighting, average composition -- Gorgo 20:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose ack Mfield. -- Slaunger 21:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I agree about the shadow. Probably another time of the day would be better. /Daniel78 22:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Ack Karelj --Thermos 05:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good choice for light atmosphere--B.navez 18:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose ack Mfield. --MichaelMaggs 22:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose no wow --Beyond silence 11:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per above. Barabas
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support FRZ 02:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I prefer the original over the edited version though --Hebster 12:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
7 support, 8 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 20:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Edit - not featured[edit]

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I don't think the snow was that blue naturally, rather it was a effect of poor white balance (I could be wrong since I wasn't there of course, but this is a well known photographic effect) Movieevery 15:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Better, but no wow, anyway. --MichaelMaggs 16:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Solid and proper enough for an FP imo. --Freedom to share 18:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support FRZ 02:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, not aesthetically pleasing and it seems a bit blurred towards the back end of the plane. Naerii 04:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose its still poorly composed and has one wing clipped off. Mfield 08:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeNot a good composition --Manco Capac 11:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
3 support, 4 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 17:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:Hawaii Island topographic map-fr.svg - featured[edit]

Topographic map of Hawaii

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created and uploaded by Sémhur - nominated by Sting -- Sting 15:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --A very good topographic map of the island of Hawaii using SRTM data, with an excellent choice for the framing showing the structure of the submarine relief. Notice also the underwater shaded relief. Very nice imo. Sting 15:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment 1) the letter "o" of "Wahipi'o" it collides with a point. 2) an airport exists in the coast, near Kalaoa that lacks name. 3) "Côte du Kohala" a curved pattern could continue. 4) triangles exist where the highways never arrive to their destination, to see "Mauna Loa." 5) I would like to see the relief really transformed into SVG, and not, svg has more than enough bits map (not wanted pixelation in more impressions to the own size of the image). Please, you see the image next, surroundings of the river Svg pixelation.JPG --libertad0 ॐ 16:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I've uploaded a new version of the map in which I've modified the size of "Wahipi'o" and added a key for better understanding. The airports aren't named as it isn't the purpose of this topographic map. Comparing to other maps, it seems that the Kohala Coast only goes until Kawaihae. The triangles represent summits : roads seldom go to the top of mountains. The pixels you see (at a very large zoom level) come from the raster image of the shaded relief which is the only raster element of the file : the whole topography and bathymetry are made with paths (I've translated the note in the description page in English for clarification). Sting 18:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I respect, but I don't share their vision. The main positive factor of an image svg, is that it doesn't possess resolution, you affirm that it possesses zoom, it subtracts a lot the quality of the composition. I sit down it. Maybe be better, to trace the bits map. I have seen better works of you, I am for sure you can make something better. Greetings --libertad0 ॐ 11:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Excellent. Thank you to take into account my comments. Greetings (completely vectorized) --libertad0 ॐ 13:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Pictogram voting info.svg Info --To be the echo of user:Alvesgaspar, a SVG image may be scaled to any size without loss of quality, but a map has a scale and so, a resolution. For the SRTM3 data used here, it's 93 m. Zooming in over 100% won't give you a better resolution and at very large size the paths may look quiet simplified. Consider the SVG format is only used in maps to ease the translations and modifications. Sting 14:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't agree, a map in SVG should be scalable at any approach level. I think that you could convert to line the area pixelation. Once you carry out this modification, I will change my vote to favor. Thanks --libertad0 ॐ 15:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
If you know how to vectorize a raster image of a shaded relief, I'm ready to learn ;-) Sting 15:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Finger painting with elbows version (completely vectorized) by CarolSpears
  • I think that this is magic that you knew how to do, but it was fun to do and now I know how to do this.
  • My relief parts seem a little dark compared to the raster version -- are they too dark?
  • I left the 'approved by wiki-blah blah (atlas I think)' on the image description, it should be removed if it doesn't apply
  • The upload dialog that I use (or that we all use lately -- who knows such things?) would not have allowed me to upload the original file....
Liars :) -- carol 21:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Wow !! I'm impressed ! How did you get this ? I think there's a loss in the underwater shading, less smooth than the original raster one, but the shading on the island is really amazing ... but with a file weight of 7.7MB, is it worth ? Sting 00:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks to CarolSpears, I have updated this picture. This map is all-SVG now. It's a little darker than before, but clearer than the Carol's try. I have reduce the weight too. Sémhur 10:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Potrace (which comes with Inkscape and (I think) is older than GIMP), I scanned the grays, without the background, 16 paths each. Then using color information from GIMP (there might be an easier way) I converted the gray filled paths to transparencies of black. The underwater shading needed blurring (so that it looked less like a depth map) and my transparency was not enough -- but I was done with it by then.... The island shading was incredible right out of the trace and needed only the conversion to transparencies of black. My first attempt with potrace and inkscape is: Leaves-Senecio vulgaris var hibernicus-linedrawing.svg, I compared it to finger-painting with my elbows.  :) -- carol 12:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks carol. I'm less convinced by the new full svg version : if at small size the rendering is smooth, at full size the steps in the shadow are clearly visible. This plus the fact the file weight doubled makes me think this solution as it is now isn't really worth. Sting 12:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Some of the additional file weight is due to the way I managed the potraced paths -- I am very new to this svg stuff. I broke the paths apart and that was a step that was perhaps unnecessary and added to the file size. My version was more to answer what seemed to be a simple challenge (more than file purity). I still have the original tracings of the embedded images, I can upload them here or make them available from my web site if anyone is interested to see if the bitmaps can be removed more sensibly. For the depth map, the paths might have been more sensibly made with a smoothed GIMP selection to path and I didn't do that either. The SVG I have created are not too many that I would be able to confidently say that any of them are among the best. Rearranging xml and filling paths others made -- I am fairly good at this lately. (no big deal there) -- carol 16:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --norro 22:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great! Detailed. James1293 22:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support FRZ 01:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Urban 04:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The orriginal is ok for me. --Manco Capac 06:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Sémhur 10:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support warmly Really good map. --Pymouss44 Tchatcher - 11:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • WARNING!!! It needs update. The road south from volcano is shown. But it is impassable, completely buried deeply below lava fields since the eruption started in early 1980s. 71.135.48.155 04:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Oops ! It seems that the Demis road layer is down-to-date a lot. I will update the map, thanks for your note. Sémhur 07:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Done. Sémhur 18:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, conditionally. You removed too much of road. Here is NP portion of the map: http://www.nps.gov/havo/planyourvisit/upload/map_park.pdf I'd be glad to change my vote after it is fixed. Barabas 21:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
✓ Done. Thanks for the link and the help. Sémhur 17:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - These nominations are a mess! Please put it right so I can promote the right picture!... -- Alvesgaspar 22:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I have reorganized it. Sémhur 09:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
9 support, 1 oppose > featured -- Alvesgaspar 13:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support. I know, it is already late, but am sticking to my promise. Thanks for foxing the map around the active volcano. I was not watching Commons for a couple days. Best! And congrats! Barabas 21:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:Hong Kong Skyline - Dec 2007.jpg[edit]

Hong Kong Skyline

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info The Hong Kong Skyline created and uploaded by Diliff, nominated by --norro 19:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --norro 19:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose wow wow, but buildings are leaning to the left. Easy to fix I believe, hence my oppose. -- Benh 19:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

*Symbol support vote.svg Support Absolutely great! I think the buildings are not leaning to the left, it's a matter of perspective. For me, an excellent panorama of Hong Kong @ Night. --Taraxacum 20:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC) I like the edit even more. --Taraxacum 10:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

  • it really is leaning to the left (author found out the same on english FPC). All the buildings are leaning to the left the same way which is why I consider this an error. Benh 20:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Those on the LHS are leaning, and those on the RHS are too, to a lesser extent. Those in the centre are straighter. --MichaelMaggs 06:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

*Symbol support vote.svg Support Beautiful, though the perspective corrections make it a little strange looking. --Calibas 20:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Wow! Barabas
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Whoa, are you sure it's Hong Kong? Looks more like Coruscant ([4]) to me. Now the real question is, how do you geotag stuff on other planets? (No, 'Top of Jedi Temple' is not geotagging) :-) --Freedom to share 21:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Beautiful. Cirt 00:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - not the best of days (or should I say nights) for a skyline pic, but it's very nice. --typhoonchaser 06:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

*Symbol support vote.svg Support I'd say it was great day for this shot - haze over buildings looks great. Impressive! --Leafnode 07:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC) moving below :) --Leafnode 20:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Liked the colors. --Manco Capac 08:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

*Symbol support vote.svg Support For me the haze makes the wow. --Chmehl 09:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC) Moving support to the version below which I think is even better. --Chmehl 18:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

    • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Supported the other version. --Chmehl 16:51, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

*Symbol support vote.svg Support --Böhringer 12:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Gordo 15:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great! --Karelj 16:09, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Distorted. FRZ 01:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I prefer the alternative. Lycaon 23:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Leaning buildings. I have supported the alternative. --MichaelMaggs 06:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Pictogram voting delete.svg --norro 15:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

WIthdrawn >> not featured - Alvesgaspar 10:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Alternative Image:Hong_Kong_Skyline_Restitch_-_Dec_2007.jpg - featured[edit]

Hong Kong Skyline

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Diliff has adressed a few issues (including the tilt) on this one, which is the one I prefer too. Benh 18:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Even better colors and more view on the bottom which is why I am moving my support to this version. --Chmehl 18:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Hong Kong - a must-see city...especially for skyline fans! A great high-quality panorama. --AngMoKio 22:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I don't like cities, but the picture is FP! Lycaon 23:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support FP without a doubt Vol de nuit 23:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Thermos 01:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support FRZ 01:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Slightly better than the previous, which was of very high quality in itself. Naerii 03:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --norro 09:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Absolutely great! I think the buildings are not leaning to the left, it's a matter of perspective. For me, an excellent panorama of Hong Kong @ Night. --Taraxacum 20:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Splendid. --Pymouss44 Tchatcher - 11:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, better colours and composition than the original. --Aqwis 16:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support better --Leafnode 20:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Wow. --Calibas 04:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Like this one better. --MichaelMaggs 06:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Gordo 07:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Good fixes. Cirt 18:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Böhringer 19:51, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Excellent work. --Freedom to share 21:05, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nifty shot. --JaGa 21:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Simonizer 21:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Rohan 13:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --junafani 13:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
23 support, 0 oppose >> featured -- Alvesgaspar 17:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC) 

Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Pelagia noctiluca (Sardinia).jpg

Image:Golden Gate Bridge and sun dog 2.jpg[edit]

Golden Gate Bridge with the Sun and Sundog Golden Gate Bridge with the Sun and Sundog

Original - not featured[edit]

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 16:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Mbz1 16:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment IMO it is a rather interesting and special image with the sun over one tower of the Bridge and w:sundog over the other. If somebody could improve the quality of the image from original jpg format, please let me know and I'll upload it. Thank you.--Mbz1 17:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Reminds me of the old diffraction grating lab that was always done in physics classes. Does it have anything to do with it? Also, could you please explain a bit more about the phenomena, their rarity and the like in the nomination so that we can judge it more objectively? The reality is that most of those that review images for FPC know little about atmospheric phenomena and we would probably require some enlightenment in that area. Thanks, Freedom to share 18:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your comments and questions Freedom to share. w:Sundogs are not rare. I see them maybe 15-20 times per year. In order for sundogs to form there should be ice crystals shaped like this present. They are called horizontal plate crystals and they are present in high clouds. Sundogs are formed when light passes through crystal side faces inclined at 60° to each other. People, who live far North or far South might see sundogs much more often than I do in San Francisco. Sometimes sundogs are created by so called diamond dust, when the weather is cold. What makes my image special IMO is rather not the sundog itself, but sundog and the Bridge together. Besides I relly like how the Sun behind clouds looks. IMO it is interesting. --Mbz1 19:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I just wanted to add that there were quite a few people taking pictures of Golden Gate Bridge yesterday. I wonder how many of them saw a sundog. I am afraid not so many simply because most of them did not know what to look for.--Mbz1 19:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination

Withdrawn >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 19:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Alternative - not featured[edit]

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I personally prefer the first version. Freedom to share 19:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Tilted -- Alvesgaspar 23:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Did I understand you right that, if I am to correct the tilte you support the image? :-)--Mbz1 03:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination

Withdrawn >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 19:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - Please don't mess up the usual way of inserting alternatives to the original nomination. That makes the reviewing and closing processes harder to control -- Alvesgaspar 20:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:Two Phalacrocorax auritus and one fish.jpg - not featured[edit]

Two Phalacrocorax auritus and one fish

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created , uploaded and nominated by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 23:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Mbz1 23:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Anon. user: This picture really "captures the moment" if you know what I'm talking about. If that bird was flying fast, my camera couldn't have done it. :)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment If you are interested what happened to the fish, it was able to escape right after that shot. That's why, Lycaon, I am afraid I was not able to id the fish :-) --Mbz1 23:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  •  :-)). Lycaon 00:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • BTW, The fish is a salmonid: I can clearly see an adipose fin. Lycaon 14:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • That's nice to know that at least something is seen clearly at my image :-). Thank you, Hans!--Mbz1 14:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question Was it badly oversharpened or it's only some strange kind of motion blur? --Leafnode 10:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • When I nominated the image last night, I hoped that in the morning I would get at least 4-5 oppose votes, and I got only one question! Doing great so far :-) , but jokes aside I know the image has many problems to be opposed for. I nominated it because IMO it is more or less rare action shot and I hoped some of the image's problems might have been mitigated by that fact. Here's is the original version :Two Phalacrocorax auritus and one fish original.JPG. Maybe somebody could do something to improve the image quality. Thank you.--Mbz1 13:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Pictogram voting delete.svg in a favor of a much better edit

Withdrawn >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 08:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:Two Phalacrocorax auritus and one fish edit.jpg. Edit by User:Lycaon - not featured[edit]

Two Phalacrocorax auritus and one fish

  • User:Lycaon did a great job with the image, but I am afraid it is still not good enough for him to support his own edit :-)--Mbz1 16:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Mbz1 16:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Of much better quality now. Freedom to share 05:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Quality is sufficient for me considering the action :) But I still hesitate because of the cropped cormorant on the left. --norro 19:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose composition is not that great (cropped on the left, too much space on the right) -- Gorgo 21:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh, it is easy to explain. First I divided the image with two imaginary horizontal and two vertical lines. Then I placed my subjects of interest (two Phalacrocorax auritus and one fish) in one of the "interest points", where horizontal and vertical lines intersect and 4 interest points were created. Then I placed horizons in the upper horizontal line. My main idea here was not to center the subjects. While I was doing all these manipulations, one of my subjects (the fish) almost got eaten while two of my other subjects run out of the "interest points" and almost out of my view finder. I wanted to recompose the image once again, but the fish escaped and birds were gone. :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbz1 (talk • contribs) 00:29, 7. Mai 2008 (UTC)
You definitively have to work on your animal tamer skills. --norro 11:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • You are absolutely right and I will try next time, only I doubt there would be a next time. IMO it is rather a rare shot and I hoped it might be featured under the criteria " A bad picture of a very difficult subject is a better picture than a good picture of an ordinary subject. ", and I had not just one, but three difficult subjects. Thank you, Norro.--Mbz1 14:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
don't forget the last part of the sentence "A good picture of a difficult subject is an extraordinary photograph." I think featured pictures should't simply be good pictures, they should be some of the best images on commons .. thus extraordinary. -- Gorgo 23:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
That is a personnal (mis)unterstanding of the sentence.--B.navez 02:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
IMO most of the FP images we have now including my own FP images cannot be called extraordinary. Informative - yes, valuable - yes, high quality - yes, extraordinary - no.(IMO)--Mbz1 04:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Though fish rights are not preserved and species identification is missing (I would say maybe Oncorhynchus mykiss, but surely a trout for the fatty fin).--B.navez 16:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, Lycaon was first to mention it, I hadn't read the discussions for the first version. --B.navez 16:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose A very dynamic picture and the subject is interesting, but the exposure time is not high enough for details, the second edit seems oversharpend and together with the cropped wing, it's not FP quality. --Taraxacum 14:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
    "A bad picture of a very difficult subject is a better picture than a good picture of an ordinary subject. " from Commons selection criteria. The nominated edit by User:Lycaon is really good. Honestly, when I saw it, I could not believe that I myself took this image :-)--Mbz1 04:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
    Agree, the edit improves it a lot, but better is not excellent, yet. Nevertheless a good shot. --Taraxacum 06:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Both birds were unfortunately at wrong angle. --Lerdsuwa 18:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I wish I knew what would have been a better angle in the user opinion. You know, just to ask the birds next time to pose better for FP, but no I'm not really interested in learning the user opinion about the angle. Tha's OK. No worries.

Pictogram voting delete.svg boring!--Mbz1 18:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Withdrawn >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 22:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:Turdus migratorius with worms 1.jpg[edit]

Turdus migratorius with worms

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 00:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Mbz1 00:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I think it lacks in sharpness. /Daniel78 20:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Seems to have some misfocus. Head appear not that sharp compare to its wing. --Lerdsuwa 17:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination

Withdrawn >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 22:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:Turdus migratorius with worms 3.jpg - not featured[edit]

Turdus migratorius with worms

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Mbz1 23:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Flash photo? Too strong shadow behind the bird. Busy background. --Lerdsuwa 18:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
    No flash was used, but whatever... Who cares?--Mbz1 18:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination

Withdrawn >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 22:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:Mercury transit 2.jpg - not promoted[edit]

The transit of Mercury

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created , uploaded and nominated by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 20:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Mbz1 20:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Most impressive image. --MichaelMaggs 05:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Amazing image, excellent work. Could you please give us some details on the lens used as well as the body, aperture and shutter speed? Thanks, --Freedom to share 06:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your question, Freedom to share. I used Canon XTI, which was mounted at 3.1 inches telescope. There are three ways of astrophotography: first is afocal, which means one takes image of the object focusing one's camera at the object as it is seen in an eyepiece of the scope;second is eyepiece projection, which means one takes off the camera lens and mounts the camera at the scope, which has an eyepiece installed;third is prime focus, which means one takes off camera lens and mounts a camera at the scope, that has no eyepiece installed. In that case the scope works simply as a zoom lens. For the first way of astrophotography any camera might be used; the latest two require the use of SLR. I've used prime focus. My scope's focal length is 900 mm, so it is like 900 mm zoom lens. The focus of course is manual. It might be interesting to know that it is very hard to focus. I was lucky because I had a very big sunspot to focus on. I used 1/500 exposure with F8.Of course for taking pictures of the sun one should use a filter. When one puts a filter at the scope, one cannot see anything, but the sun. If one could see something else, but the sun, it means that one's filter is demaged and one would probably go blind as soon as one looks at the Sun. That's why it might be tricky to find the sun. Imagine you're moving your scope around the blue sky, but the only thing you could see is black nothingnss and then suddenly you see the sun and it is exiting!--Mbz1 13:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very nice job. --Manco Capac 06:25, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, I don't see anything impressive. Maybe some experts who are related to that kind of subject think it's excellent work. For me, it's an egg from bottom with some black spots and even fullscale does not reveal anything compared to the thumb. I believe, this is Mercury transit, but a photo having nearly no composition, colour, dynamics and emotion is not suitable for FP. --Taraxacum 11:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Aqwis 14:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question/Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Why nominating this version and not number 1, or even the animated gif (on which an indication of order & time would be an important addition, by the way) ? Another idea would have been to create a composite picture, as in this picture, but in higher definition and quality, thanks to your great work. Vol de nuit 23:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your questions,Vol de nuit. I do not think I could repeat this picture with my background (the Sun) simply because I cannot make it 100% accurate. The same applies to gif. I created the animation just to illustrate how it looked, but I cannot claim that my animation is accurate. It probably is not. May I please ask you what "number 1" you reffer to? There are few other versions of the same image and I'm not sure what image you meant. I'd also like to mention that your questions are absolutely legitimate and IMO they could be legitimate reasons to oppose the nominated image. Animation might have been better. On the othe hand the only images of the Sun FP has is two images of solar eclipse. IMO it would have been nice to have an image of not eclipsed Sun as FP. Thank you.--Mbz1 00:37, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Do you mean you do not know the exact time of each picture ? Well, that's quite sad. I still need to think about my vote. For these reasons, and because as I told you previously there are two pictures which look quite similar to me here (1 & 2). In addition, why don't you categorize your picture in Category:Sun too ? By the way, I thought you were right about having no Sun picture as FP, so I just uploaded a few high-definition Sun pictures from SOHO in that category. Maybe one of them could become FP one of these days... Vol de nuit 16:54, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes it is what I mean. I do not know the exact time of each picture. I took very few pictures. The sun went behind the trees. I have not seen the end of the transit. I was lucky to see it at all. The weathermen promised 80%clouds cover that day. You're right there are few pictures in the category, that are identical to the one, which is nominated. They are the same with only minor edits of colors. I do not think SOHO has a free licence. I've uploaded few images from SOHO myself (the two with big prominences as you did) and they got deleted at the same day. I nominated one at Wikipedia FP. See what happened? I ended up adding my own images to w:solar prominence article. If you look at the history you would see edit by Fir0002 with the summary: "replaced copyrighted image". It was, when, he removed the SOHO images I added. You are right - I'm adding "Sun" category to my image.Thank you.--Mbz1 18:40, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
You were right about Soho :( . I guess your picture won't need my vote to become FP. And I hope SOHO pictures will be released in PD soon... Vol de nuit 20:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Sure my picture will need your support. Just wait and see haw many more FP reviewers would complain that the sun looks as "egg from bottom with some black spots and does not show any emotions" ( I wish I knew what "bottom", or maybe I wish not) :-)In any case I'd like to thank you for your comments and suggestions. --Mbz1 20:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --B.navez 10:50, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question Is the grainyness in the sun a feature of the sun itself or does it come from the imaging process ? I have seen both grainy and non grainy images before. /Daniel78 10:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your very good question, Daniel78. The feature you see is called granulation--Mbz1 13:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Thanks for the link. However there also appears to be some posterization, you know why ? However still I think this is a very valuable and good image so I'll support it. /Daniel78 21:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Part of this might be because the brightness of the sun is not even. This phenomena is known as w:limb darkening. Most of it however is due to the image not being perfectly taken and not being perfectly post-processed. The questions you're asking are very good ones and the problems you point out to might be legitimate reasons to oppose the image. Still IMO this image is very valuabale because it not only shows the Sun and sunspots, but also Mercury, which gives the readers ability to compare the size of the sun with the size of a small planet. It might be hard to comrehend that the mass of the Sun is 99.98% of the Solar System's mass. Everything else: Planets, Moons, Asteroids, Comets are only 0.02%. That's why IMO the image with all its imperfection could be concidered to get FP status. BTW the image was selected from few dozen images, which were submitted, and published at NASA site Earth Science Picture of the Day . Thank you.--Mbz1 00:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose agree with Taraxacum -- Gorgo 21:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I've told you, Vol de nuit :-)--Mbz1 00:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination

Withdrawn >> not promoted -- Alvesgaspar 22:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:Fair Ellen.jpg[edit]

Fair Ellen Fair Ellen Edited version.

Original (left)- not featured[edit]

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by Laitche -- Laitche 13:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I took this photo today.(^^)/ -- Laitche 13:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

*Symbol support vote.svg Support A classical approach, technically perfect. I moved my support the latest nomination above. --Taraxacum 13:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Technically it is nearly perfect (i miss the stem in focus). The background is 2 distracting 4 my taste, especially the flower on the left side in the background. It could be more chic --Richard Bartz 17:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Bartz. Barabas 20:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, the backgound is too distracting. Moving the camera to get an all-green background would have been better. --MichaelMaggs 06:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support so good --Beyond silence 17:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I tried hard but the background didn't distract me at all, sorry. FRZ 01:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Good pic but don't we have enough FP of flowers ? --Pymouss44 Tchatcher - 11:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
3 support, 1 neutral, 3 oppose >> no featured -- Alvesgaspar 22:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Alternative - not featured[edit]

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Cloned out the flower on the left side in the background and cropped. -- Laitche 10:19, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Laitche 10:19, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Beyond silence 08:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Unfortunately the picture now feels unbalanced with all the red colours on the right. --norro 12:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, the backgound is still too distracting. Moving the camera to get an all-green background would have been better. --MichaelMaggs 20:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting delete.svg Thanks. -- Laitche 14:35, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Withdrawn >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 20:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:Pahoeoe fountain original.jpg - not featured[edit]

Pahoeoe lava fountain

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by USGS - uploaded by Saperaud - nominated by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 18:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Mbz1 18:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment A few dust spots and a scratch from scanning is visible in the middle of the image. Removing should be easy. Otherwise a really impressing picture. --Chmehl 18:47, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too noisy and scratched. One must shoot a much better picture for featuring. --B.navez 18:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like this original better. /Daniel78 10:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Supporting edit2 instead /Daniel78 14:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
1 support, 1 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 08:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:Pahoeoe fountain original-edit11.jpg - not featured[edit]

Pahoeoe lava fountain

  • I've remvoed the scratch. I'm not sure about dust. They might be very small lava rocks.--Mbz1 19:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Mbz1 19:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Böhringer 21:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC) s.edit2
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Please link all edits/versions with each other. It's so often forgotten. /Daniel78 23:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Done. Thank you.--Mbz1 01:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support FRZ 01:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Liking the clear, stark colors. Cirt 02:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Urban 04:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I have seen much finer pictures of lava fountains, but unhappily with no free license. So I support for the catching of the phenomenon which is very impressive.--B.navez 04:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The wow compensates for the missing sharpness. --Chmehl 06:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support a phenomenally composed image IMHO. --- Anonymous DissidentTalk 08:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Just because I think the original version looks better, this seems oversharpened (for lack of better words to describe it), it's very visible on the thumbnails. Maybe it's just me :), anyway I support the original instead. /Daniel78 10:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I know what you mean, but I'd like to mention that the above edit was not sharpened at all. I only made it a little bit darker. Thank you.--Mbz1 13:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose By the help of this edit it is unrealistic now. --Manco Capac 11:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Unfortunate edit of his spectacular image. Lycaon 23:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Manco Capac. --MichaelMaggs 05:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg CommentI wonder how you can find one more or less realistic and what are your references do decide, supposing you are used to watching eruptions. I find the original a bit pink. Just for our pleasures some great pictures here. --B.navez 08:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Thank you, B.navez, for the link and for the comment. Beautiful images!--Mbz1 13:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
7 support, 4 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 22:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:Pahoeoe fountain edit2.jpg - featured[edit]

Pahoeoe lava fountain

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I kept the original colors in this edit. Only removed scratches. Thanks.--Mbz1 12:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Mbz1 12:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Richard Bartz 20:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Much better, thanks. /Daniel78 14:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- I liked Image:Pahoeoe fountain original-edit11.jpg, but this one is great as well. Cirt 18:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support ok for this one too --B.navez 23:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Naerii (talkcontribs)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Böhringer 22:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Karelj 21:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Rohan 13:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
9 support, 0 oppose >> featured -- Alvesgaspar 20:32, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:Station de métro Porte de Vincennes à Paris en restauration.jpg - not featured[edit]

Ads from the sixties revealed by the workings in the parisian subway station "Porte de Vincennes"

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Ads from the sixties revealed by the workings in the parisian subway station "Porte de Vincennes" — Created, uploaded and nominated by Romanceor 04:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - I don't see why this is featured quality material. --- Anonymous DissidentTalk 08:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support urban times are passing, very meaningful picture --B.navez 10:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose In general a nice subject, but I think the quality is not good enough. --Taraxacum 11:00, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral a nice idea and composition. The quality is a bit problematic..did you make the photo with a tripod? --AngMoKio 11:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Yes I did (1/3s). --Romanceor 13:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good composition and original subject. It makes a change from the over-coloured HDR and the macros of insects. --Pymouss44 Tchatcher - 11:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I like the idea and intention very much, but composition and lighting are not perfect in my opinion. Not sure yet. --norro 11:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per AngMoKio. Lycaon 11:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info New, better quality version. --Romanceor 14:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral If it were not for the camera shake, I would support it. -- Klaus with K 11:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
2 support, 3 neutral, 3 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 20:35, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:Fly April 2008-12.jpg[edit]

Short description Short description Short description

Original - not featured[edit]

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info The Stomorhina lunata is a fly of the Calliphoridae family, quite often misidentified because of the unusual band pattern in the abdomen, resembling a hoverfly. This specimen is a male and was found in Lisbon, close to my house. Created & nominated by Alvesgaspar 11:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Alvesgaspar 11:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportLycaon 18:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral after a long time of thinking: technically a great image, but the composition doesn't wow me. --AngMoKio 20:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
2 support, 1 neutral >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 13:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Alternative 1 (centre) - not featured[edit]

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - With the dry flower in the foreground cloned out -- Alvesgaspar 14:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question Good clone-work. But is it realistic that a fly has its leg hanging in the air? I am not a biologist, so i really don't know. It just seems strange to me... --AngMoKio 17:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Böhringer 22:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Prefer the unedited version. /Ö 09:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
2 support, 1 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 20:36, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Alternative 2 (right) - not featured[edit]

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Please consider aldo this alternative view -- Alvesgaspar 22:15, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Given high bar of insect shots. Little contrast between fly and background that does not seem to be due to camouflage. Freedom to share 14:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
1 support, 1 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 22:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:Sphegina montana Syrphidae.jpg -featured[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created , uploadedm & nominated by -- Richard Bartz 16:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info A 3x magnification of Sphegina montana which is a very rare and tiny (2-3mm) Syrphid fly on Marsh Marigold (Caltha palustris). This picture offers both - a detailed image of the Syrphid and a very detailed/magnified image of the Marsh Marigold stems. If you Google around you will find out that there are only 2 pictures of this Syrphid available in the whole internet, thats because its so rare. P.S. this animal lives in a swamp.
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Richard Bartz 16:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Very good indeed. As you know the exact species, why not create a category for it and add the picture to it? --MichaelMaggs 16:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I tried here but it didnt work that it is displayed in the syrphidae category--Richard Bartz 17:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I have created a species cat for you. It's not linked via a full taxonomic tree as Wikispecies does not list this species, and I don't know enough to do it otherwise, but better than nothing. --MichaelMaggs 06:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Now that it is categorized to species level ;) --MichaelMaggs 06:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Good detail and focus on the key areas of the image. Cirt 18:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Böhringer 22:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Excellent shot of a difficult and rare subject. --Freedom to share 07:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support // tsca [re] 10:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportLycaon 18:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
7 support, 0 oppose >> featured -- Alvesgaspar 20:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:Rubik's cube.svg - featured[edit]

Rubik's cube

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info A Rubik's cube. Created , uploaded by Booyabazooka, nominated by --norro 20:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Please take the file extension into account. --norro 20:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice work. --Freedom to share 20:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great! 213.140.6.120 21:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC) Jacopo 21:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support well done. Lycaon 21:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Richard Bartz 00:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very nice. I love seeing SVG work like this. Rocket000 04:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very nice. --Manco Capac 06:24, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support A very good image, nice job making this. Cat-five 06:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Excellent... --Dsmurat 12:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Laitche 15:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support /Daniel78 16:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Very nice SVG, will be quite useful cross-projects. Cirt 18:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --MichaelMaggs 19:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --AngMoKio 23:12, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support originality = valued. --- Anonymous DissidentTalk 00:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - very encyclopedic, also. Leo Johannes 09:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - very useful image for encyclodeia.--Pauk 10:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support // tsca [re] 10:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Simply Excellent --Mifter (talk) 13:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Fantastic SVG Rastrojo (DES) 18:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Amazing SVG Anonymous101 19:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Perfect SVG! Masur 20:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Perfect --Nevit Dilmen 07:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Alvesgaspar 15:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support very good /Ö 09:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Kfasimpaur 17:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --junafani 13:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
25 support, 0 oppose >> featured -- Alvesgaspar 20:42, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:Rubik's cube v3.svg - not featured[edit]

Rubik's cube

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Alternative with corrected colors, added shadow and reflection. Uploaded by Niabot, nominated by --Niabot 15:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Richard Bartz 22:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • This is also good, but I prefer it without the shadow. /Ö 09:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Don't like the shadow and the reflection. --norro 15:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I like Rubik's cube v2.svg better. It has no shadow but with fixed color. /Daniel78 19:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
1 support, 1 oppose >> not featured - Alvesgaspar 20:42, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:Prunus cerasus LC0133.jpg - not featured[edit]

sour cherry

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Blossoms of sour cherry (Prunus cerasus); created, uploaded and nominated by LC-de 20:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- LC-de 20:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose A pretty image, but to my eyes the background is too busy. --MichaelMaggs 06:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Taraxacum 15:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Böhringer 22:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not bad, but the leaf above the blossom would have to be in focus, too. --Freedom to share 07:31, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
3 support, 2 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 20:43, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:Lift arms with hammer against.jpg- not featured[edit]

The last day of vandal.

Nuvola apps important yellow.svg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because of little value and of very poor photographic quality -- Alvesgaspar 09:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC) Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
Result >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 08:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:Pavlovsk Railing of bridge Yellow palace Winter bw threshold.jpg - not featured[edit]

The railing of bridge in park

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by AKA MBG - uploaded by AKA MBG - nominated by AKA MBG -- AKA MBG 20:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- AKA MBG 20:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very interesting work!--Mbz1 21:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The delicate iron-cast railing was removed by the BW rendering. IOW, not really good quality. Lycaon 21:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Clearly overdone -- Alvesgaspar 23:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I agree with Alvesgaspar.. Overedited. JDiPierro 01:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Creating pure black and white (binarized) images can give very nice results sometimes. However I do not think this one is in a league of it's own although I do like it. To me it seems like a simple threshold value has been used in the binarization step. A more adaptive approach or a en:Morphological image processing technique could possibly provide a more interesting result. /Daniel78 00:32, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment OK. Thank you for your comments. I should think about remaking this binarized image.

Pictogram voting delete.svg AKA MBG 09:52, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Withdrawn >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 10:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:Neuenburg Kollegiatskirche Kirchenhof.jpg - not featured[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created and uploaded by Ikiwaner - nominated by Klaus with K -- Klaus with K 14:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good Herr Stahlhoefer 00:01, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like the church relief and the translucent green of the trees. -- Klaus with K 14:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral So do I. But it's leaning to the right, composition is very narrow and I don't like the crowd in front of the church. --norro 16:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral No, it's not leaning - I had similar impression while reviewing it for QI, but I've checked it and it's perfectly straight. But it looks like, and because of it, I remain neutral --Leafnode 10:25, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I see nothing special. Moreover, trees in front of it are distracting. Barabas 23:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose ack Barabas. DocteurCosmos 09:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
2 support, 2 neutral, 2 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 15:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:New Horizons Liftoff.jpg - not featured[edit]

New Horizons Liftoff

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by NASA - uploaded by White Cat - nominated by White Cat -- Cat ちぃ? 06:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I couldn't decide if cropped version or non cropped version was better so I nominated both. -- Cat ちぃ? 06:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Really noisy image. Not one of NASA's best - Peripitus 12:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
1 support, 1 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 15:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:New Horizons Liftoff (croped).jpg - not featured[edit]

New Horizons Liftoff

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by NASA - uploaded by White Cat - nominated by White Cat -- Cat ちぃ? 06:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I couldn't decide if cropped version or non cropped version was better so I nominated both. -- Cat ちぃ? 06:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Really noisy, and artifacted, image. Not one of NASA's best - Peripitus 12:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
1 support, 1 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 15:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:Toulon Faron3 P1440701-P1440708.jpg[edit]

Toulon and its military harbour seen from Mount Faron

Note: There is an aircraft carrier (the Charles de Gaulle) in the picture. Find it. :-)

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by David Monniaux-- David.Monniaux 07:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- David.Monniaux 07:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Image resolution is rather weird, is this a stitched panoramic? -- Cat ちぃ? 08:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Rather noisy and unsharp. Furthermore, fast moving objects (in casu the speed boat) are prone to yielding stitching errors. Lycaon 09:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As Lycaon. --Karelj 19:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
1 support, 2 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 15:20, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Chrysanthemum coronarium - not featured[edit]

Chrysanthemum coronarium

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by Laitche -- Laitche 18:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Laitche 18:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Good quality of the picture, but I dislike the flower in the center and the leaf on the right troubles me --Alipho 19:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question - Are you sure about the species? The leaves don't seem to match. It could be another Glebionis (G. segetum?) or even a Coleostephus myconis -- Alvesgaspar 08:43, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I assumed this flower is Chrysanthemum coronarium, but it may be a different species. I will check again if I could. Does someone know the species of this flower? -- Laitche 16:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Do you think this flower is same as this one(Coleostephus February 2008-2.jpg)? -- Laitche 16:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
    • It is not possible to identify the plant just by the flower, there are many similar species, like the Anthemis sp. and the Coleostephus myconis. The leaves of the G. coronaria look like this. -- Alvesgaspar 17:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Thanks Alves, I'll check it out again. :) -- Laitche 18:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
      • I took the picture of the flowers and the leaves. Here >> Image:DSC01835.jpg. I think this flower is Chrysanthemum coronarium. What do you think? -- Laitche 10:20, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
        • I agree, concerning the picture at left. But there are here two types of C. coronarium: the one all yellow and the discolor variety. As far as I know they don't occur in the same plant -- Alvesgaspar 11:39, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
          • It looks same but I think that's different one, like this one(Chartzit001.JPG). -- Laitche 13:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Composition too bland imo, the stem at the top right is highly irritating with that choice of point of view. Freedom to share 15:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting delete.svg Thanks. -- Laitche 13:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Withdrawn >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 08:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:Coat of arms of Mexico.svg - featured[edit]

Coat of arms of Mexico

5 support, 0 oppose >> featured -- Alvesgaspar 18:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:Garden of Eden ArchesNP MC.jpg - featured[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Chmehl 08:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The Garden of Eden in Arches national Park. A few climbers on the second pillar from the left visualize the size. -- Chmehl 08:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Aqwis 09:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Simonizer 16:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Lycaon 19:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Mbz1 23:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --JaGa 21:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Peripitus 12:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Freedom to share 14:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. Not enough wow. Barabas 23:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As Barabas. --Karelj 19:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. Very nice. --Pauk 05:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
9 support, 2 oppose >> featured -- Alvesgaspar 08:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:HP Pavilion (angle).jpg featured[edit]

HP Pavilion

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info HP Pavilion in San Jose, California, home to the San Jose Sharks (hockey) - everything by JaGa -- JaGa 09:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- JaGa 09:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question Can you please provide a more detailed image description about what this pavilion is about? I don't know what I am looking at. And do you have a less tight cropped version available? --norro 10:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    • The HP Pavilion is a sports venue in San Jose, best known as the home of the San Jose Sharks (pro hockey), but also hosts the SAP Open (men's tennis tournament) and San Jose SaberCats (arena football). It hosts about 160 events a year, seating just under 20,000 people (the amount of seating available depends on the event). I went with a tight crop because (1) the foreground is a parking lot, not very pretty and (2) the picture is pretty wide already, and I want it to fit in Wikipedia pages. --JaGa 17:28, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
      Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment That's exactly the type of information that should be put to the image description page. :) Thank you. --norro 19:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral (for now) It is pretty good quality, but there are still a few (probably fixable) stitching errors noticeable. Lycaon 19:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC). There are a few minor ones left, but they are trivial (and only visible withe magnifying glass ;-)). It is quite difficult to match up everything with all the straight lines (hugin or no hugin). Lycaon 09:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Can you point us to the stitching errors? I can't find any... --Chmehl 22:01, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
      • E.g. on the middle of the second large 'corrugated' surface to the right of the centre block. Lycaon 22:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
        • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I just uploaded a new version with the stitching errors fixed. --JaGa 09:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Impressive quality. Freedom to share 10:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Beyond silence 14:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. Boring picture. Barabas 23:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • weak Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, I have to agree with Barabas /Ö 09:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose IMO no composition, no wow, no interesting architecture, just an ad for HP. Sorry. --Taraxacum 14:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality and useful image. /Daniel78 09:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great quality! Chmehl 13:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
6 support, 3 oppose >> featured -- Alvesgaspar 20:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:Lynx der lander.jpg - not featured[edit]

Westland Lynx landing

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Shot and nominated by myself -- Hebster 12:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Hebster 12:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice image, good choice of shutter speed imo. --Freedom to share 07:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Por lighting resulting in a poor image quality and lack of detail -- Alvesgaspar 18:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose noisy & artifacts Movieevery 20:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Karelj 19:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
3 support, 2 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 20:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:Konica Minolta alvesgaspar.jpg[edit]

Short description Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Despite its limitation this camera has done a wonderful job and win a couple of FP. Maybe it deserves now some recognition... Composite picture made of seven photos, using focus brackting and a tripode. Natural light, taken on the kitchen table. Created & nominated by Alvesgaspar 13:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Original (left) - not featured[edit]

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Alvesgaspar 13:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, very unsharp. --Aqwis 13:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question - Very unsharp? Are we talking about the same picture? This is a A3+ image which should be viewed from at least 50cm away -- Alvesgaspar 13:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
      • I don't see any reason why it should not be judged by the same sharpness criteria as any other image. It's not really huge either, at 5.5 megapixels. --Aqwis 13:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I think sharpness in general is ok. But if you look at the top of the camera (for example at the "Konica Minolta" writing) there is a strange blur. Maybe with another image focussed slightly more to the back you get sharper edges? Another thing which can be easily corrected is the bright reflection seen on the background (left side, lower third of the image). --Chmehl 14:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Bad lighting (inconsistent color temperature of light sources), some spherical aberration due to wide aperture (or just dirt?), random reflections in front lens, really odd background. Neither documentary nor studio style. --Dontpanic 14:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Agree with Dontpanic --norro 16:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
1 support, 3 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 17:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Alternative (right) - not featured[edit]

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Wow, this is more difficult than I thought (especially avoiding the geometric aberration). What about this one? -- Alvesgaspar 17:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Interesting shot given photographic technique used. Freedom to share 14:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose For the exorbitant effort i find the result disappointing. --Richard Bartz 17:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, I am sorry but I still feel it is far too unsharp for an FP. --Aqwis 07:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
2 support, 2 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 20:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:76.Pollineta a Agullana.JPG - not featured[edit]

Donkey as sun rises

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info taken, uploaded and nominated by Lascorz. Young female of Catalan Donkey photographed in northern Spain province of Girona, while rising the sun in early december 2007. -- Lascorz (I'll read it) Escut del Sobrarbe.png 19:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Lascorz (I'll read it) Escut del Sobrarbe.png 19:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Rastrojo (DES) 19:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too small and the sky is burnt out. --Freedom to share 21:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Poor lighting causing the subject to be in the shadow and showing no details. Alvesgaspar 16:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As above. --Karelj 18:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as above /Ö 09:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
2 support, 4 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 20:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:Dsm pano.jpg -not featured[edit]

Elia Complex, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by Muhammad -- Muhammad Mahdi Karim 15:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Muhammad Mahdi Karim 15:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose on grounds of composition. In my opinion, it would be better to simply just take an image of one of the subjects (building OR cemetery), but both of them seem to fill the image up necessarily while not focussing on a central subject. Freedom to share 19:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Common image of common object with no wow factor. --Karelj 19:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Common image of common object on commons. That has to be a wow factor! (just kidding. Thanks for your criticism) Muhammad Mahdi Karim 20:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I agree with Fts concerning composition. I added Category:Islamic cemeteries as I found it relevant. The road in front of the cemetary and building is really pretty straight, isn't it. With the projection used it looks very distorted, which for me does not help either. Could benefit from geocoding. I know you can do that now ;-) -- Slaunger 21:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Thanks for categorizing it. And yeah, I can geocode now, thanks to you :) Muhammad Mahdi Karim 21:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
1 support, 3 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 20:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:Thraciae-veteris-typvs.jpg - not featured[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by Adamantios 15:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Adamantios 15:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Should be crisp. Lycaon 16:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- Poor quality, map cropped -- Alvesgaspar 23:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment "This image has been assessed using the Quality image guidelines and is considered a Quality image"! Commons lacks common sense... Adamantios 08:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • It would not be given the QI seal if it was nominated these days. There will always be errors of judgement, but that's not a disaster. Lycaon 06:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice and interesting document, but insufficient sharpness for FP (and even for QI...). What happened with the edges: damaged by fire? -- MJJR 21:16, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
1 support, 3 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 20:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:Cox Ford Bridge, IN 1.jpg - not featured[edit]

Cox Ford covered bridge

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Cox Ford covered bridge, Indiana. Created, uploaded, and nominated by Dschwen
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Dschwen 18:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose No wow factor and the trees at both sides of the image are rather unsharp IMO. Sorry.--Mbz1 19:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
    • That's called Depth of field. They are not the main subject, and please consider the overal resolution of the image. --Dschwen 19:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice Image. I like the green and pink colours. But the picture is a little unbalanced in my opinion. The main subject is much to small and the blue of the sky is a unnecessary additional colour. I would choose a horizontal instead of a vertical format without sky, only the bridge, green branches and the pink flowers. --Simonizer 22:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice, but nothing special. Probaly a HDR with the interior would be nice. MatthiasKabel 14:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
1 support, 3 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 20:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:Sultan Omar Ali Saifuddin Mosque 02.jpg - featured[edit]

Mosque at dusk

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Sam Garza (Flickr) - uploaded by Kimse - nominated by Kimse -- Kimse 03:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Liked the combination of the colors and the high quality of the image -- Kimse 03:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Excellent compostition and nice colors, could use a bit of noise reduction (see water) though. --Chmehl 05:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not a bad composition indeed, but in addition to the bit of noise in the darkest parts, the building exhibits some rather disturbing perspective deformation: everything leans to the centre of the image. Lycaon 05:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose ack Lycaon - noise, leaning buildings --Leafnode 10:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC) Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral but perspective could use a little bit more work --Leafnode 05:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Karelj 18:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per Kisme - but Lycaon has a point, it would be nice if the perspective were corrected. --JaGa 21:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I coorected the perspective. It was not much just 2.6° --Ikiwaner 23:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --B.navez 17:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like it a lot --Eric Pouhier 20:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support So do I. --MichaelMaggs 20:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Excellent photo. I suggest to geocode it - adds value. -- Slaunger 22:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Taraxacum 14:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Kfasimpaur 17:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Laitche 21:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
11 support, 1 neutral, 1 oppose >> featured -- Alvesgaspar 08:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:Kaiseradler Aquila heliaca amk.jpg[edit]

Short description Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Aquila heliaca created, uploaded, nominated by AngMoKio -- AngMoKio 15:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Original (left) - not featured[edit]

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- AngMoKio 15:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Simonizer 16:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support WOW! Rastrojo (DES) 19:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support top --Böhringer 19:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Mbz1 00:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Nice picture but needs denoising (not only in the background) -- Alvesgaspar 16:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I tried to improve it a little - also by reducing size as i am not a big fan of denoising. Better? --AngMoKio 17:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Its not a good idea when editing images during a nomination. I have 2 agree with Alves. Tone value priority is a nice thing but can cause heavy noise. EXIF infos would be great --Richard Bartz 17:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
yeah guess you are right...so far I mostly added a new version to the nomination. Somehow I had the idea to make it different this time...god knows why :) Do you think that the current version is still too moisy? (EXIF: F/7.1, 1/400s, iso 800 [tripods are not allowed there], 200mm[x1,6] ) So far I haven't found a good way to denoise, that's why I don't really like it. Do you have a good way to denoise...maybe you want to give it a try? :) (The original version is still in the image history) Oh yes and I used tone value priority..but so far i don't understand in which situations it creates noise. --AngMoKio 20:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
For denoising you can try this. I dont use it anymore but its free. Denoising works best on a raw/psd level at 16 bit. Do you took raw files ?--Richard Bartz 21:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I will give it a try. Unfortunately i didn't take raw files. --AngMoKio 21:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
What a pity. When having RAW available it would be possible to bring back the drawing on the washed out white feathers --Richard Bartz 22:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Karelj 17:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Supporting the noise-reduced version --Chmehl 08:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question Several people have used the expression "deionise", which I understand means to remove ions (eg from water). Is it being used synonymously with "noise reduction" here? If so, it's a usage I have not seen before. --MichaelMaggs 20:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Greenish white-balance. -- Ram-Man 00:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
5 support, 4 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 20:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Edit (right) - featured[edit]

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Added new version Is it better concerning noise? --AngMoKio 18:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --AngMoKio 20:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Yes, it is! -- Alvesgaspar 20:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
thanks :-) took me quite some nerves to get it done. --AngMoKio 20:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Excellent shot, a pity about the lack of tripod by IS seems to have compensated well for it. (you used IS, right?) Freedom to share 20:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
yes..it was an IS lense. --AngMoKio 20:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Noise dont bother me anymore. But i support this as well --Simonizer 21:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice shot! --Chmehl 08:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Karelj 19:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --MichaelMaggs 20:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Böhringer 21:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Taraxacum 14:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Richard Bartz 17:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Greenish white-balance. -- Ram-Man 00:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Out of focus feathers. Barabas 21:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

10 support, 2 oppose >> featured -- Alvesgaspar 22:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:Galaxies Gone Wild!.jpg - featured[edit]

Interacting Galaxy

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by NASA - uploaded by White Cat - nominated by White Cat -- Cat ちぃ? 06:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Cat ちぃ? 06:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Mbz1 13:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Karelj 17:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Are the individual images uploaded ? In that case it would be very nice to link this image to the smaller ones. It's far from always that the montage is the ideal. One might want one of the individual images instead. /Daniel78 19:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
    Hubble has taken 59 images of Galaxy collisions. They are all uploaded to commons: User:White Cat/To boldly go where no one had gone before#Cosmic Collisions Galore!. I do want to point out that some of the individual images are over 10MB in size. They too can be individually nominated for featured status. :) -- Cat ちぃ? 00:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
    I updated the image description page to link to the individual images. -- Cat ちぃ? 15:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
    Good :) /Daniel78 17:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --MichaelMaggs 20:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --junafani 12:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support /Daniel78 17:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Valuable. --mh 09:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
7 support, 0 oppose >> featured -- Alvesgaspar 08:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:Victoria Crater taken by Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter.jpg - featured[edit]

Victoria Crater

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by NASA - uploaded by White Cat - nominated by White Cat -- Cat ちぃ? 07:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This is a stereo image. -- Cat ちぃ? 07:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support cool --Richard Bartz 08:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Mbz1 13:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very interesting and valuable shot. Freedom to share 16:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice. --mh 09:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
5 support, 0 oppose >> featured -- Alvesgaspar 08:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:Forestry Forwarder Ösa 250 2.jpg - not featured[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded & nominated by -- Richard Bartz 09:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Do you like MONSTERMACHINES ? As shown a Forwarder. A forwarder is a vehicle that carries logs from the stump to a roadside landing. Unlike a skidder, a forwarder carries logs clear of the ground, which can reduce soil impacts but tends to limit the size of the logs it can move. Forwarders are typically employed together with harvesters in cut-to-length logging operations.
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Richard Bartz 09:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I prefer this one. :) -- Laitche 11:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Mbz1 13:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ikiwaner 21:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC) I also prefer this. I like the rather dark mood. --Ikiwaner 21:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral High quality picture but too static for my taste--B.navez 01:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose No wow factor for me. Just mechanical monster in forest. --Karelj 19:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose No wow for me either. --MichaelMaggs 20:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose composition -- Gorgo 22:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose poor composition and underexposed. JDiPierro 01:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
4 support, 1 neutral, 4 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 11:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:Forestry Forwarder Ösa 250 2.jpg - not featured[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded & nominated by -- Richard Bartz 09:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Alternative
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Richard Bartz 09:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Mbz1 13:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose composition, lighting -- Gorgo 21:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support good composition showing vehicle at work and skilled light balance (not easy for this kind of scene when spring morning sky is so luminous and wood inside yet so dark)--B.navez 01:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose No wow for me. It's a pity the subject is in shadow. --MichaelMaggs 20:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Thats forrest --Richard Bartz 17:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Would support this if it were not underexposed, considering fixing. JDiPierro 01:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Pretty ordinary picture, no wow. Barabas 18:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
3 support, 3 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 11:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Pelargonium graveolens - featured[edit]

Rose Geranium

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded & nominated by Laitche -- Laitche 11:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Laitche 11:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Lycaon 11:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Solid and good quality. Freedom to share 16:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Böhringer 22:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice quality on the image --Kanonkas(talk) 05:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I prefer the composition of this one compared to the older nominated one. --Taraxacum 14:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Doesn't show enough Pelargonium graveolens has got flowers clusters and not lonely flowers. --B.navez 15:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. This is an image of one of the flowers in the cluster. I don't see what's wrong with that. --MichaelMaggs 20:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
If it becomes a FP, this picture will be prefered to any other to show how a rose geranium is flowering and it would give a wrong opinion. Laitche had the choice as we can guess in some backgrounds of the series. Why did he arrange to show only one flower each time ? This a HQI but not an encyclopedic one. --B.navez 02:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I added the image of the cluster in other versions. :) -- Laitche 07:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I cancel my opposition to this one for the effort but waouh what an extraordinary picture the cluster one !--B.navez 08:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC) --B.navez 08:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
8 support, 0 oppose >> featured -- Alvesgaspar 11:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:Mandoe.JPG - not featured[edit]

Abandoned shoe in Wadden Sea, Denmark

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Bertilvidet - uploaded by Bertilvidet - nominated by El Comandante --El ComandanteSkull and crossbones.svgHasta ∞ 18:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I'm not sure if it's really valuable but I think it's so beautiful that maybe someone will find a value to this picture... -- El ComandanteSkull and crossbones.svgHasta ∞ 18:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice idea. But image quality is not too good and I would like to see it landscape format and with greater DOF. But I really like the idea. --norro 19:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Excellent idea, bad execution from a technical point of view. More depth of field would be good. Freedom to share 14:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Wow, nice! --Karelj 19:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice idea, but the object is not complete and the DOF to small. MatthiasKabel 19:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Interesting and surprising image. Unfortunately the image quality is not on par with expectations for an FP. I suggest you geocode the image. -- Slaunger 21:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As above, DOF is too shallow. --Cpl Syx 16:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
2 support, 5 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 22:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:Mallard 080508.jpg - not featured[edit]

Mallard (Male)

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Anton Holmquist Soasta - uploaded by Soasta - nominated by Soasta -- Soasta 16:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Soasta 16:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Exposure could be better to bring out the details on the feathers. Freedom to share 21:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - I agree. Also the general quality is not enough -- Alvesgaspar 22:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
1 support, 2 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 22:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:Wasp May 2008-1.jpg - not featured[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info A queen paper Wasp (Polistes gallicus) taking a rest. At this time of the year they are usually taking care of the new colony. They leave the nest only for short periods to gather food and drink for the larvae. Created & nominated by Alvesgaspar 23:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Alvesgaspar 23:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not enough wow. Barabas 22:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
1 support, 1 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 22:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:Podarcis sicula.jpg - not featured[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Portrait of an Italian Wall Lizard, Sardinia, Italy created, uploaded and nominated by Lycaon 22:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Lycaon 22:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Most of the body is out of focus. For a photo site it might be ok, but this is an encyclopedia, and here it is a very serious drawback. Barabas 22:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Please have a look at the scope of commons again... Lycaon 22:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As Barabas and also not good composition, only half of creature is visible on image. --Karelj 18:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I find the crop a bit awkward. I would crop about one third on the right side to get rid of the out of focus area in the bottom right corner. I would also crop something of the upper background part. There should be enough resolution in this image. Chmehl 20:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
    • You mean something like this? Lycaon 20:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Yes this cropping is good. Is it possible to "repair" the bright unsharp bottom right corner with the clone stamp? I can't help it, I am always looking there... Chmehl 20:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Pictogram voting delete.svg The flood of stars disturbed this nom (and others) ;-(, I'll try again later... Lycaon 22:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Withdrawn >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 08:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:Swamp Milkweed Asclepias incarnata Flowers Closeup 2800px.jpg - not featured[edit]

Swamp Milkweed

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Created, uploaded, and nominated by Ram-Man. -- Ram-Man 02:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Swamp Milkweed (Asclepias incarnata) flowers.
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This is my favorite milkweed flower photo. It's got great composition, DoF, and high quality. It even has an insect. It's useful for illustrating a number of Wikipedia articles. -- Ram-Man 02:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I am sorry, I see no wow. On a side note, I would prefer more DOF and less busier background. Please login to vote, and sign your contributions. Thanks. --MichaelMaggs 06:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
    • At f/13 @ 6MP, the DoF is already at a maximum. -- Ram-Man 11:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Image to be deleted, license not allowed on Commons. --B.navez 18:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Lengthy discussion moved to the talk page. -- Ram-Man 11:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting delete.svg Apparently one panicky user is resulting in no one voting on this image, so I'll just renominate it again after this debacle is concluded. Thanks a lot, really. -- Ram-Man 12:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Withdrawn >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 07:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:Hubble Interacting Galaxy NGC 6050 (2008-04-24).jpg - not featured[edit]

Interacting Galaxy

Nuvola apps important yellow.svg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because too small. (please read guidelines 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, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose- Unsharp Mww113 22:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Result >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 11:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:Bath-Abbey02.jpg - not featured[edit]

Abbey of Bath at night

{FPX} Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Very poor photographic quality (heavy artifacts and noise) -- Alvesgaspar 08:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)}}

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Removing template, I think that quality is not so tragic, size is OK and I like this image. --Karelj 19:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The noise is indeed far too much, sorry. --MichaelMaggs 20:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Noise reduced. --Nikater 20:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Very noisy, lots of posterization, little details. Sorry. Lycaon 21:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It is a nice scenary when seen in thumbnail size and I like the relections in the wet road. However in preview and at full resolution I have to echo the criticism raised by other opposers concerning the overall image quality and noise levels, which is beyond repair. Also the crop at the upper edge is a little too tight for my taste. I suggest you geocode the photo. Adds value. -- Slaunger 21:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Quality way too low, distracting trees in front of abbey. Nice composition though. Freedom to share 14:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
1 suppotr, 5 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 07:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Libellula quadrimaculata - featured[edit]

Vierflecklibelle

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by Böhringer 12:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Böhringer 12:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support nice --Mbdortmund 18:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support 2004 ! I hadn't a camera at that time --Richard Bartz 20:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral - Can't oppose because of the superb composition. But the image quality is far worse than comparable FP's -- Alvesgaspar 23:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I had the chance to play around with a D7 once. Quite a nice camera. Freedom to share 07:40, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Simonizer 21:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
5 support, 1 neutral, 0 oppose >> featured -- Alvesgaspar 22:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Sorry, your comment is appreciated, but voting is already over. Lycaon 18:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC) - Very nice User:ترجمان05 18:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:Riviere Langevin Trou Noir P1440224-35.jpg - not featured[edit]

The Trou noir waterfall on the Langevin River, Reunion Island

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by David Monniaux -- David.Monniaux 16:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- David.Monniaux 16:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Composition does not work for me (lower left corner - the plants are quite disturbing and would need to be blurred out using a shallower depth of field) and the colours could use some work. Freedom to share 19:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not bad image, but quality not enough, I recommend to enhance sharpeness. --Karelj 19:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Agree w Fts and on top of that the image has no non-trivial categories/is not included in any relevant galleries. Could benefit from geocoding. Lightning conditions not very attractive. What happened to the EXIF? -- Slaunger 20:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
There is no EXIF since the picture is a stiching. ;-) David.Monniaux 23:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
If it is a stitch I see why the EXIF is not there. The stitching job is well done by the way. Could you then please state explicitly some basic information such as: Camera/lens used. Shutter speed, aperture, ISO, no of images used, stitching software ... -- Slaunger 05:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportExcellent composition and colours. Note falls are souring directly out from the cliff : this is not common.--B.navez 02:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Mbz1 03:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Overexposed (washed out). The subject is very interesting, so I am surprised, the image did not touch me emotionally. Barabas 23:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
3 support, 4 oppose -- not featured Alvesgaspar 22:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Image: Assomption de la Vierge.jpg - not featured[edit]

Assomption de la Vierge, baroque sculture in the abbaye of Mondaye, Normandie, France

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Eric Pouhier - uploaded by Eric Pouhier - nominated by Eric Pouhier -- Eric Pouhier 19:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info -- White Balance calibrated on site Eric Pouhier 19:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Several problems, of which I will list a few
    • The LHS/RHS crop is not balanced
    • The perspective distortion is severe and distracting.
    • The crop at the top is unfortunate as it cuts the arc - gives it a point and shoot character (which I know it isn't as you must have used a tripod with the shutter speed of 1.3 s)
    • The image page description says it is in English but the text is French?
    • The image is not categorized at all on Commons nor added to any relevant content page galleries
    • Although the diffuse lightning gives many details in the photo (and the DOF is very good btw) it is also quite uninteresting IMO. Does not catch my eye.
  • Sorry, -- Slaunger 20:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Oh, I forgot. The orange glas candle light(?) is distracting. -- Slaunger 20:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Solid, good technical quality, straightforward and illustrative. Freedom to share 14:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Lerdsuwa 18:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral High quality but composition ... -- Laitche 20:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not interesting enough for a FP. Barabas 21:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Really sharp and valueable.--Beyond silence 15:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Slaunger. Images should be categorized before they are nominated here. --MichaelMaggs 18:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
3 support, 1 neutral, 3 oppose -- not featured Alvesgaspar 22:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:Mallard 080508.jpg - not featured[edit]

Mallard (Male)

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Anton Holmquist Soasta - uploaded by Soasta - nominated by Soasta -- Soasta 16:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Soasta 16:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Exposure could be better to bring out the details on the feathers. Freedom to share 21:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - I agree. Also the general quality is not enough -- Alvesgaspar 22:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
1 support, 2 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 22:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:Spider and mites May 2008-1.jpg - featured[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Two very different species of arachnids sharing a flower: a female Misumena vatia (Goldenrod crab spider) and some velvet mites. The largest mites are less than 1,5mm long. Created and nominated by Alvesgaspar 21:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Alvesgaspar 21:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Where do you find all these amazing insects?--Mbz1 23:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I suspect some staging, this pappus delicately put aside : the result is seizing. --B.navez 18:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
    • No staging, I would prefer the pappus not to be there :-) -- Alvesgaspar 21:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Böhringer 06:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support though I don't discern any 'insects' ;-) -- Lycaon 17:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Two different species of 8-legged insects is enough reason for a speedy promotion of the pic! -- Alvesgaspar 19:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Horloge.svg Speedy Promote --Richard Bartz 21:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Laveol 12:04, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --MichaelMaggs 08:38, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
8 support, 0 oppose >> featured -- Alvesgaspar 22:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:Hubble Interacting Galaxy Arp 148 (2008-04-24).jpg - not featured[edit]

Interacting Galaxy

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by NASA - uploaded by White Cat - nominated by White Cat -- Cat ちぃ? 10:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Cat ちぃ? 10:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, unsharp and too small. No strong mitigating reasons; not even close to the quality of our existing astronomy FPs. --Aqwis 12:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Nuvola apps important yellow.svg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because too small. (please read guidelines 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 12:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Result >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 23:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:Arch.usa.arp.750pix.jpg - not featured[edit]

Arch.usa.arp.750pix.jpg

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Jon Sullivan - uploaded by Liftarn - nominated by Barabas -- Barabas 18:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info While this is a lower resolution image, it is the best one available, clearly showing the scale of the arch with good lighting, i. e. the best composition. Barabas 18:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Barabas 18:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, "good lighting"? No way. --Aqwis 19:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
    • It is not perfect lighting, ok? I went through dozens and dozens of pictures and most of them were taken with the arch side in shadow. Barabas 19:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Nuvola apps important yellow.svg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because much to 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.

Please read guidelines before submitting or assessing nominations. Thank you. Lycaon 19:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I did read them, maybe you missed my comment above. I think the quality of the composition compensates for the size. Thank you. Barabas
It is true that most of the pictures of the Delicate Arch have one side of the arch in the shadow but this is the cost of having a good (i.e. sunset) lighting and a nice composition with the La Sal Mountains in the background. See also the already featured picture Delicatearch.png. Chmehl 19:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I liked the one I nominated because there are people next to it. That gives an idea about dimensions of the arch. And lighting is also good. Thanks for your comment. Barabas
The people are good, I like them. The best picture for me would be this one Delicatearch.png with people. Chmehl 20:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I am missing people there, and that is exactly the reason I felt like nominating this picture despite some imperfections. Barabas 20:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Angle. Mww113 23:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Result >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 22:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:Female artistic nude.jpg - not featured[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by iryna stevens - uploaded by Yamavu - nominated by Yamavu -- Econt 14:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Econt 14:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support, --Aqwis 14:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
    Ah wait, too small. Sorry. --Aqwis 14:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Nuvola apps important yellow.svg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because too small -- Alvesgaspar 15:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC) Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Good pic, but too small. --ShakataGaNai Talk 20:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Sorry because it only has 0.66 Megapixel instead of 2+, because the Flickr account where I got this one ain't a Pro account. Requested a bigger version from the creator, but for now the naomination might as well close. --Yamavu 09:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Result >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 18:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:Tulips - OR.jpg - not featured[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by, uploaded by & nominated by ShakataGaNai Talk
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- ShakataGaNai Talk 20:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Such a close up has to be crisp, and the species/cultivar has to be known. tulip is insufficient. Lycaon 20:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment well if you know, let me know. I certainly dont. --ShakataGaNai Talk 20:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Lycaon. --MichaelMaggs 20:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Nuvola apps important yellow.svg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because with a subject that is an unidentified plant. Freedom to share 21:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC) Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

Image:White Flower Closeup.jpg - not featured[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info- Created By fmc.nikon.d40 on Flickr - uploaded by Mww113 - nominated by Mww113 -- Mww113 23:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Mww113 23:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info - Please notice that without a proper identification of the species the picture has little chances of promotion -- Alvesgaspar 23:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
    Noted I'll try to find it. Mww113 23:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
    It appears to be a developing White Gerbera daisy -- Mww113 23:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Regardless of the identification, the resolution is too low, it looks oversharpened at that, and there is some color fringing. It's at least somewhat detailed enough to be useful, but not enough for a FP. -- Ram-Man 00:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose DOF strange, also odd fringing. Also not 2Mpx. --ShakataGaNai Talk 07:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Nuvola apps important yellow.svg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because too small and of insufficient depth of field Freedom to share 14:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC) Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
Result >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 18:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Image: Assomption de la Vierge.jpg - not featured[edit]

Assomption de la Vierge, baroque sculture in the abbaye of Mondaye, Normandie, France

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Eric Pouhier - uploaded by Eric Pouhier - nominated by Eric Pouhier -- Eric Pouhier 19:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info -- White Balance calibrated on site Eric Pouhier 19:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Several problems, of which I will list a few
    • The LHS/RHS crop is not balanced
    • The perspective distortion is severe and distracting.
    • The crop at the top is unfortunate as it cuts the arc - gives it a point and shoot character (which I know it isn't as you must have used a tripod with the shutter speed of 1.3 s)
    • The image page description says it is in English but the text is French?
    • The image is not categorized at all on Commons nor added to any relevant content page galleries
    • Although the diffuse lightning gives many details in the photo (and the DOF is very good btw) it is also quite uninteresting IMO. Does not catch my eye.
  • Sorry, -- Slaunger 20:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Oh, I forgot. The orange glas candle light(?) is distracting. -- Slaunger 20:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Solid, good technical quality, straightforward and illustrative. Freedom to share 14:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Lerdsuwa 18:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral High quality but composition ... -- Laitche 20:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not interesting enough for a FP. Barabas 21:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Really sharp and valueable.--Beyond silence 15:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Slaunger. Images should be categorized before they are nominated here. --MichaelMaggs 18:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
3 support, 1 neutral, 3 oppose -- not featured Alvesgaspar 22:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:Riviere Langevin Trou Noir P1440224-35.jpg - not featured[edit]

The Trou noir waterfall on the Langevin River, Reunion Island

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by David Monniaux -- David.Monniaux 16:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- David.Monniaux 16:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Composition does not work for me (lower left corner - the plants are quite disturbing and would need to be blurred out using a shallower depth of field) and the colours could use some work. Freedom to share 19:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not bad image, but quality not enough, I recommend to enhance sharpeness. --Karelj 19:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Agree w Fts and on top of that the image has no non-trivial categories/is not included in any relevant galleries. Could benefit from geocoding. Lightning conditions not very attractive. What happened to the EXIF? -- Slaunger 20:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
There is no EXIF since the picture is a stiching. ;-) David.Monniaux 23:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
If it is a stitch I see why the EXIF is not there. The stitching job is well done by the way. Could you then please state explicitly some basic information such as: Camera/lens used. Shutter speed, aperture, ISO, no of images used, stitching software ... -- Slaunger 05:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportExcellent composition and colours. Note falls are souring directly out from the cliff : this is not common.--B.navez 02:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Mbz1 03:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Overexposed (washed out). The subject is very interesting, so I am surprised, the image did not touch me emotionally. Barabas 23:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
3 support, 4 oppose -- not featured Alvesgaspar 22:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:JewliaEisenberg August2007.jpg - not featured[edit]

Jewlia Eisenberg

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Asaf antman (Flickr) - uploaded by Bruce1ee - nominated by Bruce1ee -- Bruce1eetalk 07:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Bruce1eetalk 07:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Noisy, unsharp and showing posterization. Furthermore, as the file is at the lower size limit, improvement will be near impossible. Lycaon 07:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Excellent photo, great lighting, could possibly use noise reduction, but I see nothing else wrong. JDiPierro 01:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Removing an FPX template does NOT mean removing a user's remarks!! — Lycaon 05:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, not sharp enough for me, and the burnt-out forehead is too prominent. --MichaelMaggs 06:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Nice expression, terrible quality -- Alvesgaspar 08:35, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 3 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 09:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:Kaiseradler Aquila heliaca 2 amk.jpg - featured[edit]

Aquila heliaca

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Portrait of an Aquila heliaca.--AngMoKio 15:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by AngMoKio -- AngMoKio 15:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- AngMoKio 15:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg CommentIt is a really nice image. May I please ask you why not to add it to this nomination? IMO these are very similar images of probably the same bird and one FP of it should be enough. Thank you.--Mbz1 16:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Change of vote becase the second image of this bird was not featered and this image has IMHO good quality. --Karelj 16:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
You are mistaken. The image Image:Kaiseradler Aquila heliaca e amk.jpg was featured.--Mbz1 05:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
To both of you. I think it is a different composition and atmosphere in this pic. I also had your thought for a moment but then I remembered how many bees, hoverflies and wasps of the exact same species we have as FP already. So I see no reason not to nominate this additional eagle-pic. And in the end what is wrong about having several FPs of one and the same subject? You never know what kind of pic someone searchs and needs. And with FP we want to give a source for good pictures...at least that's how I think about it.--AngMoKio 17:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I totally agree with AngMoKio. I wouldn't care featuring fourteen images of the same subject if they are excellent. This one is, in my opinion. --norro 18:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Extreme crop -- Alvesgaspar 23:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Laziale93 10:04, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Schönes Porträt. Besser noch als das andere Bild (und das ist schon sehr gut) und somit auf jeden Fall featured-würdig. Ich geb dir völlig recht. Wenn ich dran denke wie viele Bilder von Insekten zwar mit guter Qualität aber nur mit mittelmäßiger Komposition gefeatured sind, dann macht für mich ein zweites gefeaturetes Bild von ein und demselben Vogel das Kraut nicht fett. --Simonizer 13:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Solid, proper image of good, strong, powerful bird. Freedom to share 15:43, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support s.Simonizer --Böhringer 19:36, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, it's very good pic. --Pauk 22:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose on technical grounds. Feathers on the left seem to be greatly overexposed and quite a bit of the image is out of focus. 71.135.37.3 02:28, 11 May 2008 (UTC) Sorry, no anonymous votes allowed. Lycaon 10:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Ack the above. Barabas 18:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose IMO the image should be added to other_versions of already feutured Image:Kaiseradler Aquila heliaca e amk.jpg. The image are of the same head of the same bird taking at the same day. I see no reason to feature a second image. Sorry--Mbz1 05:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Hm...to be consequent you should start nominating a lot of insect FPs for delisting now. You are aware of that, right? And I really don't understand your reasons...what is wrong about having 2 different pictures of the same bird on the same day? How do you know that someone is not searching for a pic where the front of the bird is visible?! What is in your opinion the purpose of FP?! And if I might add that: To oppose because of those reasons says that you don't judge the photo itself but follow your own rules that don't exist in the FP criteria. --AngMoKio 06:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • You are right, I do not know, if somebody is or is not searching for a pic where the front of the bird is visible. That's why I suggested adding the image to other_versions of the aleady featured picture. If I'm looking for an image of a specific bird or animal, I'd rather go to category and see all images availabale.You are also right about insect images. There are many almost the same. I'm not going to nominate them on delisting because I'm afraid I will not succeed. IMO the more images of the same subjects FP has the less value each image and FP in general have. IMO the biggest purpose of FP is to educate, to introduce an interesting, high quality image to a Wikipedia reader and let the reader an opportunity to learn more about the subject.May I please ask you a question too? Why, when Karelj has changed his/her vote to support the image, you did not tell him/her that the other one got featured?

Anyway, I believe this image would also get featured, so no worries. Thank you.--Mbz1 13:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Dear MBZ i am not permanently present on commons. I can't always check if someone misunderstood sth. Thank you. --AngMoKio 22:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great eyes. --Manco Capac 07:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose There is already one featured picture that is nearly identical in subject matter. As a matter of fact, I've often requested the delisting of duplicate images and am happy to support those delistings. As per Mbz1, this is a matter of the purpose of a FP, to feature the very best and to not allow duplicates. -- Ram-Man 11:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
This is not a duplicate. It is another picture. But it doesn't make sense to discuss as we have completly different opinions about FP. For me it is a source for the best pictures of commons. I don't see a reason why not all great pictures of bees, eagles, flowers or what ever should get featured. We are not only talking about the subject on the picture but also about different compositions. --AngMoKio 22:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
result: 9 support, 4 oppose >> featured -- Alvesgaspar 09:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:Schloss Nymphenburg Munich.jpg - not featured[edit]

Short description Short description Short description


Schloss Nymphenburg Alternative

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created , uploaded & nominated by --Richard Bartz 17:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg InfoThe Nymphenburg Palace (German: Schloss Nymphenburg) is a Baroque palace in Munich, Bavaria, Germany. The palace was the summer residence of the rulers of Bavaria.
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Richard Bartz 17:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Mbz1 17:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Is it real ? --B.navez 18:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice.(^^)/ -- Laitche 18:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol move vote.svg Move Moved to the alternative(Edit 3). -- Laitche 07:26, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, cyan colour cast. --Aqwis 20:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 1 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 09:04, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Edit 1 (centre) featured[edit]

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info With color correction as i was in a different color space
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Richard Bartz 21:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Even better.--