Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/January 2007

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

Image:Bark nunniong.jpg, not featured edit

Info Uploaded and nominated by Fir0002 (self nom)
Support --Fir0002 www 02:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose no species info: there are at least 748 different species of Eucalyptus (see here at Wikispecies)!! Lycaon 07:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This is commons FPC - please comment on the picture only, as it does not have to illustrate the species --Fir0002 www 08:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Though I understand that what matters here is the composition, not the illustration of the species. Alvesgaspar 08:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral the idea of that composition is really good. But with especally this tree it doesnt work...the background is too disctracting.--AngMoKio 11:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose beacuse of distracting background and landscape format. --MichaelMaggs 18:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sorry but Commons is not just a gallery of art, so I agree withLycaon : no identification, no featuring ! Anyway I don't find the picture uncommon. B.navez 18:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Ansett 06:10, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. 7 day rule. Diligent 18:21, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Moscow villa02 oct 2006.jpg, not featured edit

Info Uploaded and nominated by Fir0002 (self nom)
Support --Fir0002 www 22:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Nice picture, correct composition, no obvious flaws. But subject matter uninteresting. Alvesgaspar 23:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose agree with Alvesgaspar --AngMoKio 12:44, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Ansett 06:10, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The texture of the roof is unclear: Could be ice, could be the sun reflecting, could be a bad white balance. The sky is overexposed. --Martinroell 13:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I have no qualms with this image, but per Alvesgaspar and the fact that the cabin has graffiti all over it. Arjun 21:29, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. 7 day rule. Diligent 18:26, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Lepomis megalotis.jpg, not featured edit

Info created,uploaded, and nominated by --Halved sandwich 21:08, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halved sandwich 21:08, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ??? Lycaon 00:04, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose weird -- Gorgo 19:00, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I don't think this picture will get much feedaback from users. The fish should be in its natural environment. Alvesgaspar 19:03, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Ansett 06:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lestat 11:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. 7 day rule. Diligent 18:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:InfraredBeetle.png, not featured edit

Info created by mehmetaergun - uploaded by mehmetaergun - nominated by mehmetaergun --Mehmetaergun 04:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mehmetaergun 04:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral interesting technique but the shadow of photografer on the right spoil the image. Also the shadow of a fence (?) on the car disturbs. However i like the composition. --Jacopo86 11:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose What kind of relevance could this photo have? Spoiled by shadows too. -- AM 16:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't see any relevance either. Why is a png file used? Alvesgaspar 17:13, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose shadow, composition -- Gorgo 19:05, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Ansett 06:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lestat 11:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I strongly oppose as first 1. Why is the png file used? 2. Very blurry 3. Too much image noise 4. and per others. Arjun 21:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 result: 1 support, 6 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. 7 day rule. Diligent 18:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Piotr Szulkin.jpg - featured edit

Info Created by Rafał Guza - uploaded by Przykuta - nominated by odder 21:50, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support —the preceding unsigned comment is by odder (talk • contribs) norro 22:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, I didn't want to vote in this voting, but if I have to... :) -- odder 15:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - If we go over all FP we will verify that there are very few portraits. In many Commons photos of people the human presence only serves to illustrate some activity or event (like in here) or it is just a part of the composition (like in here). In others, there is some kind of “exotism” or specific theme which deviates the attention from the person and, in some way, becomes the very subject of the photo (like in here, here and here). It is very difficult to evaluate the portrait of a living person when we don’t know him. Note that even the human expression may not be characteristic of that person. All we can do is to examine the technical quality of the picture. Alvesgaspar 12:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Piotr Szulkin - Polish film director (during making his film Ubu Król) Przykuta 19:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose portraits need to be truly outstanding for FP, as per above. The black area to the right of the head is distracting and cluttery. Stephen.job 00:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support / tsca @ 16:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it because there is nothing 'special' about it. Authentic. -- AM 22:32, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ziga 22:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Albert 15:39, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Ansett 06:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Lycaon 11:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not very outstanding portrait. Metoc 20:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC) sorry, vote closed on 31 Dec 2006 -- Lycaon 09:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 6 support, 1 neutral, 3 oppose >> featured Alvesgaspar 21:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:ParusMajorA.jpg - not featured edit

Info created by, uploaded and nominated by Thermos --Thermos 13:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Thermos 13:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very nice picture. But there is visible noise in some of the feathers. Maybe a corrected version can be uploaded. Alvesgaspar 15:57, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Uploaded a new version (19:47, 17 December) with noise reduction and small adjustments. Please refresh to ensure that you view the latest file. --Thermos 19:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support i like it a lot --AngMoKio 22:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I like it too, but there are still ugly artifacts in the feathers, quite visible in full resolution. The problem is we have now quite high standards in this domain, after the excellent photos of mdf. Alvesgaspar 11:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with Alvesgaspar. --MichaelMaggs 17:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with Alvesgaspar. --Digon3 19:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with Alvesgaspar --Stephen.job 00:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Ansett 06:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral A shame really as this is a nice shot and a beautiful bird. But per Alvesgaspar. Arjun 00:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 2 support, 1 neutral, 5 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 21:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Map of St Petersburg - not featured edit

Info created by C.M. Roth - uploaded by Balcer - nominated by Diligent. This 1734 map has difficulties being nominated and I find the 1776 map even more beautiful. Knowing Russia and her history, you have to love the reference to the exactness of the map, according to the archives of the Police... --Diligent 11:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Diligent 11:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support This a gorgeous map! What is the "original" the title in the cartouche is referring to? Alvesgaspar 16:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- probably, the original military map. One has to understand that maps had a high military value (acces to the city, location of arsenals, etc.) and their publication was, indeed, subject to approval. Better control the map and be the source (original) of what would be published than victim of an earnest and complete cartographer disclosing all details. Diligent
Support Fine historic dokument. -- AM 22:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Ansett 06:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support ack Alvegaspar Cary "Bastiq▼e" Bass ^demandez 15:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 4 support, 1 oppose > not featured Alvesgaspar 12:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Butterfly sucking a banana.JPG - not featured edit

Info created by Donar Reiskoffer Shot at the Butterfly Farm in La Guacima near Alajuela in Costa Rica. - uploaded by Donar Reiskoffer - nominated by Donar Reiskoffer --Donarreiskoffer 12:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like this macro shot I took very much. I must however admit that it would be nice if the species could be identified. --Donarreiskoffer 12:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very illustrative picture, with an amazing technical quality. I don't care about the species id, someone will eventually get it. Alvesgaspar 18:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MichaelMaggs 22:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose DOF,unclear, bad light.--SvonHalenbach 23:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose DOF, Composition -- Simonizer 10:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose DOF, composition, missing id Lycaon 13:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I'm not sure... 142.151.162.189 04:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC) Please log in to vote, thanks. Lycaon 06:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Ansett 06:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lestat 11:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 3 support, 5 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 12:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:ICE 3 Kalmykov D. 2006.JPG edit

Info created by ecomuseum - uploaded by ecomuseum - nominated by ecomuseum --Ecomuseum 15:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ecomuseum 15:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Much too dark, could be anything. Strange composition, only small part of the object to be seen. -- AM 16:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Could be interesting if not so dark. This way it reminds me of Alien (no offense intended).Alvesgaspar 20:53, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thank you for your imagenation!!! It because I made this picture - I did see Alien design in this train! And it is main reason why this picture so dark. It is not Alien train with usual light - it just boring usual train.Ecomuseum 14:24, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral excellent. But it's a little bit noisy and has lots of jpeg artefacts. Can you upload a less compressed version? norro 14:24, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thank you for your evaluation! Unfortunately I had too small memory card and it is original file. :-)
Oppose agree with Alvesgaspar --AngMoKio 12:44, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per AM. --Doco 00:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Ansett 06:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Heavy poetry XXI century! - Perfect!--DeBarcader 15:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC) please log in to vote -- Lycaon 09:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

why do you think that DeBarcader wasn't loged in? --Anna reg 14:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

see here Lycaon 17:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose agree with AM. --Martinroell 13:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 1 support, 6 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 7th day) Lycaon 00:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I completely concur with AM. Arjun 21:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is a fine image, looks like a scene from the future but yet it's a picture from the present. Underexposing the image allows the attention to be drawn to the train, and the surrounding lights create a very moody atmosphere. What I don't like (but I still vote for the image) is the quality of the image, which is very poor: very noisy and with lots of compression artefacts. Ecomuseum, try doing some more post-processing (some Photoshopping), you can definitely improove the image quality. --Andy 11:56, 01 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Info Here is a slightly edited version, which in my opinion improves the overall quality of the image. It's less noisy, and looks more futuristic. I've done an edge-preserving blur, and then several soft blurs for the lights to make them look anti-aliased (original image is very sharp). I know voting finished, but I like this image and I felt it deserved some post-processing. -- User:Atoma 12:28, 03 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I love this picture!! I think it would be a great picture of the day. Also, I don't really see a difference between the 2 pictures... 12.227.160.225 14:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Kea.jpg - not featured edit

Info created by Dilaudid - uploaded by Dilaudid - nominated by B.navez --B.navez 15:00, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --B.navez 15:00, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very noisy at full resolution. A downsampling might help but it's not certain. Alvesgaspar 18:57, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the composition is nice but it is really too noisy --AngMoKio 19:12, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Uploaded a new version with some noise reduction (on the right) for the benefit of the nominator --Thermos 20:31, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Uploaded another downsampled version with noise reduction and a little higher brighness. Olegivvit 17:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm afraid this is not enough. The noise is still visible and some artifacts appeared. Alvesgaspar 20:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Ansett 06:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very, very noisy at the full resolution. Nice parrot but that is not enough. Arjun 00:41, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 1 support, 4 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 7th day) Alvesgaspar 21:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Menochilus sexmaculatus Lak-tiau phiau-thiong ti hoe lin.jpg - not featured edit

Info created by Albert - uploaded by Albert - nominated by Albert. The three ladybugs hid in a sunflower’s bud in a cold autumn’s morning. --Albert 03:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Albert 03:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is a nice picture and an uncommon shot. It's a pity that the quality of the photo doesn't match its interest. It is unsharp and the main subject is noisy at full resolution. Also, there is too much light, which makes the colours a bit washed out. Finally, I think the framing is too tight. Alvesgaspar 10:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Ansett 06:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This could be an interesting picture. It's unsharp though. --Martinroell 13:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for both your comments. The photo is not sharp enough, I think so, too.--Albert 01:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 1 support, 3 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 7th day) Alvesgaspar 15:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Jefferys - The Russian Discoveries.jpg - not featured edit

Info created by Thomas Jefferys - uploaded by Frank Schulenburg - nominated by Jon Harald Søby Jon Harald Søby 08:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jon Harald Søby 08:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral for now. Amazing detail and good rasterization (including a drop of champgne, or vodka, near the legend...). Also high historical interest, showing a time when Alaska was an unknown land. I have also noticed that the information about the map contains its dimensions, authorship and date, all important elements. But I'm not sure it should be featured, as an image. Alvesgaspar 14:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rather detailed historical work. Cary "Bastiq▼e" Bass ^demandez 15:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Ansett 06:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Any specific reason? Jon Harald Søby 21:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not interersting enough but good snap. Agree with Alvesgaspar.

This entry was from user Jylesa. Alvesgaspar 23:10, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral you should try in quality images-LadyofHats 19:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
QI is just for images by Wikimedians (unless it's been changed recently). Jon Harald Søby 21:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 2 support, 2 neutral, 2 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 08:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Tranby house 49 gnangarra.jpg - not featured edit

Info created by Gnangarra - uploaded by Gnangarra - nominated by Gnangarra 13:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Gnangarra 13:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No one seems interested in evaluating this photo, although it is a correct, good quality picture. But, IMO, also trivial and with little relevance. The lamp is not old enough, or beatiful enough, to be interesting. Alvesgaspar 20:59, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose boring composition norro 14:25, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it --Jeses 10:58, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Ansett 06:10, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lestat 11:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose bad light Metoc 20:27, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose same as above-LadyofHats 19:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 2 support, 6 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 13:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Urocyon littoralis full figure.jpg - delisted edit

Info nominated for delisting by Alvesgaspar. Original nomination by Conti --Alvesgaspar. 18:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delist I don't like to propose images for delisting or to vote in this section because I think we should preserve the history of FP. But I believe this one was an obvious error of judjement. The image is small and unfocused, the composition is poor, there is even a rectangle within the photo, framing the fox, with different colouring! How was this possible: 10 support votes, 0 oppose ?...Alvesgaspar 18:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Very strange. Anyway, the quality falls far below what we should expect.--MichaelMaggs 18:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delist particularly because of the rectangle of edited colour balance - MPF 21:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delist aggree -- Gorgo 23:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delist obvious -- Lycaon 10:11, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delist aggree with Alvesgaspar -- Simonizer 08:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 0 keep, 6 delist >> delisted Alvesgaspar 08:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Panorama Frankfurt vom Maintower.jpg - not featured edit

Info created by Schlaengel - uploaded by Maros - nominated by Doco --Doco 00:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Doco 00:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Would be better if tower were not cut off. --MichaelMaggs 07:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It is sharp, but it has other than the weather is boring, at least one flaw from stitching the pics together. That disqualifies it as a Featured Picture, because we believe here that a FP should just be the best pictures of all. --SvonHalenbach 15:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose cut tower B.navez 18:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support / tsca @ 12:32, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice //moralist 12:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Ansett 06:10, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support i like it -LadyofHats 19:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 4 support, 4 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 08:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:PondLilly.jpg - not featured edit

Info created by Darkwater - uploaded by Darkwater - nominated by Darkwater --Darkwater 12:10, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Darkwater 12:10, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Schönes Detail der Blüte, leider mit JPEG-Kompressionsartefakten. Das Gesamtbild der Pflanze wird nicht klar: Wie hoch sitzt die Blüte über dem Wasser? Wie lang ist der Stengel? Wie groß ist diese Blüte überhaupt? --Martinroell 13:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is a beatiful flower but there are a few issues which ruins the image as a FP: pixelated at full resolution, overexposed and inadequate crop. Might support if the nominator is able to address these problems with success. Alvesgaspar 13:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose no id. - Lycaon 18:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry but per Alvesgaspar, I would've rather seen the flower centered. Arjun 00:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 1 support, 4 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 7th day) Alvesgaspar 09:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Statueman.jpg - not featured edit

Info created by Darkwater - uploaded by Darkwater - nominated by Darkwater --Darkwater 12:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Darkwater 12:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The situation is not clear to me. Lighting is not optimal - the person'S face is in the shade. --Martinroell 13:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Interesting subject, but more care could have been taken with the camera angle, to avoid the distracting background. The face is very dark, too. --MichaelMaggs 16:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 1 support, 2 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 7th day) Alvesgaspar 09:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Frauenkirche Munich - View from Peterskirche Tower.jpg not featured edit

Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Doco --Doco 17:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Doco 17:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A nice snap, but not of FP quality. --MichaelMaggs 18:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support very sharp and fine details, well chosen point of view (not easy to find a good one when you see the buildings so close), well giving the atmosphere of the red roofs of Munich, so a very illustrative snap for this famous church and I don't understand what is not FP quality (perhaps a sunrise is missing?)B.navez 18:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ACK, MichaelMaggs. --SvonHalenbach 21:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~ Support this is technically a perfect image...really great quality. The composition is (only?) ok but as this church is in the middle of the city it is difficult to get better photos of it. Fact is that this is the best picture of that church on commons right now. I have to think abt it...i might change to pro--AngMoKio 11:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Hi-tacks 18:51, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ACK, MichaelMaggs --Luc Viatour 16:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I suppose the picture is as good as it can be under the circunstances, which are not favourable. Mixing cranes with an old church is a little too much for a FP. Alvesgaspar 20:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Ansett 06:10, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lestat 11:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --atoma 17:14, 03 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral i find the composition a bit boring. dunno if the quality of the image is enough reason to be featured.-LadyofHats 19:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 5 support, 1 neutral, 6 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 18:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Tarsius syrichta.jpg - not featured edit

Info created by Plerzelwupp - uploaded by Plerzelwupp - nominated by lew --Lew 20:14, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lew 20:14, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nice composition; but the overall quality is too low (noise, sharpness)--AngMoKio 20:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with AngMokio. Alvesgaspar 20:50, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Ansett 06:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Remarks from AngMoKio are right, but taking in account the fact that the conditions to take the picture were probably not ideal, I vote Support. --Romary 11:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I weakly support, the pic while it does have some problems (image noise, blurriness) The image is too nice too pass up. Arjun 21:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too noisy - sorry. Otherwise, it's very nice. --MichaelMaggs 16:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Nice little fellow. MartinD 13:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the guy is cute. but it anoys me that it has so much noise -LadyofHats 19:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I was very surprised to find my picture here - thank you for nominating. I must remark, that I used no image editing program - The monkey was in the dark jungle and for not to disturb him, I used no flashlight --Plerzelwupp 10:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - because half of its tail is cropped off. Would support otherwise. - MPF 23:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 5 support, 1 neutral, 5 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 20:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:3d10 fm de vilafranca.jpg - not featured edit

Info created by Baggop - uploaded by Baggio - nominated by Baggio --Baggio 19:19, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Baggio 19:19, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose tiny Lycaon 21:32, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too small. --Benn Newman 01:38, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Olegivvit 12:12, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral great perspective. There is a dark line a the upper border of the photo (should get cropped away). --AngMoKio 12:43, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose low res, color balance seems a bit off -- Gorgo 19:02, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Ansett 06:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 2 support, 1 neutral, 4 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 19:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Featured picture candidates/removal/Image:Solar eclips 1999 5.jpg - not delisted edit

also

Info too grainy, too blocky, I wonder how it was wable to be a FP in the first place. _→AzaToth 16:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not an easy subject to capture well given low light levels - MPF 15:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ack MPF Lycaon 16:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A very quality image, and per MPF. Arjun 00:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --MichaelMaggs 16:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 0 delist, 4 keep >> not delisted (rule of the 7th day) Alvesgaspar 13:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC

Image:Maidenstower79.JPG - not featured edit

Info created by Photographer1 - uploaded by Photographer1 - nominated by Photographer1 --Photographer1 11:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Photographer1 11:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nothing special Metoc 16:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 1 support, 1 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 7th day) Alvesgaspar 10:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Planina Avala.JPG - not featured edit

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Pokrajac 01:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pokrajac 01:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm afraid this picture is very far from FP standards, although the place should be beatiful. The composition is not interesting (too symetrical, no first plan to suggest depth) and the image is extremely noisy as if it were rasterized from a bad paper copy or enlarged well beyond the original size. Alvesgaspar 17:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with Alvesgaspar -- atoma 17:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Yeah sadly the image is very far from FP standards. If you notice the image is extremely noisy. Arjun 18:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 1 support, 3 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 7th day) Alvesgaspar 10:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Brooklyn Bridge at Dusk.jpg - not featured edit

Info created by Lacos3 - uploaded by Lacos3 - nominated by User:Lacos3 --Lacos3 15:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lacos3 15:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose — brännande vita fläckar, tråkigt motiv, något grynig bild. _→AzaToth 23:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Burning white spots, boring subject, somewhat grainy.

translator: Daniel78 23:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose -- Ansett 06:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment 26 oppose votes in 7 minutes (all pictures in this page), with no expressed reasons, by user Ansett, which is obviously not enough to see the pictures in full resolution. This must be some kind of weird competition. Maybe we could do, as Dschwen suggested once, a Touring test on her/him... Alvesgaspar 10:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The bridge is out of focus. (Autofocus on the stones in the foreground?) --Martinroell 13:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Info I always view constructive criticism as a good thing ; something I can learn from but statements like "brännande vita fläckar"? from User:AzaToth tell me nothing ; same goes for Ansett,oposing without explanation to me equals to vandalism!! Martin with sharpness I can't do anything. I used wide angle lens for this shot and I did focus on the bridge (everything should be in focus from few feet to infinity) but since the bridge is 200-300 m (yrds) away it's natural that the foreground (2m away) will look much sharper.Light from the bridge traveling through 300m of air will get refracted along the way.(more humidity= more refraction)That's the reason you can never get a perfectly sharp photo of a distant landscape. This entry was from User:Lacos3, at 03:31 29 December 2006. - Alvesgaspar 11:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Oppose. Dear Lacos3, a bit of constructive criticism to please you. There is no obligation to justify our votes on the guidelines, the only obligation is to "be polite" - hence Ansett's vote validity (although i find him too negative in his systematic opposition and would support Alvesgaspar's proposal but that is altogether an other story). Sharpness is achievable as opposed to what you think, it has been acheived on many night panoramas (some featured) - try harder! Your image is tilted, a detail which escaped the scrutiny of the previous viewers. The rocks in the foreground are really disturbing and I would advise some cropping. I would also object, taking into account that the subject is the bridge that you have too much of a rather boring skyline on the right and leaving out the left part of your main (uncomplete) subject. How unfortunate! Diligent 18:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Lacos3 This kind of criticism is really helpful to me.Thank you Diligent!!!)

Support How unfortunate! Lestat 12:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is a long exposure, and I wonder whether the slight lack of sharpness of the buildings arises because of camera shake on the tripod. A really solid tripod is needed, along with a remote shutter release. --MichaelMaggs 16:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CommentWait a few years for Freedom Tower to be built and take the photo again. The skyline is pretty boring without the twin towers. Although, it's a good picture, but it need a serious crop (the rocks are annoying) --66.36.154.65 21:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Lacos3being new to dslr ;Gentlemen I would like to thank you all for your time and precious advice ; Greatly appreciated.

 2 support, 5 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 15:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Human skull front complete.svg edit

Original version (top) - not featured edit

Info created , uploaded and nominated by LadyofHats --LadyofHats 15:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral --LadyofHats 15:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
there are problems in how it is shown on the image page. this comes from the size in wich the image is hown. remember this is an svg. so those problems disapear when changing the size. -LadyofHats 15:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Some labels are in English others are in Latin. Some are captalized, most are not. Why? Could you fix this first please? (e.g. Supra-orbital foramen vs. foramen mentale). Thanks Lycaon 16:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- done. -LadyofHats 21:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The orientation of the line segments, as well as the position of the labels, seem pretty random and spoil the illustration. For instance, the segments should be horizontal or 45º oriented whenever possible. Also, there should be some general indication (a label?) on the contents of the three different figures. Support an improved version if the author, or someone else, takes care of that. Alvesgaspar 11:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I updated a version with more straight lines. Still the position of the labels responds to the lines. it was the only way i found to have 3 lists and no crossing lines. if i force all the lines to be horizontal and or 45° then i would need far much more space for the labels. and since what they point is sometimes so small, then the image would not be able to be seen in one view. for the labels, i was told often before that images on wikipedia should contain no titles, and even then i do not know wichones would be the right titles. the first is clear that they are the bones. the second are the "lines" fosas and fisuras, but the third? "others??" . i do not know, the books i used as reference mention nothing about it. they just say in every diagram "front view of a skull" wich titles you would like?. -LadyofHats 12:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 0 support, 2 neutral >> not featured (rule of the 7th day) Alvesgaspar 15:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New version (bottom) - not featured edit

Info and ~~Support~~ Neutral I edited slightly the illustration in order to improve the labelling. If you prefer, just substitute the original image with this one. Alvesgaspar 14:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Listen i do not mind corrections to my images, i truly dont. but please if you correct it upload it over the old version. you go to the image page and on the bottom of the page. there where it says file history there is a link that is called "Upload a new version of this file".this time you even changed the copyright status and authorship from the image. i know you mean no harm. but i would find it far more easy if you would just respect my wishes.--LadyofHats 20:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - i updated new. -LadyofHats 20:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would never modify someone's original image, that's not the way things are done here. Making a new version is the correct procedure because we don't want to run the risk to go against the author's wishes. I'll repeat what I have written above:If you prefer, just substitute the original image with this one. Please understand that it is not my intention to benefit from your work, that should be obvious if you took some time to observe what's going on before starting protesting. I'll not put back here the edited version you asked for deletion (that should be done by yourself), although what you did is hardly acceptable by our behaviour standards. Alvesgaspar 21:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Split into 3 images, remove all descriptions, use numbers instead, make proper margins (2px around image is enought for anti-alias) and then you have my support vote. --WarX 21:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - ditto to WarX. Text is too small to read in current thumbnail. The text (if used in the image) should be large enough to read in the thumbnail on the wiki page so it can be seen in context together with the rest of the article. - MPF 23:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree, there is too much information to make all 3 images readable when positioned next to each other like this. The label text gets too small. /Daniel78 23:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 0 support, 1 neutral, 3 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 7th day) Alvesgaspar 15:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Les Deux Alpes de nuit.jpg - not featured edit

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Willtron
Support --Willtron 10:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Extremely noist at full resolution. Also, those hanging lights ruin the composition. Alvesgaspar 11:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The day that the sun stopped shining ;-) Lycaon 12:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 1 support, 2 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 7th day) Alvesgaspar 09:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Grunwald bitwa.jpg - not featured edit

Info Battle of Grunwald by Jan Matejko Raphael17 18:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please read carefully the guidelines before submiting a picture. This is a nice painting but way too small to FP standards. Alvesgaspar 19:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Too small. Lestat 22:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 0 support, 1 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 7th day) Alvesgaspar 21:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Sevanavank Xachqar-Astvatsatsin.jpg - not featured edit

Info created, uploaded and nominated by FHen --FHen 09:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --FHen 09:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lestat 11:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful. Arjun 00:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Tilted, and rather uninspiring composition. (signing later - sorry: --MichaelMaggs 20:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Comment Turned --FHen 17:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice, but doesn't live up to the other featured-pictures. --atoma 17:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In what way, just because it is not as nice as some featured pictures doesn't mean that this shouldn't be one. The image clearly meets the requirements. Arjun 18:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In the way stated by Alvesgaspar below & MichaelMaggs above. -- atoma 17:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good quality picture but lacks the "wow factor". Agree with MichaelMaggs on the uninspiring composition. Might be better without this foreground. Alvesgaspar 15:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 3 support, 3 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 10:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:The Lion Monument in Luzern 23.12.2006.jpeg - not featured edit

Info created by Ygrek - uploaded by Ygrek - * Self-nomination --Ygrek 22:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose bad cropping norro 11:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Flat lighting, and poor crop. --MichaelMaggs 16:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I personally like this image. If you notice how clear the image is at full zoom, but the crop is a little tight. But try COM:QIC next time as it is a very nice image. Arjun 18:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Agree with Arjun on the quality of the image, but the composition is not good. Alvesgaspar 15:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as said by norro-LadyofHats 19:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Hard to get another try? -Susanlesch 17:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 2 support, 1 neutral, 3 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 00:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Cerro Nutibara-Navidad 2006-Medellin(2).JPG - not featured edit

Info created and uploaded by SajoR, nominated by Aliman5040 15:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Aliman5040 15:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurry norro 23:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lestat 23:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose same as above, the image is blurry-LadyofHats 13:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose agree with norro --AngMoKio 14:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 1 support, 4 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 7th day) Alvesgaspar 17:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Alumbrados del Rio 2006-Medellin(11).JPG - not featured edit

Info created and uploaded by SajoR, nominated by Aliman5040 15:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Aliman5040 15:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose composition norro 11:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the composition looks quite random to me --AngMoKio 14:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 1 support, 2 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 7th day) Alvesgaspar 17:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Duck in Malbork.JPG - not featured edit

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Lestat --Lestat 23:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lestat 23:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose no id Lycaon 23:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC) Lycaon 18:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ID added. Lestat 12:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose shadows, dull. Dunc|☺ 12:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Very nice picture. Pity that the lighting is not the best. - Alvesgaspar 23:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - identity is Anas platyrhynchos - MPF 16:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 1 support, 1 neutral, 1 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 7th day) Alvesgaspar 00:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:New-York-Jan2005.jpg - not featured edit

Info created by Bernd Untiedt - uploaded by Bernd Untiedt - nominated by Arad --Arad 05:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Arad 05:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose avarage photograph with boring and overexposed horizon norro 11:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hi-tacks 13:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not special.--SvonHalenbach 16:53, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not special. A pity the lighting was so unhelpful while the photographer was there. --MichaelMaggs 16:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing special, the lighting doesn't help either. Arjun 18:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Andrejj 08:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 3 support, 4 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 11:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Houston Giant Eland.jpg - not featured edit

Info created, uploaded, and nominated by IG-64. This is my first nomination, so I don't know if this picture is good enough to be a featured picture or not. It was kind of just an impulse shot at the zoo. I think it turned out pretty good. --IG-64 08:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IG-64 08:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Poor framing: the whole animal should be visible. Alvesgaspar 08:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose obvious zoo pic, bad composition Lycaon 10:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - ditto to Lycaon - MPF 16:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 1 support, 3 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 7th day) Alvesgaspar 09:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Titan-PIA01942-Cassini.jpg - not featured edit

Info created by NASA/JPL - uploaded, nominated by Susanlesch.
Support. The photo and PIA01943 took 20 years and a long journey to make; there may be others in the commons that are better, I don't know. Thank you. --Susanlesch 09:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC) minor edits :55[reply]
Oppose not special (as a picture, the topic is great but encyclopedic value is not a priority on commons.) -- Lycaon 10:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. --Susanlesch 10:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Info. NASA announced Cassini-Huygen's finding Titan's methane lakes on 4 January. Maybe an expert will know if that finding came from this precise set of photos from October. In any case, there they are, 2 billion miles later. -Susanlesch 17:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC). correction at :38[reply]
Info. A colored version from July is in Wikipedia and NASA/JPL. I thought I saw it in the commons but cannot find it now so here is a copy in case you prefer color, Lycaon and others.
Info. Nominated colored photo from July just now. -Susanlesch 19:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 1 support, 1 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 7th day) Alvesgaspar 09:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:PortoCovoJan07-2.jpg - not featured edit

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Joaquim Alves Gaspar --Alvesgaspar 10:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alvesgaspar 10:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like the pure composition, but the cut smokestack, the cut tree and shadow are disturbing. Nice picture though norro 11:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Info This picture is the composition and the shadow of the tree is a fundamental part of it. To see the whole house please check the alternative version in the pic file - Alvesgaspar 11:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I like the subject, the colours and the arrangment of the elements, but i would prefer a oblong format. Simonizer 14:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 1 support, 1 neutral, 1 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 7th day) Alvesgaspar 09:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Grande Arche de La Défense et fontaine.jpg - featured edit

Info created by Andy - uploaded by Andy - nominated by Andy -- 16:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Andy Ok so from the template you're supposed to support yourself... guess I am. 16:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral very interesting and good made. I will support when the resolution is at least 2 MP. --SvonHalenbach 11:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Info Thank you, and here you go: I just uploaded the full-size 6MP version. It's developped from camera RAW and I set the JPEG compression to 95% (I could see no visible artefacts compared to the RAW version). (Exp 0.6s, F8, ISO200, f=52mm in 35mm equiv). --Andy 11:38, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support norro 12:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very cool & illustrative. --Diligent 13:52, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice. Arjun 14:21, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support / tsca @ 14:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MichaelMaggs 16:52, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --SvonHalenbach 17:35, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Neuceu 13:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nothing special -- Lycaon 00:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice picture indeed. "Nothing special", bah! — Pixel8 00:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support different light colours and high resolution make this poic special. --Ikiwaner 19:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - don't care for it. Also need to check in case the light effects in the fountains are a copyrighted work of art (like night pics of Eiffel Tower). - MPF 23:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The lighting used here cannot be copyrighted, as in the case of Eiffel tower. Because the lightnings are very simple, and they do not have a special plan. --Arad 01:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Andrejj 08:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice Cary "Bastiq▼e" Bass ^demandez 00:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 12 support, 1 neutral, 2 oppose >> featured Alvesgaspar 16:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:DTM car mercedes2006 front wheel.jpg - not featured edit

Info This is a view on a front wheel of a DTM racing-car - created, uploaded, nominated by AngMoKio --AngMoKio 20:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --AngMoKio 20:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because of random and confusing background.

Thanks for your comment...at least someone gives comments :-) ..well in the background there is another racing car which, i think, fits quite well.--AngMoKio 19:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose i find the composition a bit flat. is there anything that makes "that" wheel interesting? -LadyofHats 04:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yeah...maybe you are right. There is nothing special abt especially that wheel. I somehow like the composition...and i also like racing cars :) But i guess for people not interested in cars it is quite boring. I think i have to live with that fact :) --AngMoKio 20:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 1 support, 2 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 7th day) Alvesgaspar 21:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Bananas.jpg - not featured edit

Info created & uploaded by SteveHopson - nominated by SvonHalenbach
Support --SvonHalenbach 23:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose cluttered composition, slightly noisy, DOS issues, lacks focus. --Dschwen 23:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The parts that shoud be black are kind of blue, too much noise. --Jeses 00:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose i find the color too saturated, could it be? also the composition is rather caothic -LadyofHats 04:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 1 support, 3 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 7th day) Alvesgaspar 23:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Sea shells, playa grande, costa rica.jpg - not featured edit

Info created by Donar Reiskoffer - uploaded by Donar Reiskoffer - nominated by Donar Reiskoffer --Donarreiskoffer 13:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Donarreiskoffer 13:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose i really like such kind of pictures. But sth in the composition is not ok for me...maybe the angle is too wide. I am not really sure --AngMoKio 19:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Random composition, lacks some "central" element to draw the attention or, as an alternative, some "pattern" in the distribution of the shells. - Alvesgaspar 00:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - ditto to Alvesgaspar - MPF 17:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as said above. rather flat composition-LadyofHats 04:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 1 support, 4 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 7th day) Alvesgaspar 14:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Titan-PIA09102-Cassini.jpg - not featured edit

Info created by NASA/JPL Cassini-Huygens. This image is in Wikipedia (and up for Featured Picture maybe). A copy could not be found in commons. re(?)uploaded and nominated by Susanlesch. See also black and white from October, also nominated. --Susanlesch 19:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Susanlesch 19:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose kind of difficult. It looks like a cutting-edge avant-garde carpet in a dark corridor more than a planet lake mapping. --Diligent 19:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nice, but I don't see why it has to be featured, it's probably quite valuable for wikipedia but that's about it. -- Gorgo 20:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose agree with Gorgo --AngMoKio 19:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 1 support, 3 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 7th day) Alvesgaspar 23:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obradoiro, Main facade of Santiago da Compostela - not featured edit

Info created by Yearofthedragon - uploaded by Yearofthedragon - nominated by Diligent --Diligent 19:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Diligent 19:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the building is shifted to the right, shadows near the stairs make them look bad, the light on the right looks like a moon at first (which I would find nice), but it's only a lamp --Nux (talk··dyskusja) 23:03, 9 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Oppose ditto to Nux - MPF 17:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose agree with Nux--AngMoKio 19:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose agree with Nux (Copy/paste) :) -- Min's 15:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agreed with Nux --Thisisbossi 18:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 1 support, 5 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 7th day) Alvesgaspar 23:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prometheus bound by Nicolas-Sébastien Adam edit

original version (left) - not featured edit

Info created by Marie-Lan Nguyen - uploaded by Marie-Lan Nguyen - nominated by Remi Diligent -- 16:30, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Diligent 16:30, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lestat 11:36, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice shot, and a beautiful sculpture. Arjun 14:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Jacopo86 15:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You could get some extra-contrast to your image by playing with the levels. I've done a Auto-levels in Photoshop and it adds more depth and a tri-dimensional feeling --Andy 08:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Feel free to upload the result of your work and add it to this Featured picture voting. Diligent
  - Here it is (3rd version) --Andy 12:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Neuceu 13:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support beautiful light for this stunning sculpture Metoc 16:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral for now. This is am impressive sculpture and a beatiful picture. But I agree with Andy, it should benefit from a little more contrast, specially between the subject and the background, without sacrificing the rich palette of grays. Some downsampling might help. Alvesgaspar 17:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because it is too unsharp for a not moving object and too grainy to be special. The color of the light is mixed between a warm glow of a bulb and daylight or flash. This Picture has to be redone to get my support vote. --SvonHalenbach 16:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ack SvonHalenbach — Lycaon 23:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

5 support, 1 neutral, 3 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 18:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

edited version (right) - not featured edit

Info and Support Here is a slightly edited version, which IMO improves on the beauty of the photo and emphsizes the dramatism of the sculpture. Alvesgaspar 01:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Diligent 08:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Colours looks quite nice here, but you need to readd the EXIF info from the oryginal picture. (you may change my vote to {Support} after that) --Nux (talk··dyskusja) 12:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 2 support, 1 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 08:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

edited version (3rd to the right) - not featured edit

Info and Support Here is another edit. Alvesgaspar, you were faster than me! I've done this yesterday but didn't have time to upload it. Levels were processed (auto-levels), and IMO it feels more tri dimensional. -- Andy 12:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I am too amateur to judge whose version is the best ;) but i think the picture should be featured. So I add my support to your version too and leave it to the others to decide which has the best "levels" --Diligent 15:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think there was too much red added in this one --Nux (talk··dyskusja) 12:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

  2 support, 1 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 08:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Sitta-carolinensis-001.jpg - featured edit

Info created by mdf - uploaded by mdf - nominated by MichaelMaggs --MichaelMaggs 13:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MichaelMaggs 13:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support DOF is slightly too small, but it's a really cool shot though norro 14:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Nice, but not special. [[::Image:Streichholz.jpg|This]] one is one special photo for example. --Andy 17:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Sheesh, whats up with that match pic? That is easily reshot, but try getting such a clear and sharp picture of a bird (and not just any bird). --Dschwen 13:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Quite cool, and identified properly. Stephen.job 19:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. For the excellent composition and quality and although the framing seems too tight. Alvesgaspar 15:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support strongly support. -LadyofHats 19:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support thight but not too thight. Excellent composition! --Ikiwaner 19:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - MPF 23:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - Very nice image, but it annoys me too much that the bird is upside down. /Daniel78 23:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That point has been discussed during the pics en.FP nomination. Apparently it is a typical behaviour of this particular species. --

Dschwen 10:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - Support Ok, yes I see that is true. When it is the typical behavior of the bird it is of course much more ok. I support :) /Daniel78 16:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Diligent 09:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --AngMoKio 14:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Vmenkov 22:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Although the composition of the inverted bird bothers me a bit. Still a good photo. --Mehran Moghtadai 02:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jnpet 11:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 14 support, 2 neutral, 0 oppose >> featured Alvesgaspar 14:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Catoptrophorus-semipalmatus-001.jpg - featured edit

Info created by Mdf - uploaded by Factumquintus - nominated by Pharaoh Hound --Pharaoh Hound 13:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pharaoh Hound 13:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral technically very good (perfect DOF), but not very special norro 14:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support definitely Arjun 15:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Defiantly or definitely? --MichaelMaggs 15:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, thank you. Arjun 18:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support --MichaelMaggs 15:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Awesome DOF. Seriously good work. Nice that it's id'd too. Stephen.job 17:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Nice, but not special. Long zoom, patience and you can get it. [[::Image:Streichholz.jpg|This]] on the other hands is special, the kind of photo you don't see every day. ~~Also, user MDF has already done tons of photos of nice birds.~~ I wouldn't like to oppose as I like the photo, so I'm gonna give a neutral. --Atoma 17:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This photo is by user MDF. Stephen.job 19:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Info Euh, ok... I retract that phrase. But the argument still stands. --Atoma 08:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support Lycaon 00:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Simonizer 08:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support wow. This looks like it is made by a professional photographer. ;-) --SvonHalenbach 19:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - MPF 23:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support--AngMoKio 14:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support--LadyofHats 04:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jnpet 11:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

11 support, 2 neutral, 0 oppose >> featured Alvesgaspar 14:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Kyrgyzstan - Alatau mountains.jpg

Image:Ethic Dong Liping Guizhou China.jpg - not featured edit

Info The image was created by JialiangGao, uploaded by JialiangGao and nominated by Wars 19:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wars 19:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose low resolution and composition not too good norro 23:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The composition looks a little random to me. Also the lighting is not right. - Alvesgaspar 00:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Overexposed! -- Simonizer 08:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is worth reading the guideleines, above, before nominating. In particular: "At least 2 million pixels (e.g. 2000 x 1000) seems reasonable right now. Images of lower resolution are typically rejected unless there are strong mitigating reasons". --MichaelMaggs 18:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose low res; man at right cut - MPF 16:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 1 support, 4 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 7th day) Alvesgaspar 00:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Alamosaurus sanjuanensis dinosaur.png - not featured edit

Info created, uploaded and nominated by LadyofHats 19:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral --LadyofHats 19:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I can't judge if the illustration is biologically correct, but if so the illustration is very good. ~~The small black spots (bottom left and bottom center) should be removed though~~ norro 22:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Done-LadyofHats 00:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rama 12:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice illustration, but IMO not good enough to reach FP standards. Should be bigger and more detailed. The palette of colours also seems a bit dull. Alvesgaspar 14:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - nice, but . . . "a speculative representation on how the Alamosaurus could have been. there is no complete skeleton found yet" - this contravenes the 'no original research' rule in wikipedia - MPF 22:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, but this illustration can also be used by other wikimedia projects which don't have this rule. norro 12:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- only violates en.NOR policy if the image author doesnt have a reference or source for the drawing. Gnangarra 13:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- as sources for the drawing i used this images: [1],[2],[3],[4],[5]and[6]. The image was also long discused in the image review section of the WikiProject Dinosaurs. on wikipedia. It is true that there is a great part of speculation in the details from the dinosaur, as there is in every single dinosaur image you will find. but everything i aply to this dinosaur was either deduced by the actual fosil, or deduced by the direct relative fosils found. -LadyofHats 16:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - nice picture, but there are some shadows in the middle of a neck and a part of a tail that make them look like they are not round (looks too much like a sharp edge to me). --Nux (talk··dyskusja) 12:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jnpet 11:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 4 support, 2 neutral, 1 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 19:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Wild shortbeak echidna - featured edit

Info created and uploaded by Fir0002 - nominated by Lycaon 21:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lycaon 21:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support norro 22:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MichaelMaggs 22:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --SvonHalenbach 17:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support even when a wider cop would be preferred --Ikiwaner 19:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - MPF 22:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - ShaneAu 04:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support -Susanlesch 17:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support -LadyofHats 04:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jnpet 11:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alex Bakharev 08:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 11 support, 0 oppose >> featured Alvesgaspar 21:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Plane landing over Potomac.png - not featured edit

Info created by ??? - uploaded by Dpeinador - nominated by SvonHalenbach 16:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --SvonHalenbach 16:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment File info doesn't seem to be complete Lycaon 17:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Question Incomplete in what way ? It seems complete to me. -- Andy 17:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Info It's missing Description, Source, Date, Author and Permission. --MichaelMaggs 20:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Awesome. That's why I love photography, you can capture things that you would never be able to see with your own eyes. -- Andy 17:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Neutral Cool and awesome picture but information missing. When complete i'll support!. --Jacopo86 20:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Information on the picture (author, date, etc.) is essential. How was it made? It seems that various shots were taken in sequence. Alvesgaspar 11:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am not the author of that picture, so i have no informations to the deskription. As i see it, the uploader is not familiar with uploading pictures correctly. He just uploaded and has chosen the dropdown for licensing. He didn't write a text, so you can ignore this nomination. To me it looks like a simple longtime exposure. Maybe 10 seconds with a wide angle lens. (Ten seconds because of the blue flashing position lights.) --SvonHalenbach 15:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose seems quite boring to me, just an average long time exposure. I also tagged it as no source, if the license is cc-by-sa an author absolutely has to be given. There is also no exif-info attached to the image so it's questionable if the uploader really took it himself. -- Gorgo 21:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 2 support, 1 neutral, 1 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 19:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:ISAF Team Racing World Championship 2005 (AUS 2).jpg not featured edit

Info created by cathy giacomini - uploaded by Bryanmcdonald - nominated by TC
Support --TC 14:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I don't really like the background, but apart from this the photograph is very good. norro 15:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

* Oppose Serious JPEG artefacts at high resolution. The original image is much better: Image:ISAF Team Racing World Championship 2005 (AUS 2).jpg --MichaelMaggs 21:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral it is not a bad picture..nice captured action. I have to agree with Norro...the background could be better. I can't see any JPEG artefacts...what I can see is noise. I think the new version is better. --AngMoKio 11:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, it seems to be encoded as a progressive JPEG file, so you see lots of artefacts on the first pass which are then cleaned up on the second. When I viewed the image yesterday, the computer got stuck on the first pass for some reason. No idea why, but I've stricken the above comment. --MichaelMaggs 17:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral I can better see this photo as a Quality Image candidate than a FP candidate. --atoma 21:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  1 support, 3 neutral >> not featured (rule of the 7th day) Alvesgaspar 19:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Naghshe Jahan Square Isfahan.jpg edit

original version (left) - not featured edit

Info created by Arad - uploaded by Arad - nominated by Arad (selfnom) --Arad 05:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think it's one of the best images we have on this subject. Thanks in advance for your votes. --Arad 05:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Great subject. However images such as this rely on good symmetry. The top archway 'framing' is far from centred relative to the central distant building. There is also a slight tilt and the people are distracting. Snowwayout 06:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know this. But I also think it's impossible to move the whole monument in order to make in centred. --Arad 08:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose not centered --Jacopo86 11:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose composition Lestat 11:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The composition really suffers because of the lack of symmetry. --MichaelMaggs 16:40, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose what's the subject? Metoc 20:26, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose yeah the symmetry is very bad, and really detracts from this fine image. Arjun 18:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CommentDoes it help if I crop it? Or it's going to be worst? I'll be thankful if you give me some ideas. --66.36.154.65 21:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The best thing to do is to shoot it again. The problem is the axes of symmetry of the foreground (the arch) and background (the alley in the garden) do not coincide. Alvesgaspar 12:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yeah maybe. If this year I go to Isfahan, I'll shoot it again but lots of things must have changed since this image is pretty old. --Arad 20:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- MartinD 13:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It would probably be better if photographed without the top archway (unless it could be composed differently) and I think this one is blurred too much. --Nux (talk··dyskusja) 04:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 2 support, 7 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 11:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edited version (right) - not featured edit

Info I took another shot. :) -- AM 16:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Diligent 09:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- How the F*** Did u do that? I'm going to sue you. ;-). But you forgot to give credit to me! Good job. -- Arad 19:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Aren't you going to support your own creation? --Arad 19:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support For the interesting picture and the help of photoshop. -- AM 21:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Info - Moved the nomination up so people can vote for the edited version before time runs out. --Arad 01:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - MPF 17:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice picture but not special enough for FP. Composition is just fine, image is not sharp. Alvesgaspar 18:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ahh, I though you want more FPs. hehe. It's ok, you gave your opinion anyway. --Arad 01:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Good one Arad. --Mehran Moghtadai 02:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The picture is tilt. The streets are falling to the right. Simonizer 12:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, didn't see it before. Turned to the left by 0,5 degrees, no more tilt now. -- AM 13:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose 1. Photoshoped (not a real photograph, which is not stated in the description), 2. Trees and other objects in the right corner are not copied too good, 3. Blurred too much. --Nux (talk··dyskusja) 04:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed those trees, and stated that this is edited. But for the tilt, I think we have to do something again. --Arad 04:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Should be ok, at last. -- AM 10:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think that unless it is physically possible to make such shot this picture shouldn't be featured. --Nux (talk··dyskusja) 16:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- MartinD 4:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Support - nice shot with good resolution -- Marmoulak 05:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lycaon 10:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose norro 18:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great subject. Snowwayout 06:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 8 support, 5 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 16:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Anas-strepera-001.jpg - featured edit

Info created and uploaded by Mdf, nominated by Alvesgaspar. Another excellent bird picture by Mdf. The photographic quality is amazing.
Support --Alvesgaspar 09:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Couldn't be any better in my mind. Arjun 15:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MichaelMaggs 15:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Amazing ! Stephane8888 22:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - MPF 22:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support /Daniel78 22:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lestat 23:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support 663highland 11:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --SvonHalenbach 13:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support -Susanlesch 17:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I saw this a few days ago. Now I support Because i don't log in much. --Mehran Moghtadai 02:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support -LadyofHats 04:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alex Bakharev 08:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jnpet 16:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 14 support, 0 oppose >> featured Alvesgaspar 14:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Cheylade eglise.jpg - not featured edit

Info created by fr:Utilisateur:Accrochoc - uploaded by Fabien1309 - nominated by Romary
Support Simply because I like. Romary 09:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A nice record shot, but doesn't have the wow! factor I'm looking for in a FP. It could well qualify as a Quality Image though. --MichaelMaggs 10:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral have to agree with MichaelMaggs...the crop is also a bit too tight for me. Still a good photo --AngMoKio 12:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Technically a good picture, but nothing special --Digon3 17:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 1 support, 1 neutral, 1 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 7th day) Alvesgaspar 14:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Animation polariseur.gif - not featured edit

Info created by Rogilbert - uploaded by Rogilbert - nominated by SvH --SvonHalenbach 13:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nice idea but low quality. --Jacopo86 14:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice idea but low quality. Could be better with some background seen through the filter --Alvesgaspar 20:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ok, the background is a flatscreen monitor, because a flatscreen monitor works with polarised light in one direction. I agree that the quality of that animation is not good. maybe i will do such an animation myself. Thank you for your comments. --SvonHalenbach 21:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Very instructive animation. It's a good image for FP by its instructive character, but I admit some more work could be put into the realisation. I'll entirely support a better version. --Andy 22:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 0 support, 2 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 7th day) Alvesgaspar 14:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Human skull side suturas.svg - featured edit

Info created and nominated by LadyofHats --LadyofHats 01:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LadyofHats 01:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Diligent 09:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Like in the image above, poor choice of label positions, which ruins unnecessarily a fine skull illustration. Why put all the labels on the same side? Alvesgaspar 12:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- what about so?-LadyofHats 14:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lerdsuwa 13:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ nitpicking: I'm missing the sutura zygomaticomaxillaris and the sutura frontolacrimalis. (support is closeby) -- Lycaon 19:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- added all the missing ones, thanks for the source :) made things far more easy. Oh yeah i also pointed the lines so that they do not anoy so much-LadyofHats 21:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jnpet 11:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lycaon 01:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 5 support, 1 oppose >> featured Alvesgaspar 01:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:1990-issue US Penny obverse 2.jpg - not featured edit

Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Dschwen. Please check the full size version. I nominate it for the documentary character, showing various signs of use-wear on a circulation coin. The picture was created using a linear-macro-panorama technique, stitched together from 16 individual pictures. One pixel corresponds to 10x10 microns. --Dschwen 12:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Dschwen 12:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice technike how you made that picture. You can see every detail of that coin, but i find this coin not special enough to be FP. If you have a more interesting and maybe historical valuable coin that would be a suiteable candidate for FP nomination. Sorry! --SvonHalenbach 20:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with SvonHalenbach, and the coin is tilted Tbc 20:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lestat 22:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ~~Tilted~~ and not dusted. -- AM 23:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Somehow the thumb looked like... But now I looked at the photo in photoshop: NO TILT. -- AM 11:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Could you elaborate in the tilt, I don't see it. --Dschwen 09:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, there is none. Must have been a little optical illusion then... or I was tired... Tbc 15:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support i also don't see a tilt. I think it is a great work --AngMoKio 14:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose congrats to this technically surprising picture. I see no tilt too but there is too much dust on the coin that could have easily be blown away. --Ikiwaner 15:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose-you didnt chose the best coin of all do you? i do not mind for the tilt but i would wonder if there was a cleaner coin. after all it is only from 1990-LadyofHats 21:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the coin was not chosen for cleanliness etc., the whole point was to get a picture of an average worn circulation coin, as a cointerpoint to all the perfect shiny photoshopped collectible proof coins from the US mint website. The coin is straight from my change purse (yep I had a US cent in there), the dust is apparently purse-lint. --Dschwen 21:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support, I like it, despite the lint and the fake (?) shadow. Lycaon 22:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The shasow and the bg are indeed painted over. The fake shadow follows the outlines of the original shadow, but the original bg showed lots of paper pulp and fiber detail and was too distracting. --Dschwen 08:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support for same reasons as stated above for the euro-cent. --Diligent 16:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree with Diligent, although I also dislike the shadow (if fake or not) norro 17:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jnpet 06:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ 69.163.136.43 06:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC) No anonymous votes, please - Alvesgaspar 18:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 6 support, 6 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 12:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Human skull side details.svg edit

Original version (left) - not featured edit

Info created, uploaded and nominated by LadyofHats --LadyofHats 01:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LadyofHats 01:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Diligent 09:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Poor choice of label positions, which ruins unnecessarily a fine skull illustration. Alvesgaspar 12:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wsiegmund 01:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 3 support, 1 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 01:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edited version (right) - not featured edit

- done-LadyofHats 15:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not what I meant. The line segments should affect the illustration as little as possible. Why put them all on the same side of the skull? The same with the other figure. Alvesgaspar 11:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - in this way the labels use half of the image(the whole image) and the skull the other half. if i place them on both sides of the image the skull will use only 1/3 from the image wide, if i also place them above and below the skull then the image size would relatively be even smaller. in my first image there were already people complaining that the diagram should be able to be readed in thumbnail size, wich normally is arround 200px ( that is why i use text so big this time). if i would apart from that force lines to be "only" straight and 45° as you sugested, then the skull ( in my opinion the central part of the image) would be no more than a dirty spot in the middle. the reason why i place the labels all on one side of the skull is because i find it aesthetical and practical. I agreed with you that the first option with the lines crossing the front part of the skull was not good and i changed that but this time i would ask you to reconsider your request, since i find your argument not convincing. -LadyofHats 13:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lerdsuwa 13:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ inconsistent labeling: e.g. proc vs proc. vs Processus -- Lycaon 15:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- fixed (on the right version)--LadyofHats 22:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oppose sorry, still opposing for naming arbitrarily chosen features at different levels of detail. (e.g. you mention the basis mandibulae but not the ramus mandibulae, you mention the foramen mentale but you ommit the foramen zygomaticofacialis, etc.) -- Lycaon 19:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - ok took out foramen and added all the other names on the source you gave me. also pointed lines as in the others-LadyofHats 22:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jnpet 06:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support it's a tough life, being a graphics artist ;-)) Lycaon 22:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Better now although I would prefer another legend solution. Alvesgaspar 23:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose cluttered. Stephen.job 23:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 4 support, 1 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 01:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Human skull side bones.svg- featured edit

Info created , uploaded and nominated by LadyofHats --LadyofHats 01:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LadyofHats 01:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Diligent 09:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lerdsuwa 13:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jnpet 06:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please lign up labels and fix capitalized word "Frontale" Alvesgaspar 11:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- done-LadyofHats 13:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment naming is still inconsistent: e.g. why naming only part of the os occipitale and the others complete (similar with mandibula)? Lycaon 18:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- corrected all names, and moved labels to the right so it is consistent to the other skull pics-LadyofHats 20:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lycaon 21:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Andrejj 08:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --SvonHalenbach 13:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 7 support, 0 oppose >> featured Alvesgaspar 01:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Mantis religiosa eating.jpg - not featured edit

Info created by Alf1 - uploaded by Alf1 - nominated by --SvonHalenbach 21:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --SvonHalenbach 21:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very nice in thumb size, terrible quality in full resolution. - Alvesgaspar 00:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 1 support, 1 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 7th day) >> Alvesgaspar 21:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:B baxteri 01 gnangarra.jpg - not featured edit

Info created, uploaded, & nominated by --Gnangarra 12:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Gnangarra 12:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose composition seems random to me. The object is not clearly seperated from the background and the lighting is not optimal. norro 09:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 1 support, 1 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 7th day) Alvesgaspar 12:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Bahai Gardens.JPG - not featured edit

Info created by User:Uria a - uploaded by User:Uria a - nominated by User:Uria a --Uria a 17:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose You can see if you look at a histogram that much of the white is off the scale - blown highlights. --MichaelMaggs 17:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose it's a nice picture, but it has nothing special... Alessio Damato 22:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - nice pic, but not quite FP-worthy. An interesting object lesson in water wastage in a near-desert climate. Comment: pic needs indexing and/or categorising. - MPF 16:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 0 support, 1 neutral, 2 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 7th day) Alvesgaspar 22:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Hypselodoris bullocki.JPG - featured edit

Info Image of Nudibranch, Hypselodoris bullocki. Taken off Sipadan, Borneo, Malaysia. Created, uploaded & nominated by Jnpet --Jnpet 06:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jnpet 06:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose focus not sufficient.-- Lycaon 09:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Andrejj 08:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support because it is so weird! - MPF 17:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Really nice, but I agree on the focus issue. It seem to be on the live rock instead of the nudibranch. /Daniel78 21:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support because it is so weird! --Diligent 00:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - nudibranches are just way cool! --Huntingphoenix 23:14, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support -LadyofHats 04:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 6 support, 2 oppose >> featured Alvesgaspar 10:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Anas-americana-004.jpg - featured edit

Info created and uploaded by User:Mdf, nominated by --Ikiwaner 15:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support technically good and illustrative --Ikiwaner 15:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Superb. Nice composition, image quality and lighting. --Pharaoh Hound 23:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it. --Jeses 12:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --SvonHalenbach 13:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - MPF 17:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alvesgaspar 00:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jnpet 07:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support-LadyofHats 04:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 8 support, 0 oppose >> featured Alvesgaspar 15:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Elbe weser mündung.jpg - not featured edit

Info created by some old dudes. - uploaded by Martas011 - nominated by SvH --SvonHalenbach 18:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --SvonHalenbach 18:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Legends are cut, image is quite noisy in full resolution. A pitty, this seems an interesting historical chart. - Alvesgaspar 21:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - ditto to Alvesgaspar on cut edges - MPF 21:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 1 support, 2 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 7th day) Alvesgaspar 21:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Sparkler.JPG - featured edit

Info created by Nzgabriel - uploaded by Nzgabriel - nominated by Nzgabriel --Nzgabriel 04:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Nzgabriel 04:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support very nice picture --Donarreiskoffer 07:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose composition Lycaon 10:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Andy 12:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --SvonHalenbach 13:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Would like the sparks to be less cut, but it's very good anyway norro 13:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support same as norro. --Diligent 16:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - cut - MPF 17:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I actually like the tight frame of this image, it makes me feel closer to the heat and thus makes the image more alive. /Daniel78 21:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment i totally agree with Daniel78. --SvonHalenbach 13:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Nice --Jeses 22:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ack Lycaon Simonizer 10:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but I don't see it as relevant enough to be FP - Alvesgaspar 21:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I find it too yellow, as if auto-white balance was used, and the camera can't handle the low colour temperature. --MichaelMaggs 16:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Heh, what is it supposed to be relevant to? Support. Thunderhead 03:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice image, has been up for FA on wikipedia before Brian New Zealand 05:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JoshNZ Nice photo, great lighting
Support-LadyofHats 04:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support DragonFire1024 23:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mags 07:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Info I don't think votes from users Mags and JoshNZ are to be taken seriously. These are their ONLY contributions in Commons. The picture doens't really need, or deserve, this kind of atitude -Alvesgaspar 23:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentI have striked the votes even though they were from my sister and friend respectively. Nzgabriel 08:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice picture. Bawolff 23:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This voting is not neutral because of this 84.197.150.84 00:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC) Anonymous link adjusted. Is this the new way in Commons? Lycaon 09:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Ceridwen 17:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

* Oppose - Not FP. --66.36.135.19 23:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - My Bad, i thought i was logged in. Not FP. --Arad 02:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Anons cannot vote. 203.97.52.151 00:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 14 support, 6 oppose >> featured Alvesgaspar 08:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Lighting Tower of Hiroshima Municipal Baseball Stadium.jpg - not featured edit

Info created by Chax2 - uploaded by Chax2 - nominated by Chax2 --Chax2 03:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice resolution, yet the subject is not completely clear if the title has not been read. In an FP, the subject must be immediately recognisable. In addition, the trees in the upper left corner are distracting. Good effort, just not yet FP standard. Freedom to share 17:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lestat 17:30, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 0 support, 2 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 7th day) Alvesgaspar 08:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Pigeon-close-up-on-head.jpg- not featured edit

Info created by DemonTraitor - uploaded by DemonTraitor - nominated by DemonTraitor --DemonTraitor 18:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --DemonTraitor 18:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would try to edit that blue thing out (just below the beak of the bird) and replace the image - Alvesgaspar 23:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question what 'blue thing'? If you mean the pale grey, that's part of the bird's back - MPF 14:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I mean the irregular bluish band at left, starting near the animal's beak. I don't think that is part of the pigeon. - Alvesgaspar 14:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Info I guess the blue band is the pigeon, it looks as if it was 'facing' the camera -- the blueish tint could be caused by the fact that the left side is in the shadow. Perspective is sometimes tricky. &&

Comment I'd support if it were another animal, but pigeons..I see them every day, they're kinda common. (Although there are featured flyes and mosquito's on Commons... only that they're huge close-ups with enormous detail - see here and here). Nice photo, though. --Atoma 19:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 1 support, 0 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 7th day) Alvesgaspar 20:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Mute swan landing.jpg -not featured edit

Info created by DemonTraitor - uploaded by DemonTraitor - nominated by DemonTraitor --DemonTraitor 19:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --DemonTraitor 19:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Excellent catch but bad lighting and poor image quality - Alvesgaspar 08:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeAlvesgaspar is right. --MichaelMaggs 19:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 1 support, 2 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 7th day) Alvesgaspar 20:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:2002-issue Euro cent obverse.jpg - featured edit

Info Self-nom. On the off-chance of boring the living crap out of you I post yet another coin. Despite the calls for super-rare and precious coins, I post a euro cent. Seems sensible to me to cover the more common cases first. Anyways, this one is dusted, tilt-free, and has a genuine shadow. Oh yeah, why do I bother posting it? Reasonable resolution and detail, plus apparently there is a shortage of FPC nominations (and promotions :-) ) currently. --Dschwen 15:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dschwen 15:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I totally support this image, its quality, its humility, its value. Compared to the other euro-cent pictures which we have, shiny and new, this one is a real euro-cent. PS: I will also support a real one euro coin ;-) --Diligent 16:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree with Diligent norro 17:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support agree with Diligent --AngMoKio 19:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as i said before, i don't find simple coins interesting enough to be promoted as FP (no matter how hi-res it is). High resolution makes a boring picture not better and now i am beginning to dislike selfnomination. --SvonHalenbach 20:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with Svon. There should be something more special and valuable about a featured coin image. /Daniel78 21:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Should be difficult to get much better than this. Alvesgaspar 00:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose QI, nice idea, but still just a plain coin --Nux (talk··dyskusja) 23:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Support Out of curiosity, I surfed around coins and currencies of the world in English Wiki and I must say it could use some nicer images. Perhaps Dschwen could be persuaded to continue with more coins from around the world? I'd be happy to donate some coins from countries I frequent. Jnpet 06:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Just a plain coin - but an item that is handled a million times a day. -- AM 15:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support An excellent picture that would be hard to better from a technical point of view. Remember that FPs don't have to be beautiful. We could do with more like this. --MichaelMaggs 16:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support One day this will be a part of the history books. --Atoma 17:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't have much against self-nominations, but I otherwise agree with Svon in that it's just a typical coin. --Thisisbossi 18:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment with all due respect, most of FP are about selecting the typical example, the typical gull, the typical wolf, the typical coffee beans, the typical tomatoe, the typical fire, etc. And a coin, used daily by 300 millions people is not less valuable than, say, a phyllodoce lineata to be featured. --Diligent 16:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ It is a useful image but why haven't you used a "clean" coin? however it's a little boring, but for a coin I think it's normal. --MattiaLuigiNappi 20:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
- Please log in to vote. --Dschwen 20:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lycaon 10:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Zdecydowany sprzeciw!!! Kto wybrał tak brudną i zniszczoną monetę na takie zdjęcie??? Powinno się wybraś stan menniczy. MARCIN N 19:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow, lots of exclamation marks and question marks. If anybody can translate, I'd appreciate it. My polski is a little rusti :-). --Dschwen 11:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- He said: Strongly oppose!!! Who have choosen so dirty and worn-out coin for such picture??? On should choose a coin of mintical condition. (not sure about the last words - I don't know how do you call a coin in English that is in so good condtion that looks like it has just left the mint) --Nux (talk··dyskusja) 01:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Cool, thanks for the translation! --Dschwen 17:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 10 support, 5 oppose >> featured Alvesgaspar 16:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Mexico City Palacio de bellas artes.jpg - featured edit

Info created by Jeses - uploaded by Jeses - nominated by Jeses Palacio de Bellas Artes (en: Palace of fine arts) is a theater and museum in Mexico City. This picture was taken from top of nearby Torre Lationamericana. --Jeses 21:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support Probably the best picture i've ever taken. --Jeses 21:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support And I think you should be proud of it, this is an awesome view. Alvesgaspar 00:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support waow - i love birdviews. --Diligent 19:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support it looks like at last they cleaned the dome. great pic -LadyofHats 15:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice angle of view. -- AM 15:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - nice but could have been better if the camera was held to avoid that foreground blue awning on the building the pic was taken from - MPF 16:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don´t like the white stain in the lower left corner and that the subject is centered. -- Simonizer 08:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Doesn't seem bitingly sharp at high resolution; was it taken through glass? Also, agree about the blue awning and the stain at bottom left. Nothing that couldn't be fixed with a crop and an unsharp mask, though. Nice work.-- MichaelMaggs 16:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Lycaon 10:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support interessant point of view - Ceridwen 17:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 6 support, 1 neutral, 3 oppose >> featured Alvesgaspar 23:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Zireiner See Rofanspitze 2006 10.jpg - featured edit

Info created & uploaded by Karsten Dörre grizurgbg - nominated by --SvonHalenbach 22:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think that is an exceptional landscape. --SvonHalenbach 22:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --AngMoKio 23:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beatiful - Alvesgaspar 23:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice. --Dschwen 23:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support The reflection in the lake makes it special. --Jeses 00:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Very nice, but i would prefer a cropped version, where the right side is cropped about 20%. That makes the subject (the lake) a litte more off-centered, and the picture would profit from that in my opinion. -- Simonizer 09:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XN 14:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Diligent 19:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Don't like the composition. Too much reflection in the lake, the shores can hardly be identified. Mountain left too dark. -- AM 00:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - very nice. Dark green shrubs are Pinus mugo, slender conical trees at right are Picea abies, and shrub with red berries (far right) is Sorbus aucuparia. Comment The image needs to be indexed and categorised as relevant. - MPF 16:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ceridwen 17:53, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice --Digon3 23:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 10 support, 1 neutral, 1 oppose >> featured Alvesgaspar 23:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Pardalotus with nesting material.jpg - featured edit

Info Uploaded and nominated by Fir0002 (self nom)
Support --Fir0002 www 23:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dschwen 23:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support High quality picture. --SvonHalenbach 23:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Charming creature, excellent picture. Alvesgaspar 00:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jeses 00:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Simonizer 08:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Diligent 19:29, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Supportgreat shot...though i am not sure if someone played a bit too much with colors and contrast --AngMoKio 19:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - nice pic of the bird, but it would have been better if it was perched on a more natural perch (a twig or branch, rather than a painted railing) - MPF 16:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tbc 13:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MichaelMaggs 16:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support-LadyofHats 04:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jnpet 16:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 12 support, 1 neutral, 0 oppose >> featured Alvesgaspar 23:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Austrolestes cingulatus03.jpg - featured edit

Info Uploaded and nominated by Fir0002 (self nom)
Support --Fir0002 www 23:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This is getting nothing but support on the overly critical germal FPC by the way! --Dschwen 23:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fir0002 knows how to make good photos --SvonHalenbach 23:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great!! --Jeses 00:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alvesgaspar 00:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support and Comment but normally does the (commercial) licence on common have to authorize the trade not! Then why this?

If you are a (commercial) publisher and you want me to write you an email or paper mail giving you an authorization to use my works in your products or a license with the terms of your choice, please email me to negotiate terms. --Luc Viatour 06:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Simonizer 08:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice idea combinating the dragonfly and the cactus. --Diligent 19:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Looks more like a Carduoideae (Silybum?), and
Support --XN 14:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Jnpet 01:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - MPF 16:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MichaelMaggs 16:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support-LadyofHats 04:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 13 support, 0 oppose >> featured Alvesgaspar 23:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Euro Construction.svg - featured edit

Info created & uploaded by Erina - nominated by SvH
Support --SvonHalenbach 23:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support quite simple but good. Is it not trademarked? --Diligent 19:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Can see how this image could add interest to an article on the history of the Euro Jnpet 06:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Andy 09:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Luc Viatour 14:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ The dimensionings are in some parts incomplete, in some parts redundant and in many ways do not follow basic CAD dimensioning practises. --80.123.43.155 19:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please log in to vote. --SvonHalenbach 20:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The comment can still be valid, anyone at all can comment. Cross out the vote, but keep the comment. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 04:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral I like this drawing, but there is one point: The arrows to number the thickness of the circle are not orthogonal to it. Direction of this arrows has to be the center of the circle (resp. the center of the symbol). norro 23:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support-LadyofHats 04:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for the following reasons: (i) the segments used to indicate the thickness of "1" are not orthogonal to the circunferences (like norro said); (ii) what does the "3,5" in the centre of the symbol indicate? (iii) the meaning of the letters A, B, C... is uncertain (should be explained in the picture file). Might support if these issues are addressed - Alvesgaspar 12:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Alvesgaspar. --MichaelMaggs 07:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Alvesgaspar -- Lycaon 10:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 6 support, 1 neutral, 3 oppose >> featured Alvesgaspar 23:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:PortoCovoJan07-5.jpg edit

original version (left) - featured edit

Info Typical Portuguese house in the village of Porto Covo, west coast of Portugal. A different and less minimalist look of the same theme represented in the photo 9 nominations below. Created, uploaded and nominated by Joaquim Alves Gaspar. --Alvesgaspar 23:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alvesgaspar 23:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Out of my area but the original seems to be a good composition with more information. -Susanlesch 19:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I prefer this one. --Diligent 19:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support i also prefer this one. A nice view discovered and put into great picture by the photographer :) ...in my opinion the street and the curbstone could get cropped away - this would make the photo even better for me --AngMoKio 19:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it --Jeses 19:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support original (but not the edited; the door is a significant part of the pic). Trees are Robinia pseudoacacia. - MPF 16:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm impressed how the species was identified without seing the leaves. These (otherwise) beatiful trees are regularly subjected to awful operations of lopping. The resulting scars are visible in the photo. - Alvesgaspar 17:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lycaon 10:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 7 support, 0 oppose >> featured Alvesgaspar 23:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edited version (right) - not featured edit

Info I have made an edit of that allready good picture. But I think the picture profits alot more from this crop. -- Simonizer 13:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Simonizer 13:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jnpet 01:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Lycaon 10:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 2 support, 1 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 23:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Tamias-rufus-001.jpg - featured edit

Info I have no words to praise this picture. The creature is charming and the photographic quality is superb. I suppose it is already a FP on the English WP. Created and uploaded by Mdf, nominated by Alvesgaspar - Alvesgaspar 00:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alvesgaspar 00:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support yeah, real good, even if it is a bit low res. --SvonHalenbach 01:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Simonizer 12:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XN 14:29, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support really good --AngMoKio 19:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jnpet 06:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Andy 09:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support norro 10:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jeses 12:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Luc Viatour 14:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - MPF 16:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tbc 13:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent. This was taken with a BIG lens: 700mm! --MichaelMaggs 21:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support-LadyofHats 04:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lycaon 10:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 15 support, 0 oppose >> featured Alvesgaspar 23:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Hemispheric - Valencia, Spain - NYE Dec 2007.jpg - not featured edit

Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by SvH
Support This looks quite good to me. ;-) --SvonHalenbach 02:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I think I just liked this one best, besides this one is much smaller (less details are visible). --Nux (talk··dyskusja) 23:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Arad 04:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - don't care for it. - MPF 17:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I liked the reflection on water. - legendry 11:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MichaelMaggs 21:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support The image pointed by Nux (this one) of the closed building is more object centered and may ilustrate better the subject itself, but this open building image is more atractive and colourful. --Javierme 17:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose First: it is a beautiful picture and I like it, but I do not feel this one would make a good featured picture -- I much prefer the images above (the twilight one in particular). This image appears to be slightly at an angle than what it could be: it looks like it should be rotated a fraction of a degree counter-clockwise. Also, I understand your intention of capturing the lighting, but I feel that there is too much sky: the key subject of the building is subsequently reduced. Of course, by cropping, you'd lose the nifty effects of the lighting. Sort of a lose-lose as far as its framing goes. --Thisisbossi 18:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I support the version above, which has more impact than this one IMO (Image:Hemispheric Twilight - Valencia, Spain - Jan 2007.jpg). Moreover, I think there's already a featured photo on this subject. --Atoma 22:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Lycaon 10:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support good visual impact - Ceridwen 17:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- It does look as if it should be rotated slightly. Apart from that, I like it and don't think cropping would do it much good--IMHO it's a picture about the (light) effects of the hemispheric, not merely about the hemispheric itself. --Ibn Battuta 05:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 6 support, 2 neutral, 4 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 08:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Grafschaft Mark 1791 Friedrich C Mueller.jpg - featured edit

Info created by Simplicius - uploaded by Simplicius - nominated by SvH
Support --SvonHalenbach 02:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support We need good reprodutions of old maps and this one of those. But I suggest the relevant categories to be added to the pic file (there are several subcategories in Category:Maps). -Alvesgaspar 11:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Diligent 19:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jnpet 06:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice map, though I would prefere an even higher resolution. -- AM 15:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Even in highest resolution it's difficult to read all text. --Jeses 22:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support-LadyofHats 04:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jon Harald Søby 17:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 7 support, 1 neutral, 0 oppose >> featured Alvesgaspar 09:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Hemispheric - Valencia, Spain - Jan 2007.jpg - featured edit

Info created by and uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Mehran --Mehran Moghtadai 02:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't sign in here a lot. Now that i had, i nominate these images. --Mehran Moghtadai 02:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral A quality image yes, but I don't like colours here, and composition is better on the second one, too. --Nux (talk··dyskusja) 23:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comment - Please don't compare two excellent photo and say because that one is a bit better this one is bad. They are good and we are in critical need of good photos, this one is excellent. --Arad 04:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Comment I support the version above, which IMO has more impact than this one. --Andy 10:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose See Andy. -- AM 00:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great photo, though I much prefer the twilight version. --Thisisbossi 18:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Simonizer 07:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support, positively breathtaking. --user:Qviri 00:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great picture! --Leyo 10:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Joanot Martorell ✉ 10:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Lycaon 10:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 7 support, 1 neutral, 3 oppose >> featured Alvesgaspar 09:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Hauskatze in Abendsonne.jpg - not featured edit

Info created & uploaded by Sebastianjude - nominated by SvH
Support --SvonHalenbach 02:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Simonizer 08:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The subject is too close to the objective resulting in a bad framing and a dstorted picture. Alvesgaspar 09:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support can't help it...but i really like it :) --AngMoKio 22:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Would be great, but unfortunately the ear and the chin are cut. --Jeses 23:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment yeah, that makes it so special. --SvonHalenbach 23:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Commentyeah, I agree with SvonHalenbach. That makes it special. Otherwise it would be a boring shot of normal housecat head. I also like the nearness very much. The cats eyes are captivating me -- Simonizer 09:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose it looks distorted because it's too close. Good picture anyway, but it's not worth being featured... Alessio Damato 23:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose norro 10:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great, I like it. --startaq 14:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - yet another moggie . . . MPF 16:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Tbc 13:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support What amazes me is, it was taken with an old digicam! I thought it was from a DSLR! —Pixel8 17:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I like the colours in the setting sun, I like the cat's eyes but the distorsion bothers me a bit. I'm undecided. Neutral for now. --Atoma 22:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too close. ---donald- 19:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Lycaon 10:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cool shot. This might be used to illustrate Cute Overload on non-fair use projects :) Husky 21:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 6 support, 1 neutral, 8 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 09:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Hemispheric Twilight - Valencia, Spain - Jan 2007.jpg - featured edit

Info created and uploaded by Diliff - nominated by --Mehran Moghtadai 02:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mehran Moghtadai 02:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support outstanding focus, very nice colours, nice composition --Nux (talk··dyskusja) 23:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Phan-tas-tic. Looks like Science Fiction. -- AM 00:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Amazing photographic quality, excellent composition. - Alvesgaspar 00:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - All said --Arad 04:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Andy 09:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Luc Viatour 14:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - don't care for it. - MPF 17:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support What is your problem? --SvonHalenbach 20:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glare from the lights, and the un-natural appearance of the water caused by the long exposure blurring the ripples - MPF 16:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually you're wrong about the water. It looks basically the same as it did in person and basically the same during the day with a fast exposure - almost completely flat, with minor ripples from the wind. How can you know what is 'natural looking' if you weren't there? Any blurriness is likely caused by the foreground being out of the plane of focus. This is not unnatural. This is the laws of physics. Anyway, it is rather a petty quibble in the first place really but you're entitled to your opinion. Diliff 21:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree --Prevert^(talk) 22:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Thunderhead 03:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MichaelMaggs 21:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow, nice picture. --Thisisbossi 18:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jon Harald Søby 17:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Joanot Martorell ✉ 10:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - gobeirne 19:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Lycaon 10:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice colors on this one - Ceridwen 18:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 16 support, 2 oppose >> featured Alvesgaspar 09:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Wasser Reisfeld Indien.jpg - not featured edit

Info created by Sebastianjude - uploaded by Sebastianjude- nominated by SvH
Support --SvonHalenbach 02:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral This is an excellent picture in technical terms - good composition, exposure and colours - and will have no problems in being promoted to quality image. But it lacks, IMO, the symbolic meaning and relevance the guidelines refer to. Alvesgaspar 11:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral agree with Alvesgaspar it is technically perfect. But the composition is a bit too direct. It would have been a really great photo if you made a photo with a wider angle with the well in the right or left lower corner as an eye-catcher --AngMoKio 19:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This photo is not made by me. I have just nominated it. --SvonHalenbach 22:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fantastic. Jon Harald Søby 17:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Atoma 22:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 2 support, 2 neutral, 1 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 09:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Guangzhou.jpg - not featured edit

Info created by Greenmnm69 - uploaded by Greenmnm69 - nominated by Greenmnm69 --Greenmnm69 08:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Greenmnm69 08:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Oppose Image quality is poor (heavy grain/artifacts) probably due to high ISO setting and file compression. Also, I don't like the composition, with the man standing right in the middle of the photo, and the tilt of the buildings. Please try again. - Alvesgaspar 08:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lestat 17:12, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 1 support, 2 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 7th day) Alvesgaspar 09:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:View from Pico Do Areiro to Pico Ruivo, Madeira.JPG - not featured edit

Info created by Donar Reiskoffer - uploaded by Donar Reiskoffer - nominated by Donar Reiskoffer --Donarreiskoffer 13:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Donarreiskoffer 13:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I know this is a beautiful place, but the conditions are not the best. Sometimes, the clouds are lower and seem to cascade over the cliffs like waterfals. Alvesgaspar 14:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the foreground is blurred. good picture, bad quality. --SvonHalenbach 17:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral a nice idea for a picture...though the picture is a bit confusing also. If there would be a bit more of that platform visible it might have been better. --AngMoKio 19:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I like it - MPF 17:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support it's an inspiring image, though. --Ziga 19:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't know. First, I thought its just clouds with nothing. Now I see an ocean with islands. -- AM 23:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Romary 09:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Concept is good but I don't feel the composition quite works. --MichaelMaggs 10:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Lycaon 10:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 5 support, 4 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 14:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Illustration of magnolia flower - not featured edit

Info created by John Fergusson Cathcart - uploaded by Melchoir - nominated by Diligent --Diligent 18:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Diligent 18:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see some little numbers on the full-size image, is there any legend associated with this image and not included ? --Atoma 23:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 1 support, 0 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 7th day) Alvesgaspar 00:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Canthigaster valentini 1.jpg - featured edit

Info created by Jenny Huang from Taipei - uploaded by Bricktop - nominated by Jnpet --Jnpet 06:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thought this was an unusual angle and close up of a Valentinni's sharpnose puffer Jnpet 06:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Because of the unusual composition and despite some obvious technical flaws, which are probably inevitable under the circunstances. Alvesgaspar 10:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support very cool norro 10:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jeses 12:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Luc Viatour 14:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support ack alves, the fish still has nice detail in fullsize. --Dschwen 14:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MichaelMaggs 16:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - MPF 16:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ziga 19:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too green. --SvonHalenbach 21:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support i love green ;-) --Diligent 02:55, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Stephane8888 01:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The image has OK resolution, though many featured photos tend to be higher-res. The image is a tad blurry on its focused point and blurs moreso as you move away from the fish. The blurred background is good, though, and provides a nice backdrop: one can never have enough green :) --Thisisbossi 18:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jon Harald Søby 17:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support (only just) -- Lycaon 09:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lestat 17:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 14 support, 1 neutral, 1 oppose >> featured Alvesgaspar 09:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Human skull front suturas.svg - not featured edit

Info created, uploaded and nominated by LadyofHats --LadyofHats 17:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral --LadyofHats 17:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SupportLycaon 01:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jnpet 17:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 2 support, 1 neutral >> not featured Alvesgaspar 16:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Human skull front details.svg - not featured edit

Info created , uploaded and nominated by LadyofHats --LadyofHats 16:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral --LadyofHats 16:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SupportLycaon 01:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jnpet 17:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 2 support, 1 neutral >> not featured Alvesgaspar 16:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Human skull front bones.svg- featured edit

Info created ,uploaded and nominated by LadyofHats --LadyofHats 15:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral --LadyofHats 15:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support You are quite skilled with that job. --SvonHalenbach 17:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support norro 15:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Luc Viatour 08:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SupportLycaon 01:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jnpet 16:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 5 support, 1 neutral >> featured Alvesgaspar 16:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Goyet JPG02.jpg - not featured edit

Info Orchard in Goyet/Belgium created by Jean-Pol GRANDMONT - uploaded by Jean-Pol GRANDMONT - nominated by Jeses --Jeses 22:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great composition --Jeses 22:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose boring. And sky is overexposed norro 23:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The beauty of this picture is given by the perspective and the nice grades of gree and yellow. Unfortunately the head of the horse is hidden, which ruins IMO the possibility of being featured. - Alvesgaspar 00:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Olegivvit 12:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - ditto to Alvesgaspar on the decapitated horse - MPF 16:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Pretty picture, definitely, but I do not feel it focuses adequately on any subject and I agree that the headless horse doesn't help. --Thisisbossi 17:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support-LadyofHats 04:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Atoma 22:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jnpet 17:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pseudomoi (to chat on WP) 16:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 5 support, 1 neutral, 4 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 23:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Edison and phonograph edit2.jpg - featured edit

Info created by Levin C. Handy - uploaded by Arad - nominated by Arad --Arad 23:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Arad 23:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Just look at his nails, the man was really an hard manual worker (10% of inspiration and 90% of transpiration, he said...) - Alvesgaspar 00:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support wonderful norro 16:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Will happily support if someone could do a minor edit to remove the intrusive Moire pattern on his clothing, and reduce the noise level a bit. --MichaelMaggs 16:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comparing it to the original, this was the best i could do. --Arad 21:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support very high resolution, good edit. As the "intrusive Moire" is paralell to the weaving direction of his cloth I think its not a Moire but a pattern in the cloth (like Damask). --Ikiwaner 22:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ziga 19:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support absolutely --Diligent 02:53, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Romary 10:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --AngMoKio 11:03, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Javierme 17:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jon Harald Søby 17:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Luc Viatour 08:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice photo, and nice edit, greets to Arad --Atoma 12:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

;-) --Arad 00:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Jnpet 17:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 13 support, 0 oppose >> featured Alvesgaspar 23:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Pisaura mirabilis Listspinne.jpg edit

Original (left) - featured edit

Info created, uploaded, nominated by AngMoKio --AngMoKio 19:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --AngMoKio 19:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral well done norro 15:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Supporti actually like the third person aproach. -LadyofHats 04:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jon Harald Søby 17:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support off-center is the better one. Cary "Bastiq▼e" Bass ^demandez 17:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree with Bastique; the spider off-centre is more interesting --Eirissa 22:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jnpet 17:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ background -- Lycaon 09:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose background -- Pseudomoi (to chat on WP) 16:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am curious what exactly is wrong with the background? The spider is on a leaf of a tulip and behind is green grass...a quite natural environment.--AngMoKio 17:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support in that case..., I need new specs ;-) (the background is actually not grass but Lesser celandine, (Ranunculus ficaria), who said I needed specs???) -- Lycaon 17:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 7 support, 1 neutral, 1 oppose >> featured Alvesgaspar 18:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cropped version (right) - not featured edit

Comment I uploaded a cropped version you can see on the right. I cropped it really radically, even one leg of the spider is cropped. But the resolution is still high enough and I did that to emphasise the weird kinda third-person shooter perspective which makes it a featured picture in my opinion (the cropped version). norro 21:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the new version and comment. So far i didnt see that photo this way. The main thing i like abt the composition of the original version is the line from the lower left corner to the upper right corner and the placement of the spider. It seems as if the spider is approaching sth silently behind the leaf. I'd be happy abt further comments from others...--AngMoKio 19:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support norro 15:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "At least 2 million pixels (e.g. 2000 x 1000) seems reasonable right now. Images of lower resolution are typically rejected unless there are strong mitigating reasons". --MichaelMaggs
~~Oppose~~ background -- Lycaon 09:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 1 support, 0 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 23:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:T-Rex2.jpg - not featured edit

Info created and uploaded by Luijt nominated by Siebrand 16:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Siebrand 16:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Look out of focus -- Lerdsuwa 08:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Background removal was not done properly (just with a fill??). The image has potential though. Lycaon 09:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The image quality is not very good and the framing is a bit too tight. Should result better with a little more of the neck showing. Like it is the image looks unbalanced -Alvesgaspar 16:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The white background is aggressive. The point of view is perhaps not so good — the T-Rex has impressive jaws, but this should be seen relative to the body, and the neck is cut too short for seeing that. David.Monniaux 17:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Info Image:Palais de la Decouverte Tyrannosaurus rex p1050042.jpg - which is superior in my view - is already featured. --MichaelMaggs 15:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 1 support, 2 neutral, 2 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 7th day) Alvesgaspar 16:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Monte Castore.JPG - not featured edit

Info created by Jacklab72 - uploaded by Jacklab72 - nominated by Gusme --Gusme 17:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Gusme 17:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sorry..have to oppose. The mountain is nearly in the center...pictures look mostly more interesting if you have the main thing not in the center. Also that rocky part seems to be cut off at its lower part. Though the scene in general looks really great --AngMoKio 19:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Overexposed. I know it is snow, but too many details are lost. Lycaon 09:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 1 support, 2 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 7th day) Alvesgaspar 16:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Sunset-cartagena-tower-Igvir.jpg edit

original (left) - not featured edit

Info created by Igvir (flickr) - uploaded by Managementboy - nominated by Jeses --Jeses 12:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice, isn't it? --Jeses 12:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great composition, nice ambience. Its a pitty that the two cables disturbing the image a little bit. But thats not the fault of the author, but maybe of the city council of Cartagena. ;-) -- Simonizer 13:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Nice picture, but why not remove the wires?! -- AM 15:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Yes, the City of Cartagena shoud remove the wires!! Anyway.. I think that the wires are on the pic and were not removed in an edit makes the image realistic. --Jeses 16:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - ditto to AM - MPF 17:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral will give pro if the cables get removed - they are not essential for the here --AngMoKio 19:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Atoma 17:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Thisisbossi 17:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Lycaon 09:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 2 support, 4 neutral, 3 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 12:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dewired edit (above right) - featured edit

Support - MPF 16:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Now it's wonderfull. I hate wires. -- AM 18:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - great image (now anyway).--HereToHelp (talk) 19:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MichaelMaggs 21:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose i don't care for it. --SvonHalenbach 21:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why so unromantic? -- AM 23:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support --AngMoKio 11:14, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Thisisbossi 17:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Eirissa 22:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Lycaon 09:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 8 support, 2 oppose >> featured Alvesgaspar 17:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Welland canal and skyway.JPG - not featured edit

Info John B. Aird transiting the Welland Canal, just north of St. Catharines Skyway bridge. created by Balcer - uploaded by Balcer - nominated by Balcer --Balcer 05:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Balcer 05:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A nice record shot, but doesn't have the wow! factor I'm looking for in a FP. It could well qualify as a Quality Image though. --MichaelMaggs 10:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jon Harald Søby 17:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, wish I could have supported it. --Atoma 22:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I really like how you can see the water spillover in the background. The framing of the lift bridge between the skyway piers is also pretty good. --user:Qviri 01:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jnpet 17:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose slightly noisy -- Lycaon 09:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose norro 11:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 4 support, 3 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 13:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Teapot P1100116.jpg - not featured edit

Info created/uploadeded/nominated by David.Monniaux
Support David.Monniaux 16:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral bho... something is missing or maybe there is somenthig wrong. I can't describe it is just a feeling --Jacopo86 17:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but what is missing is ... image quality. The picture is noisy and out of focus. - Alvesgaspar 17:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not a good photo. Out of focus. Uria a 21:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 1 support, 1 neutral, 2 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 7th day) Alvesgaspar 17:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Bison crossing a river.jpg - not featured edit

Info created/uploaded/nominated by David.Monniaux -- David.Monniaux 17:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --David.Monniaux 17:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ David, the image is pretty nice but it is way too small to be even considered as a FP candidate. If you read the quality guidelines you will see that FP images must be in high resolution to allow usage in printing or other medias. Your photo (889x666px) can't be even set as a wallpaper. By the way, a width of 666px!!??? I've also noticed that you wrote "Copyright © 2006 David Monniaux" on the image's description page. Note that images on Commons must be free of rights, and the selected license (GNU) allows all usage, including for commercial purposes. --Atoma 19:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- David, I would appreciate asking for my opining before removing my votes ! You cannot go-out and remove votes you don't appreciate. I revert the page and add-back my vote, and cancel it myself after the comment you left me on my discussion page. --Atoma 19:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral My vote becomes now neutral. Image is noisy, unsharp and there is some color aberration. --Atoma 19:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but the lighting on the bisons is not very good. Nice try, though. Freedom to share 22:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I'd like better detail on the bisons. As with most wildlife, this was a chance shot. :-) David.Monniaux 01:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 1 support, 1 neutral, 1 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 7th day) Alvesgaspar 17:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Electricity pylon from below.JPG - not featured edit

Info created by Philipp Mayer - uploaded by Wutschwlllm - nominated by Wutschwlllm (self nom)--Wutschwlllm 15:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral I'm waiting for some input. --Wutschwlllm 15:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Philipp, you may want to take this picture from another position, to allow the viewer to read the text. In my opinion, this is not interesting enough to be featured. Please use the photocritice site to get feedback for your work. Greetings --SvonHalenbach 22:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Wrong angle for this picture and not interesting enough to be featured --Digon3 01:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose like Digon3, also the sky is disturbing --Jacopo86 10:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Dull composition. I would've photographed the pylon either from another perspective so that the text is visible or from a larger distance so that more pylons can be seen. Husky 20:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 0 support, 3 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 7th day) Alvesgaspar 18:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Eastern Grey Squirrel in St James's Park, London - Nov 2006.jpg edit

Original version (left) - not featured edit

Info created & uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Andy --Atoma 17:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great shot --Atoma 17:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Agreed. --Thisisbossi 17:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support great shot, good composition and great quality (and this with ISO 1600!)--AngMoKio 17:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~, of course! If I dare using ISO 1600 with my brand new camera I'm sure the result will be terrible! What is it: some magic touch or just superior hardware? - Alvesgaspar 18:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC) change vote to edited version - Alvesgaspar 23:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Info I guess it's the good camera quality (Canon 5D) but more than that it's the image downsampling. Noise should be pretty visible at full resolution (12MP) whereas the posted sample is only 2MP, downsampling by a factor of 6 considerably reduces noise. --Atoma 19:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support agree and maybe some blurfilter at the right places to finish it off.--SvonHalenbach 19:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 4 support, 0 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 17:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edited version (right) - featured edit

Support I'm striking my support vote above, the branch in the background is a bit distracting - Alvesgaspar 23:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jon Harald Søby 16:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks better without the branch, thanks for the edit Alvesgaspar. --Atoma 22:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- ahahah, that was Fir0002's work, not mine! - Alvesgaspar 23:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MichaelMaggs 15:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - MPF 21:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Diligent 17:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Ceridwen 18:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support perfect norro 18:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - good animal photo with nice colors and resolution Nl74 08:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 9 support, 0 oppose >> featured Alvesgaspar 00:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Schwarzsee.jpg - featured edit

Info created by Kmarka - uploaded by Kmarka - nominated by AngMoKio --AngMoKio 21:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --AngMoKio 21:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice! The tree in the water is the icing on the cake. --SvonHalenbach 21:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support we done Alessio Damato 22:44, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really nice. Romary 08:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like it very much, but the trees on the right side are very unsharp and I would have taken the photo from another angle to emphasize the tree in the foreground -- Simonizer 13:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - MPF 16:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice --Digon3 17:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice. Looks like a nice autumn day. --Atoma 22:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it a lot --Eirissa 22:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lycaon 09:53, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lestat 17:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 10 support, 1 oppose >> featured Alvesgaspar 00:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Niki tis Samothrakis 2.jpg - not featured edit

Info created by Chosovi - uploaded by Chosovi - nominated by Chosovi --chosovi 11:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --chosovi 11:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is an impressive sculpture which deserves a much better picture than this one. The shooting position was not well chosen and the image quality is low. I believe it is not easy but you should try again, please don't give up (are there any restrictions at the Louvre for taking photos of this?) - Alvesgaspar 12:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The last time I saw it it was on a flight of stairs (and I presume it still is), and there were indeed better angles. --Dschwen 15:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - The photograph doesn't capture the dynamic pose of the Nike. And it's pretty noisy. Husky 20:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lestat 10:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 1 support, 3 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 7th day) Alvesgaspar 12:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Billede 084.jpg - not featured edit

Info created by Peter Andersen - uploaded by Peter Andersen - nominated by Peter Andersen --Peter Andersen 14:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Peter Andersen 14:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not sharp enough. Looking at the metadata I realize that a bad exposure choice was made resulting in a poor DOF. Please try again with a smaller aperture. - Alvesgaspar 14:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ack Alvesgaspar --Digon3 23:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 1 support, 2 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 7th day) Alvesgaspar 09:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Pomegranate03 edit.jpg edit

Info created by Fir0002 - uploaded by: User:Cryptic - nominated by Arad --Arad 02:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support The best fruit ever, and it's from Persia ;-) --Arad 02:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Info Another version of this picture is already featured. Please check here - Alvesgaspar 08:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh OK, thanks for telling that. --Arad 12:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Nomination withdrawn >> picture already featured Alvesgaspar 09:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Old lamp.JPG - not featured edit

Info created by Legendry - uploaded by Legendry - nominated by Legendry --Legendry 05:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC) Legendry[reply]
Support --Legendry 05:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC) Legendry[reply]
Oppose Well below the size requirements. Please check the guidelines above. Alvesgaspar 08:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Info You are right, Alvesaspar. NOTE: This is a new version of the old picture.
Oppose I think a featured picture should carry some information, an the drapings sure don't. -- 790 16:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 1 support, 2 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 7th day) Alvesgaspar 09:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Billard p1150796.jpg - not featured edit

Info created/uploaded/nominated by David.Monniaux 21:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC). I think this one carries the cosy athmosphere of the café while highlighting the pool table.[reply]
Support --David.Monniaux 21:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - nice pic, but (to quote someone else recently) it doesn't have the 'wow!' factor needed - MPF 21:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support athmosphere --Jeses 16:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent composition, illustrates subject well. Cary "Bastiq▼e" Bass ^demandez 16:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ?? -- Lycaon 09:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Moody colours. Husky 21:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I really don't like the composition. The table is cropped and at the bottom of the image and the lamps and the background are far more present. norro 11:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 4 support, 3 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 23:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Schlossvaduz.jpg - not featured edit

This great picture of one beautiful place was created by Michael Gredenberg - uploaded by Mschlindwein - nominated by me. --.:. Sarazyn 17:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --.:. Sarazyn 17:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is already a FP on wikipedia. It is a great picture despite the low resolution. --Digon3 17:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree it is nice but there are no "strong mitigating reasons" to ignore the guidelines (at least 2 millinos pixels!) - Alvesgaspar 21:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where are these guidelines to be found? .:. Sarazyn 00:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A little above from where you are now - Alvesgaspar 00:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But only on the english page. So change your language to english and then you can see the guidelines -- Simonizer 07:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I still can't find a rule that states "only big-ass pics". .:. Sarazyn 20:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here it is: Resolution - graphics located on Commons may be used in ways other than viewing on a conventional computer screen. They may be also used for printing or for viewing on very high resolution monitors. We can't predict what devices may be used in the future, so it is important that pictures being nominated have as high a resolution as possible. At least 2 million pixels (e.g. 2000 x 1000) seems reasonable right now. Images of lower resolution are typically rejected unless there are strong mitigating reasons. -- Simonizer 15:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - it has already been voted on here and failed to be featured - MPF 21:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I would support if it respected the "big-ass pics" rule. --Atoma 00:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support The pixel rule doesn't sound categorical to me ("seems" and "reasonable"), and the picture is not one of the really tiny ones. I like the composition and the colors. --Ibn Battuta 05:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The image is not even large enough to be set as a wallpaper. And it could be a very good wallpaper. --Atoma 12:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support The composition is great, and the resolution seems acceptable to me. -- 790 16:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Resolution! See comment above -- Simonizer 08:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 4 support, 3 oppose > not featured Alvesgaspar 23:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Constitution Pg1of4 AC.jpg - not featured edit

Info created by some old dudes - uploaded by Keeleysam - nominated by Jon Harald Søby
Support --Jon Harald Søby 16:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support sure. --SvonHalenbach 18:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I'm not sure the image should be accepted as a FP candidate. This is just a copy of a written document, not a photo or an illustration. - Alvesgaspar 20:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a copy of a written document. This is art, in my opinion. Jon Harald Søby 07:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Luc Viatour 08:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - a good candidate for a Quality Image, but not enough for featuring to my mind - MPF 21:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Quality images are only for images made by Wikimedians, so this image is not eligible there. Jon Harald Søby 07:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Agree with MPF above. --Atoma 01:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I wouldn't automatically exclude such an image from being a FP, but this is a copy of the first page only. It finishes mid-sentence. --MichaelMaggs 07:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So you think it would be better if we put all four pages into one image? (I don't.) Jon Harald Søby 07:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lestat 17:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 4 support, 1 neutral, 3 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 23:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Motorcycle Reflections.jpg edit

Reflections on a motorcycle Reflections on a motorcycle

Original version (left) - not featured edit

Info created, uploaded & nominated Andy --Atoma 18:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Atoma 18:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Let me support this picture before I regret, the composition is fascinating! But there are some minor flaws: the image is a little grainy and the reflected foot shouldn't be there (as a matter of fact the picture would be better without any reflections...) - Alvesgaspar 19:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Not bad but the view is a bit too tight for me. ...and there are the flaws that Alvesgaspar mentioned. The photo also seems a bit too cold to me--AngMoKio 20:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support That gives the name Monochrome a new meaning! A good example for reflecting surfaces. --SvonHalenbach 21:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose difficult to see what's what (only the title makes it clear that it is a motorcycle); would have been better with less cropping - MPF 16:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Info That's the whole idea of the image. --Atoma 21:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This would be a lot better without the reflections and less cropping --Digon3 17:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I do not see anything especially valuable about it. Freedom to share 18:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Olegivvit 10:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is better with the hint of color, not with the black & white Cary "Bastiq▼e" Bass ^demandez 16:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lycaon 09:53, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 5 support, 1 neutral, 4 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 00:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edited version (right) - not featured edit

Support && Info After the comments above I decided to upload a new version. The foot in the lower-left and the character in the upper-right (me) are gone (greetings to Ulead Photoimpact). The whole photo got black & white for more impact. Thanks for your reviews, and dear Digon3 and MPF, FYI the tight cropping is the whole idea of the image, I shot it this way to look abstract. --Atoma 22:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support now it is even more classic. --SvonHalenbach 22:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support good work norro 23:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support my reasons were given above, better now - Alvesgaspar 00:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support, there's so much impact which isn't given in the non-edited version. Awesome! Nzgabriel 07:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Due to black & white. Olegivvit 10:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MichaelMaggs 15:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, still can't bring myself to support; also ditto to Olegivvit - MPF 21:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ~~fake reflections~~ sorry, still don't like it. Lycaon 09:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Question Hum ? --Atoma 11:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment e.g. I see the chain twice, but the guy only once. that is not possible... ;-) Lycaon 12:53, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Info You got tricked by the perspective, if you are talking about the two feet I removed in the lower left, this is a 3rd person, which doesn't appear in the upper right reflections! It was a friend of mine standing near by. The guy you see in the upper right reflection near the chain was pretty far away. Round-shapes reflect things in a very strange way, you should try this next time you see a motorcycle of this type. --Atoma 01:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - CommentI would agree if we didn't have the original on the left: I don't think there's any third person involved, the guy is dressed the same way, stands on the same spot and in front of the same chain. Even though I wouldn't (and don't) necessarily miss him on the right (yes, because round shapes tend to reflect in bizarre ways), Lycaon is right: It's not possible. --Ibn Battuta 06:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment && Info As odd as this may appear, I am the author of the photo, and I took the photo, neither of you did. The setup is still very clear in my mind. The third guy was my roommate -- and I know him better than you guys -- and he was there if I tell you. You're both mistaking badly. Reflections, reflections... --Atoma 00:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Even though tight cropping is the whole idea of the image. I still do not like the reflections or B&W--Digon3 23:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support Simonizer 10:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 7 support, 4 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 23:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Prostitute-from-lviv-ukraine-speaks-with-her-pimp-highres.jpg edit

300px|Prostitute and Pimp

Info created by Graham Wellington - uploaded by Graham Wellington - nominated by Graham Wellington --Graham Wellington 23:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support A beautiful moment between a prostitute and her pimp. --Graham Wellington 23:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Without a written permission of the pimp to be shown all over the world, no way! This is a serious candidate for deletion. - Alvesgaspar 08:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Info The picture was taken on a public city street and thus by no means a candidate for deletion. Why don't you judge the photo instead of playing international lawyer? Graham Wellington 18:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is not necessary to be a lawyer to recognize here a serious ethical problem. Being an european citizen is enough. If I were the guy in the picture (being or not a pimp) I wouldn't certainly like to see my face in a public domain picture. Please understand that even "foreign" pimps have rights. That is why I intend to tag this picture for speed deletion. Alvesgaspar 20:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Dear Proponents of Free Expression: I need help in keeping this photo online. A certain religous fundamentalist user with moral complexes is intent on the deleting it because the photo shows a "prostitute". We are a modern society not the spanish inquisition or taliban. Please help keep wikicommons free of the moral police. Vote to keep my photo online here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Prostitute-from-lviv-ukraine-speaks-with-her-pimp-highres.jpg —the preceding unsigned comment is by Graham Wellington (talk • contribs) 00:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it is not because he or she is a prostitute or a pimp, it is because he or she and you or I have a right to privacy (yes! even in public places!), a right to defend our own image. Do not play the defender of rights (be it of art or of expression) when you are actually negating those of others. Ask permission when taking pictures of people. --Diligent 01:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You are clearly a facist that does not support artistic free expression. If you want to be a moral policeman go to Waziristan and sign up with the Taliban. Facism has no place at wikipedia and I ask everyone to please support my appeal against religious/moral intimidation. —the preceding unsigned comment is by Graham Wellington (talk • contribs) 02:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How are you so certain it is a pimp and a prostitute. It could just as easily be of a couple having a discussion. However that may be, you could try again with a black line over the eyes of the pimp to mask his identity. I personally don't have an issue with the picture, but it is true that there is a privacy issue here and masking the identity will clear this up. --Jnpet 06:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ack Jnpet and Alvesgaspar and against blatant insults (you should be blocked for that!!). Lycaon 08:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Info This is not the right place to discuss deletion issues. I will withdraw the nomination on a temporary basis until the request is solved. Anyway, I believe this is nothing more than a trolling action. Alvesgaspar 08:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Nomination temporarily withdrawn Alvesgaspar 08:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Repin Cossacks.jpg edit

Info created by Ilya Repin - uploaded by Butko - nominated by DDima —dima/s-ko/ 02:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Original (left) - featured edit

Support —dima/s-ko/ 02:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alex Bakharev 08:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - good quality reproduction, but the pic isn't my cup of tea - MPF 21:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'd vote for it in the Quality Image contest. --Atoma 01:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --I like it. Makes me want to see the original. Jnpet 17:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lycaon 09:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yakudza 10:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - agree with Atoma - Alvesgaspar 11:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Riurik 04:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- I think its a great image! --77.123.37.111 08:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 6 support, 3 oppose >> featured Alvesgaspar 08:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edited version (right) edit

Info Edited version inserted by Olegivvit at 20:28, 19 January - Alvesgaspar 11:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Maiden-tower-baku.jpg - not promoted edit

Info created by Fuad2006 - uploaded by Fuad2006 - nominated by Grandmaster --Grandmaster 11:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Grandmaster 11:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Nice, but I'm not shure if this is useful for any wiki-project. If someone tells me, where to use it, i change to pro. --Jeses 21:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment not currently in use, and I'm not anticipating a huge demand anytime soon. --Dschwen 23:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is used now here: [7] Grandmaster 14:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 1 support, 1 neutral >> not promoted (rule of the 7th day) Alvesgaspar 12:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Skupljanje polena 6.JPG - not featured edit

Info created by Poki - uploaded by Poki - nominated by Poki --Pokrajac 00:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pokrajac 00:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Well below the size requirements. Please check the guidelines above. --Digon3 00:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose resolution Lestat 23:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose- low quality in image and composition-LadyofHats 08:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 1 support, 3 oppose >> not featured (rul of the 7th day) Alvesgaspar 10:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:XC68020 bottom p1160085.jpg edit

Info created/uploaded/nominated by David.Monniaux 08:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is the bottom of a Motorola XC68020 (prototype of MC68020) processor. I wanted to illustrate the pin grid array, and I was happy at the result. This photo has not been touched up. However, I'm unsure whether the "featured pictures" include that kind of technical documentary pictures. David.Monniaux 08:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This kind of picture could be FP if well executed. This picture is to much unfocused though. Lycaon 13:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind if I reduced the picture from 5 MP to 2 MP and applied a sharpen filter? Then it would be sharp enough. David.Monniaux 14:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Nice idea, but it would be better executed as a vector or 3D rendering, not a photograph! Freedom to share 16:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ack Freedom to share --Digon3 23:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 0 support, 3 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 7th day) Alvesgaspar 10:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:White Deer Hole Creek near 4th Gap.JPG edit

Original version (left) - not promoted edit

Info created by Ruhrfisch - uploaded by Ruhrfisch - nominated by Ruhrfisch --Ruhrfisch 18:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

White Deer Hole Creek, near Fourth Gap, Washington Township, Lycoming County, Pennsylvania, USA (Class A Wild Trout Waters, within the Tiadaghton State Forest). Used in White Deer Hole Creek a featured article on the English Wikipedia (and other places there).

Support This is one of my favorite pictures that I have uploaded to Commons and I wanted to see what others thought. Thanks, --Ruhrfisch 18:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - nice pic, but the exposure is too slow to show the water well, with too much motion blur. From what I've read, an exposure of about ¹/₅₀ second matches human eye perception of motion best. - MPF 23:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thanks for the comments (above and below) and the edit. This was a hand help shot with no tripod at ¹/₁₅ second, so I was pleasantly surprised it was as sharp as it is. I have a much better and older SLR film camera and a tripod, so I can try to get a similar photo again in the coming summer. However, I am getting conflicting advice: shorter exposure time here, longer time below. Maybe I'll try both and see what works better ;-) Thanks again, Ruhrfisch 00:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support--WikiMeGa**** @@@-fr Accueil fr:Accueil 09:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Nomination withdrawn >> not promoted Alvesgaspar 12:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edited version (right) - not promoted edit

Comment Some light PP would be necessary to increase IQ: cropping, auto-levels & unsharpen mask, as shown in the image on the right. Nice shot, I would have liked it better if the exposure time was even bigger, so that the water gives more the 'flowing' impression. Close-down aperture and exposure time will go up -- but well, on the Canon A400 you cannot control the aperture, so there was nothing you could do. Maybe it's time to move-up to a better camera which meets your needs. --Atoma 11:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Some more saturation would be nice. --Wj32 06:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice composition but poor image quality. The leaves, one of the subjects of the photo, are blurred (probably due to motion and also for being unfocused). Looking at the exposure numbers we realize it should be quite dark in that place. Alvesgaspar 09:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks for all the feedback, I withdraw the nomination. Ruhrfisch 12:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Nomination withdrawn >> not promoted Alvesgaspar 12:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Skateboarding 1 (dtab).jpg - not featured edit

Info created by DemonTraitor - uploaded by DemonTraitor - nominated by DemonTraitor --DemonTraitor 19:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --DemonTraitor 19:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - perfect timing, very nice action pic! Comment needs page indexing and/or categorising - MPF 21:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - yes! Comment categorising done --Diligent 17:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC) [Thanks! wasn't sure where to put it - MPF][reply]
Oppose composition; trees in background. Try to get skater against plain sky. Dunc|☺ 12:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jnpet 17:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Atoma 19:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral hm...really not bad but i am also not sure abt the trees in the background. Have to think abt it...might change to pro--AngMoKio 20:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think the trees improve the pic and give a sense of depth; without them, it would look rather bleak and difficult to interpret so easily - MPF 22:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support Jon Harald Søby 08:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose disturbing BG -- Lycaon 09:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for the same reason --MichaelMaggs 21:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --chosovi 11:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with Dunc norro 18:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support good timing, sharp picture of a moving subject. Trees are not disturbing too much in my opinion -- Simonizer 09:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 7 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral >> not featured Alvesgaspar 20:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]