Oppose Can't identify the shape of this building from this perspektive. Not aesthetical enough to countervail this norro11:37, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Voting ended on 19:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC) votes after this time are invalid
Support I like it very much exactly because it is sort of puzzle. And there is aesthetic quality in the shape as well as in the overall blue tint. --wg 22:43, 1 July 2006 (UTC)Lycaon06:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose needed less sky/more river and correction of the converging verticals to do full justice to this beautiful location --Rodge16:42, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose lovely glowing light, but the image depends on symmetry, which isn't accurate. Also much dust/pixel dropouts at high res. --Rodge14:02, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The ground doesn't look very exciting, I also don't see any reason to hightlight the flowers in foreground by flash. --che23:53, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support although there is noise and it is a bit blur i give it a pro because the pic is still very impressive; good composition--AngMoKio10:00, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - nice when downscaled, less in full res. Stitching problems, looks artificially sharpened by a „cheap sharpen filter“ --Wikimol15:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Voting ended on 19:15, 2 July 2006 (UTC) votes after this time are invalid
Comment: Satellite picture of the Desert of Lop with the Basin of the formerly sea Lop Nur (ear-shaped). Color adjusting by Michael Gäbler of [1] using Adobe Photoshop 6.0. --Michael Gäbler12:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And while it's not centered, I did crop it to balance the photo. I could crop to something less than 4:3, but would rather not do that on an image that might be considered useful. Cary "Bastique" Bassparlervoir14:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Natural background or not, it must not distract from the main subject, it has to be completely out of focus or almost self-couloured. And if it's important that the image must be useful, for being a FP it's not enough. It must have a real emotional and/or esthetical strenght. In my opinion, it isn't the case here (bad light on the main subject, for example). El ComandanteHasta ∞14:18, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Technically and esthetically, it's a really good photo but, for my taste, the subject is not strong enough (a common object can have an important evocative strength if it recalls essential feelings, and this one doesn't for me). El ComandanteHasta ∞13:53, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - why? The name of the manufacturer is important to the item. We would not remove the manufacturer's mark from e.g. a photo of a car - MPF
Sorry, why is the name of the manufacturer is important to the item. This is a Featured Picture candidate. Having a manufacturer name in such photo is free advertisement in my opinion, same product is manufactured by others. Cars are different, you don't need to read the name on the car to know the manufacturer, at least for most of people. There is a hidden massage in such a photo; Products labeled with SRAM are good. --Tarawneh02:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Actually, I like this composition more than the one of Bild 478, which is also kind of unsharp and noisy. If there would be a version of this with a little higher resolution and less agressive sharpening, I'd opt for featuring this a taking down the other. --che23:37, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose — too cluttered compared to the featured image which also has better lighting conditions, resolution of 800px by 600px is too small for non historical images Gnangarra06:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- This is not the same location as the featured image -- Lower Antelope Canyon is a different place than Upper Antelope Canyon, with a different character. Also, this image is 1231x821, not 800x600. -- moondigger11:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Look, if this isn't promoted that's fine with me - I didn't nominate it. But I do want to be clear about something. There is no existing FP of Lower Antelope Canyon. The existing FP was taken in Upper Antelope Canyon. They are two different places, kilometers apart. As far as I can tell, there are no other images from Lower Antelope Canyon here other than mine. -- moondigger16:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's very important. It's the same kind of natural place, and not very far at all! I think there's no reason to have various FP of so similar places, if they haven't really different qualities or atmosphere. So...
What makes you think they're similar? Have you been there? The only similarity is that they're both slot canyons, and are both called "Antelope." Is there a rule stating Commons can only have one featured image of a slot canyon? -- moondigger00:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No. I haven't been there; but I don't need to just for comparing two pictures. No, there's no rule about similar featured pictures, but must we accept a hundred sunshines or a hundred ochre slot canyons as FP? OK, it's only the second one but as I said it before, I think there are so many things to photograph and show in Commons, that too similar pictures, with a same atmosphere, and with a subject that will be always a good one, aren't exceptional enough to be all featured. I prefer chose only one, and I prefer the other one. It's not a rule, but it's my vision of FP. El ComandanteHasta ∞18:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Love it love it love it. Totally agree with Ggonnell , the composition is much better. I just printed it. --Tarawneh14:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- yes, it is dark; and yes, the bis stone in the lower left corner is distracting, but other than that: WOW!! great and unusual composition! -- Boereck08:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice composition. The fact that there's another featured picture with a similar landform from a nearby area diminishes nothing from this one. QuartierLatin196820:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support: I registered just so I could vote for this picture. I have been to Upper and Lower Antelope Canyon many times, but never was able to take a picture as beautiful as this one. -- TFerris01:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Voting ended on 19:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC) votes after this time are invalid
Support Great perspective, nice composition with true/natural colors. A very impressive shot of King Penguins with high scarcity value. --Wasja 01:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Support Holy crud the penguins are going to take over the world. Quickly promote it to FP as to not offend our future overlords! Sasquatch03:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- I assume it is a true image and no photoshop-enhanced pic... the reason for my comment: it looks unreal! I cannot believe all those penguins in one place! that is just amazing!! not so amazing is the quality of the shot lacking focus, focus and focus ;-) -- Boereck08:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The hardest is to go there, not to take the picture (penguins don't fly away !), so we could have expected a better image with foreground birds bigger and full from top to toe. Better pictures on this topic will surely follow. B.navez05:54, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Some areas are just too dark, sorry. Would support if those areas would be corrected through image editing software such as The GIMP. Freedom to share18:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Info God making Eve from Adam's body. Bas-relief, Middle Ages, Lausanne (another view). Created, uploaded and nominated (I confess, mainly to gather technical advices, so thanks to those who oppose :) ) by Rama14:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - err, what is it? A dump for retired pinball machines, or something?? Needs context adding to image description - MPF22:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral i agree with Rodge. I also like the idea and the photo has a good quality...only the that the left one is cut off spoils the pic a bit....maybe it is possible to cut off the left one completly? --AngMoKio15:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Info Nominated by Fir0002 (self nom). Not a conventional nomination, but I thought it more usefull to have the pix seperate so that you can easily (assuming you use firefox} flip between tabs and compare. I can easily put them together as a single image if it makes it easier for promotion
Support both. I dont think it should be composed to one big jpeg. IMO suitable compostite would be of the two images in layers of one file, which is currently impossible, but may be in the future...--Wikimol19:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - did the subject give consent to the licensing of the photo? (can a child of this age give informed consent?!?) - MPF22:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Neutral - good quality photo, but I'd rather see the plant growing in its natural habitat. This is a bit like a zoo photo. - MPF17:29, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Different people have different perceptions, likes and dislikes. I don't see why I should be forced to like it, just because a different (and grotesquely rich) person does - MPF13:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support The subject of the image is ugly as hell (and whoever bought it for $ 135 million should be admitted to a psychiatric hospital), but the picture itself is of good quality, so there's no reason it shouldn't be featured. JonHaraldSøby11:45, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose I don't care about how much someone paid for it. And I don't agree that the photo itself is of good quality - looks smudged. And if not for the gold, I would not put this in my own house. This is definitely not one of the best or more useful pictures on Wikicommons--Konstable12:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The work is indeed important and it's not really my business to judge whether it "should" be considered as valued a piece of art as it apparently is. However this is not a particularly good reproduction, IMO; it looks smudged/blurry, and the colors don't really come out well. --Delirium22:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I for one absolutely admire this painting. It is gorgeous and indescribably stunning, as I have seen the painting with my own two eyes in a Gustav Klimt exhibition. Aside from my personal comment, however, I think the image is excellent in normal zoom (maybe it could be downsized a bit and it could be brightened up a bit)...other than that it's perfectly fine--Vircabutar00:24, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Voting ended on 17:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC) votes after this time are invalid
Support - This image was a rather difficult decision. I know it was great with a fantastic resolution, yet the tree at the left side very much annoyed me. At the beginning I did consider it quite distracting there. The subject at first was not very clear either. I see two clouds there, which one should I focus on, the on ein the foreground or the one in the background. Yet gradually they merge together in the eyes of the viewer, producing somewhat an optical illusion. What I really love about this image that made me support it was the feeling of perspective, which was highlighted by the huge resolution. This makes up for an error in the composition, which placed the annoying tree on the left and a viewing point or something on the right. Yet I still consider it a great effort! Freedom to share15:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support The point of FP's is to encourage people to take more photos/do more pictures. Although this shot is beautiful and not very informative, it would still go under valuable in this context. It just says to people - look, if a sixteen-year old can do this, so can you! It encourages them to take their camera and do something amazing, something that anyone seeing it will vote for it as an FP. Everyone is capable of that. They just do not know it. Now, finally, for the resolution, it is a tough one. It is too low to show that many details. Yet we must not forget - Fir0002 wrote on his userpage he does not have the right facilities to upload such high resolution pictures. Once he does, we just put in a new and delist the old one. This is my view of how Wikimedia Commons works, therefore I have nothing else to say other than declare my support for this fantastic photograph. Freedom to share19:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I beleive that what we see in this picture is far from what it was in reality. This picture is an improper combination of several shots. Olegivvit09:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I tested the HDR in my office (this morning). It is right techic nothing to lose image, but nothing is invented!
Thank you. Now I can explain my point of view better. We have here two fragments of normal and composed images. What we see in the center of the first one? Deep sky. What is in the center of the other one? Black cloud! Is it real? No. The same thing is for all other black thin clouds on the background of blue sky. In addition, usual clouds look like pained with black. There is no such a problem with the normal image. Exactly those features make the composed picture special, at the same time they are artificial.
Comment -- MediaWiki indicates transparency with a checkerboard; Since this file was made with Inkscape, you would better use this software to appreciate it fully. ♦Pabixℹ11:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment : this is a SVG file, hence this is not a traditional picture file, you can select your zoom level how you want, up to 3600 times. But you should view it with inkscape. I could make a PNG file, but it would not be such a good idea I think. ♦Pabixℹ16:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how SVG files work, but if it can be used in Wikimedia projects, directly read in the navigator, I don't think it has its place in Commons, or at least in the list of FP. El ComandanteHasta ∞19:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It can be used in Wikimedia projects since several months due to a Mediawiki new feature, but it won't be well-rendered without software. Your comments are strange, since many people here want absolutely to have vector graphics for schemas. ♦Pabixℹ05:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've said that it is really a good work that must be a FP if it can be read directly into the navigator, because as it is now, I can't use it without an external software like Inkscape, and I think FP must can be read directly into the Wiki interface. Why would a PNG version be a bad idea? El ComandanteHasta ∞17:28, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
PNG is not nearly as scalable as SVG. When you resize a PNG, bad things can happen while a SVG would retain all it's properties. And MediaWiki supports SVG now, FP never specifies what format to use although it should be easy to make a copy without the transparency... Sasquatch03:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Did you use Inkscape? The used font is Bitstream Vera Sans, and I think Arial should be used in replacement if needed to. ♦Pabixℹ04:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support My browser (Opera) can easily zoom right in so I can see all the details just fine. If you have decent SVG software something like this is definitely useful (though I'm not in Paris), and it's well presented.--Konstable12:05, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Info Nomination of PNG version too, but the file is too big to be thumbnailed by MediaWiki, just click on the link. ♦Pabixℹ06:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Why didn't you change the framing? The left and right sides are unuseful, and reduce the quality of the thumbnail. If it's changed, I will support your great work. El ComandanteHasta ∞16:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, SVG enables you to define the page contours. So the thumbnail seems to be cropped. In fact, when you open the file it is complete. I put the entire image into the PNG file in order not to lose anything (region's contours, it could be used again for other cards for instance). ♦Pabixℹ06:42, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As I'm graduated in cartography and had to make different kinds of maps using professional software, let me make some comments about the finishing touch that makes the difference between a good map and an excellent, or for my part featured, map.
Vectors that show lines or arcs that are connected in the real world should also be connected in the map: see for example the lines between Chantilly-Gouvieux - Orry-La-Ville-Coye, Vincennes - Fontenay-sous-Bois, Brétigny - Marolles-en-Hurepoix and numerous other examples. Not only does that look not finished, it also might be confusing about the connectivity of the railroads there. It is also generally agreed that, if a label is to be placed above another object that has a same kind of color (same darkness for example), that it should be "masked" (a small white space around the characters) to increase readability. This has not happened for example with Nogent Les-Perreux, where the 't' is practically not readable. Lines that indicate municipalities are also not always connected as they should be: for example near aéroport C.de Gaulle. Before I'd vote support, and I'm sure other cartographers would agree with me, all these inaccuracies should be resolved. Nice work nonetheless, it just isn't finished. Tbc10:18, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose clear focus, but that's not sufficient to be featured. Bad angle and composition. Furthermore i agree with Lviatour and think, that this is an empty moult, not a cigale (look at the empty eyes and the empty carapace)norro23:12, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support"not really beautiful document" i don't understand this point of view, we can't change the nature. This fly is not really attractive, i must admit, but it's a good picture, an interesting subject and we can't blame the photograph just because this animal is not as beautiful as a butterfly! no, really, good picture.--Lelote09:24, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Voting ended on 17:47, 9 July 2006 (UTC) votes after this time are invalid
OK! I didn't notice that. It makes me consider the image differently, but I still find the water a bit too present (or should I say, a bit too much of the color of the subject!). changed my vote to neutralCyrilB21:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was standing quite deep in the water chasing this big dragonfly when suddenly the lady posed nicely and laid her eggs Tbc21:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I like the texture of the screw, but the background is dirty, destroying the purity of the picture. Maybe some post-processing would be enough?CyrilB16:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can/should I overwrite the original version with a post-processed one? Do you mean applying something like "unsharp mask" or something else? --Uwe Hermann09:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I uploaded a modified version: I cropped part of the image to get the screw in a better place on the picture, and removed some of the stains (but I realise now that my work is far from perfect). Sadly, I also realise that the picture is... too empty. The texture on the screw and the metal plate is not really good (not really sharp, the top of the screw is overexposed...), so I maintain my oppose vote. Please feel free to revert my edit to the image if you want.- CyrilB20:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose- for wonderfull i find the composition and interesting the idea. i must admit that the image has no encyclopedic and or historic value. LadyofHats11:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
From above: "Remember, the goal of the Wikimedia Commons project is to provide a central repository for free images to be used by all Wikimedia projects, including possible future projects. This is not simply a depository for wikipedia images, so images should not be judged here on their suitability for that project.". If you agree that it matches all other criteria, I'd say this is a support vote... GeeJo21:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the second edit has also colors corected to standard sRGB space (the original is in Adobe RGB, Wikimedia software does not hadle such images correctly) --Wikimol12:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The original image is in Adobe RGB space. Wikimedia software does not handle such images correctly. When properly converted to sRGB, colors are more vivid. --Wikimol12:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - focus. (eg her right hand is out of focus, while the wall behind it is sharp) --Wikimol 11:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC) changing to Neutral, given the explained difficulty of shooting the subject. However, the focus issue is still there, and in principle could be solved. As the subject is static, it can be shooted with any time, which means theoretically unlimited aperture, which means theoreticaly unlimited depth of focus. (Or, two images with differen focus can be combined, or...). --Wikimol18:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I hate to defend an image, but I do want to comment. This is a very dark sixteen century church. Pic taken with existing very low light and a telephoto. This church has seen an independence war, a foreign invasion, two religious wars, a revolution and who knows what else. So add it all together, it is a miracle in itself that the statue remains. This pic was taken under adverse conditions, so add years, degradation and low light, etc., the colors just are not there...--Tomascastelazo14:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would propose to just save it in sRGB, and strongly opppose the edit. The photographer was there, we were not. Aside from realism, given the history of the church, the warm christmas colors are IMO not apropriate for the message of the image.
I can do the conversion to sRGB, but I'm affraid the resaving would not be lossless... Tomascastelazo, if you shoot to raw, could you please export the image in sRGB profile? The same problem seems to be with many of your images. See sRGB, Adobe RGB and RGB color space for more disscussion of the topic. --Wikimol18:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I truly appreciate the comments... these are comments that lead to better images. On the color space... well, so many points of view. I follow camera manufacturer recommendations and shoot in Adobe RGB, and have more or less calibrated my processes to print in that space, but I also understand that some programs do not handle it well, for wiki I will do a save as in sRGB... no problem. On the edit itself, I have no problem with the resulting interpretation. In fact, I like it. It is a warmer image. But lets not forget that the camera itself has a color bias, the light coming in was not white light, the reflecting light was definitely not light. So the true color is out to lunch someplace. The image has to be interpreted in some color.... no rules there, just a cualitative judgement call. On the DOF, well, I usually leave something out of focus, by design, to guide the view to critical areas of the image. In this case, I focused in the eyes, which in faces, most of the time is the most important, and let DOF fall off from there. DOF falls one third in front, two in back, hence sharp background. Some people like it, some do not. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn´t. Again, thanks for the comments. --Tomascastelazo12:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tomas, just a quick comment about color space. You should use the right color space for the purpose at hand. The camera manufacturer recommends Adobe RGB because it is a wider color space than sRGB, and it's always better to start with a wide color space, and tailor the results to whatever purpose you wish to employ later. For web use, you should convert the image to the sRGB color space, since most web browsers can't understand color space tags and will display your work in the sRGB color space no matter what. When you display an Adobe RGB image in a web browser that can't understand the colorspace tag, the colors are not accurate. So keep your originals in the AdobeRGB color space, but the JPG files you upload to commons should be converted to sRGB. -- moondigger13:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose they are all nice and clear, but i don't see the reason for exactly this shape and these textures norro09:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
it's the digital reconstruction of an original triskel with that shape. i worked on multiple textures to choose which one mostly matches with the shape. /\/\π09:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but can you cite the source of this original trsikel? Is it of historical value or otherwise known? norro15:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
this is a Celtic triskel. Triskel was perhaps the most important and sacred symbol in Celtic religion, and was depicted using many different shapes in Celtic art. this shape is one of them. this is its historical value; unfortunately I can't find the source of the image at the moment... --/\/\π12:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - i dont know about the historical or cultural background of this triskel but in my opinion your three versions are all a bit too colorful - maybe a more neutral version would be better and wouldn't distract from the shape (which seems to be the main point here).--AngMoKio21:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
for the historical / cultural value of the symbol, see my sentence just above. for the colors, well, I may agree with your opinion... the colors are fictionals, since the original triskel was colorless. i could prepare another version using less "artistic" colors..... :-P --/\/\π12:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --> I dont see the reasoning behind the choice of colours/texture/patterns. Also, why so many candidates? Why not select the best image and nominate it? Snowwayout01:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
well, I actually don't know which of the 3 images is the best one. I thought the community would choose one (or more) through multiple nomination.. that's all. if I committed a mistake... sorry!! :-) --/\/\π12:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
edit: I support the original version. I like this green, the image is very dynamic, and I can't help seeing a skull (the head of the insect) on the cropped version. I agree it is also on the original version, but the small size of the subject mades it less obvious CyrilB21:31, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - not really sure I see the value of it. At full scale, you have to scroll all over the place to find the insect; at screen size it is too tiny to be useful. - MPF21:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is a graphic image, the main element is color. The "out of focus" or DOF works nice, as it leads the view into the main subject and falls off behind. The lady bug in point of interest. I support the cropped version. --Tomascastelazo14:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support the original version. Very nice colors. Dark green missing in the edit : other colors are less attractive - Ithilsul 14:11, 03 July 2006 (UTC+2)
Support both. Cant decide, in the edit the placement of the insect is more pleasing, in the original I like the dark greens. --Wikimol08:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I quite like the picture, yet when it is zoomed in a noise-like distortion is becoming slowly visible. If I have time tomorrow, I shall fix this using The GIMP. Now I have to oppose it. Freedom to share15:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you. It is a great picture, but the quality is not convincing. I'd support it without the noise. MGo09:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, but for the oposite reason: I love the texture of the picture, but to enjoy it, you have to see it on full screen. I find the thumbnail (or the whole image) too dark. CyrilB21:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot for your commentaries ! I've seen a lot of votes where people had just wroten Opposite or Pro, and nothing else... It's pleasant :) Mutatis mutandis08:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
From a Ryanair plane, with a bad, bad, bad camera, so quality isn't there (noise)... Dark, I can do nothing, taking the plane from Toulouse to Denmark just to shot one photo is a little expensive, even with Ryanair :) Mutatis mutandis11:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - interesting view of some historical buildings. The diffusion under the left roof is a little annoying but can presumably be edited out fairly easily? - MPF23:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I like these City scenes, but the size of the picture is about half of the requirement for a FP. Perhaps a bigger file can be provided? unsigned by Thermos01:19, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Info created by (Jodelet) - uploaded by Jodelet - nominated by Jod-let En espérant que vous n'en ayiez pas ras-le-bol des cigales...
Support This is a shame the other version available has this green background, I found it more dynamic . Anyway, the picture is cleat, demonstrative, ... enclyclopedic! CyrilB21:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -maybe is my personal opinion, or maybe the mist but i find all a bit out of focus. plus i do not see any encyclopedic(informative) value on it.LadyofHats11:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The picture shows a typical landscape of southern Swiss Alps (imho this is the informative value of the picture). Anyway, an encyclopedic value isn't necessary as we're at Commons and not at Wikipedia. --MRB15:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
InfoThe 46th plate from Ernst Haeckel's Kunstformen der Natur (1904), depicting organisms classified as Anthomedusae. - uploaded by Ragesoss - nominated by Fernando S. Aldado
Neutral-even when it is a great picture, the image is rather dirty, and in increasing the contrast someone has "burn" the white areas. were you scaning it?LadyofHats11:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I scanned it, and can upload the original scan (which I did some amateur fix-up on to create this version) if someone wants to create a better version. Leave me a note on my userpage, if so--Ragesoss15:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Info A superparamagnetic fluid, otherwise known as a ferrofluid, in a dish over a neodymium magnet. Image created by Steve Jurvetson - uploaded by GeeJo - nominated by GeeJo
Oppose, although I support all opinions above, encyclopedic value is not an issue here. The quality (and the resolution) of the image are not FP. Lycaon13:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support the second version even more! a bit of cropping could bring the subject in a better position though, but this is not a big issueCyrilB09:01, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I kind of like it, but unfortunately the resolution is something like half the guideline for FP. However, perhaps a bigger file can be provided. In addition, I would prefer not to have right side of picture cut off. Also, if some "breathing space" around the subject could be provided, that would be better. And finally, it appears that there are burned highlights, which should be corrected. —the preceding unsigned comment is byThermos (talk •
Support Much better crop and exposure than the first one uploaded. Informative. Support the new crop and version. --Thermos14:29, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Would probably support it with better and not overexposed background. Perhaps one can try to edit this? norro08:29, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Quick notice, I've just gotten a mail back from the creator of the image, and he still has a higher resolution, uncropped version on his hard drive. I'll post the link when I've received it. GeeJo21:56, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, added now. I'm not very good when it comes to manipulating images, so if anyone wants to take a shot at cleaning it up, feel free :) GeeJo(t)⁄(c) • 23:41, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I thought the overall quality was poor, so I created several new ones... I see someone has nominated one towards the top of this page. --Gmaxwell04:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral There is certainly a potential for a "shot", but however, perhaps some technical issues should be considered. Per comments above, I would prefer if there were no burned highlights. In addition, the pictue appears to be a bit soft/mushy. Perhaps it could be reshoot with tripod and smaller ISO?
Neutral there is not much subject in the picture, but the overexposure seems right to me in this case. The light is so bright that you cannot focus both the background and the lamp with your eyes without several seconds of adaption time. Therefore this overexposure makes sense. --Ikiwaner19:24, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rodge may have a good point... and I should know more about what is natural/not over processed. If those issues can be fixed please do. --gren06:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is my own photo, and I think it came out well, with good color saturation, and focus. Plus, it shows a bit of the life-history of the butterfly --Cotinis13:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's hard to get a picture of a subject this small with an interesting background. I like the fact that it is laying eggs. (Cabin Tom20:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Neutral bambi! ;), nice picture, but composition could be improved (it's centered right now, maybe the left and lower side should be cropped a bit) -- Gorgo18:51, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I have the impression that this picture was taken really close to the animal. This, plus the fact that it looks directly towards the camera gives me a bad feeling: isn't it supposed to be a wild animal? I'm not sure this is a reason to oppose a picture, but that is the reason why I don't really like it CyrilB21:26, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Quote from the "Sika Deer" article on the English Wikipedia: "Dybowski's sika deer (Cervus nippon dybowskii) and Formosan sika deer (Cervus nippon taioanus) are highly endangered and possibly already extinct in the wild." well, I really would prefer to take this shot in the wild... Robek
Well... you got that point! I still maintain my vote, for the centered composition and the fact that the animal is looking directly towards the camera, but I understand now the conditions of the shoot. CyrilB20:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - sharp, acceptable resolution (deliberately cropped to match, I guess), with an interesting subject. A shame that a picture in the wild is impossible nowadays. GeeJo(t)⁄(c) • 14:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC) 14:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - wonderful view, the browns compliment the blues and whites, and the geological layering in the mountain adds an interesting component. SFC939423:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ooooops! I played with the gimp and I replaced the original version with another with corrected perspective. I planed to upload it as a new picture, I swear! anyway, please feel free to revert my change if you prefer. Sorry for this unvolontary boldnessCyrilB18:51, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is getting stupid, but support the edit by Tomascastelazo (same thing as below). unsigned by Thermos16:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC) (as usual ;-))[reply]
Oppose --> A very nice photo of the ship (great lighting), sadly hidden behind a gloomy photo of a building, cars, several street lamps and a news-stand. Snowwayout01:22, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The picture is great. A great composition especially bcs of the building in front of it. That building gives an idea of how big this ship is and furthermore fits perfect into the pic (golden section). The only drawback is the quite low resolution. --AngMoKio06:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral aperture time over 2 seconds, I think this is volunteer artistic effect which I like, but not featured. ♦Pabixℹ15:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'd love to see this picture on real B&W paper, with its graphic aspect, but I don't think a low-res version on a computer screen destroys all the magic... CyrilB20:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not a zoo shot. This animal was photographed in the wild at Coulibistrie on Dominica, W.I. last month. They are not that easily approached as it was over 30°C in the shadow that day, and reptiles tend to be very active with warm weather. BTW, do they have this species—endemic to a few islands in the Caraibs—in Zoo's? — Lycaon18:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good that you point that out (although this species seems to be kept and bred in zoo's). It is nicely done and the resolution is very good but I'm sorry, it still looks like a zoo shot to me. Tbc19:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct, three zoo's have them and the first captive breeding of I. delicatissima occurred on 20 May 1997, [2] -- Lycaon22:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The work you did on this picture is good on the subject itself, but it added noise to the background. I'll try to do some masking tonight to keep the best of both CyrilB11:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WeakSupport I really liked the resolution and the complexity and the simplicity at the same time yet I did not consider it very valuable. Freedom to share19:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - actually it is valuable, it shows all sorts of both river delta and arctic tundra landform types - MPF23:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support although I'm slightly bothered that the information doesn't explain why and what the colors mean making it more of a novelty than useful. gren07:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Voting ended at 05:14 on 21 July 2006 (UTC) votes after this time are invalid
Support For a few seconds I thought it was illustration. Great picture, IMHO! Too bad that the resolution is low, but I support it anyway. --romanm (talk) 22:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - not as bad as the other one, but background still rather distracting. Would be better taken in summer with the trees in leaf to hide the buildings - MPF00:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It would be better to go back and photograph it now that the trees are in leaf, but pictures of statues have to be pretty special. William Avery21:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The two green posts in the background draw attention to themselves, being the same colour as the subject. --Ali K14:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This image is grainy and shows ugly flash reflections, so I tried to enhance image quality and removed the flash artefacts. The removal of artefacts is not satisfying at all, but much better than in the original file. The cropped area should be nearly the same as in the original image. --Olei20:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose We need a higher resolution, and some antialiasing. From an encyclopedic point of view, some more information could be added on how to orientate the liquid cristals (but I'm not a specialist, though). Maybe you should put the source code on the image page to keep them together CyrilB21:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The resolution is no problem, because we can render de image again with POV-Ray and also use the antialiasing option.
I tried to compile the source code with a much higher resolution and antialiasing, only to find that the final image has too much brightness (and that I had to add the captions by hand). Furthermore, I'm not convinced about the educational aspect of the image: there is nothing to show how the cristals are oriented, and I'm not sure the position of the cristals on the picture is possible in the real world. CyrilB13:40, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is a photo of a bridge I never heard of and if you do not explain it further, I would classify it as an unknown piece of architecture. Something unknown cannot be considered valuable. The picture is also slightly out of focus and has some areas that are way too dark. Freedom to share07:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Info The only information I can possibly supply are those already available at the description of the image. It is an old, arched, stone bridge, lost in the forests of a region you have never heard of. Unfortunately the notion that something unknown cannot be considered valuable, is beyond my comprehension. The picture is indeed slightly out of focus, since this was a difficult shot, in a dark place with a Minolta X700, manual focus. Thank you for your comments. Adamantios07:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The picture is a little bit blurry and the slightly overexposed stones in the foreground a bit distracting, but the composition is perfect. norro08:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the trees on the right are a black mass that IMO destroys the balance of the picture. I'd like to see more of this bridge and less of the trees. The image also lacks sharpness CyrilB13:17, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Info created by AM - uploaded by AM - nominated by AM
The photo was taken 1985 in the National Archeologic Museum in Athens with a Yashica FXD SLR and Zeiss Tessar 50mm on Kodachrome 100 slide film, Tripods were not allowed.
Oppose dark and lacks of sharpness. I'm not a big fan of the composition either, I prefer the overall view CyrilB20:24, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is a window on top of the left wall near the corner. I just tried to make it disappear behind the statue. And without a tripod I had to hold my breath to release with 1/30 sec. -- AM15:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is the problem of judging an image: our comments go to the result, not to the means to get it. I can tell the image is very good for the conditions you describe, but I'm afraid I wouldn't consider it as one of "the finest images on commons". CyrilB18:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I could have sharpened it. But I like the texture of the bronze. All the other pics of this statue don't show it. -- AM21:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WeakOppose Nice colors and everything technical, yet I am unfortunately unable to locate a clear subject. It is also slightly dark. I would suggest taking it at a different time of the day. Freedom to share12:21, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - i think it is a very nice and interesting composition. ...though the black upper thin border should get removed. Where does it come from? --AngMoKio21:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The image doesn't show something special, and the technical quality (sharpness, colours) is not good enough to enjoy the image for itself CyrilB20:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator. Banksia rosserae was only recently discovered and named, and until very recently no-one had ever seen it in flower, and no-one even knew when it flowered. The species occurs only in a few small populations in an unpopulated and arid area of Western Australia, and the exact locations are kept secret for conservation reasons. For these reasons, there were, until today, no photographs of the Banksia rosserae inflorescence anywhere on the web, under any licence at all; and there was virtually no prospect of a Wikimedian successfully seeking out such a photograph. The fact that Commons now has the first such image is great for Commons, and it makes a huge impact on the species' Wikipedia article. Oh yeah, and the photo looks nice too.--Snottygobble12:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support — given the difficulty of obtain the picture, and the status that now beholds Wikimedia - Commons this should be FP. Gnangarra15:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Rarity is one thing but minimal quality is another... Here the image doesn't reach the resolution treshold. Other aspects can't even be judged. Commons FP is foremost about nice (qualitative) pictures. Encyclopedic value is secondary, sorry. On wikipedia FP I'ld support. Lycaon16:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support for the unique rarity value, despite the low res. Query: should the pic be rotated 180°? it looks like it is hanging down, maybe that's correct, maybe it should be the other way up - MPF16:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very interesting, of course, and great encyclopedic value. It's great to have such pictures on Commons. But resolution (480×388) is very, very low... --Jod-let17:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support If it is the only picture available, it is the best there is. If the plant is rare indeed (and it seems to be) It is the only window we have to appreciate it. The Wiki criteria is encyclopedic value, and in this case, despite the low res, it has it. Rarity in this case, overides comfortable considerations of prettier or less demanding images. --Tomascastelazo20:35, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose If the subject is rare, this should be a featured image on Wikipedia. But I think the resolution is too low for any use except web page, so it is not suited to commons. CyrilB20:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Well if it comes down to my vote I'd better support it. It was pretty hard to sneak up on that bird and I kept constantly shooting while approaching. I like the details in the worn out beak and how you can look straight through the nostrils. --Dschwen00:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice, but for NASA space images we have far higher standards than someone just waving at the camera. The shuttle is currently in orbit again, so lets see what they can come up with in the next few days. --startaq06:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Less than half the minimum resolution. User:Gmaxwell has much higher resolution versions of these pictures, which he's indicated he'll consider uploading once certain Mediawiki problems are sorted out (if they ever are). I'd definitely support a higher res version though.GeeJo(t)⁄(c) • 05:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that he's unhappy with the way images are thumbnailed both on teh image description page and in articles. You'll have to talk to him for specifics though. GeeJo(t)⁄(c) • 23:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - the pic is great but why is the resolution so low?! It is done with a EOS 5D...it should be no problem to get a higher resolution. Or is it a crop? --AngMoKio06:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have no particular desire to see my work featured. Especially if doing so would require me to upload a higher resolution version which Mediawiki will mangle and leave me embarrassed by the poor way my work is represented... for no good reason. I plan on submitting a patch to improve the image page thumbnails this weekend, but until then I will not be uploading anything larger than 800x600. The great irony of this is that below the Flickr ferrofluid image who's poor overall quality inspired me to create new images is likely going to be featured.... but if you upsample my image to the same size it still looks sharper, less noisy, and more clear. So, vote whichever way you like.. but the opposition based on a silly hard limit just discourages me from continued contribution in the future. --Gmaxwell12:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have elsewhere, on enwiki [3] (see the image) as well as on commons (village pump someplace)... we are the only large image posting site on the net that I can find that doesn't postdownsample sharpen. Worse, we compress all images (including image pages images) with a quality level that produces obvious artifacts in almost all images. The juxtaposition of artifacts and over smooth downsampling produces images which look out of focus. .. I'd previously been disappointed to find my images on other sites (I've had featured images on four third party sites! :) ) where in every case they took the artifacted image page thumbnail rather tan the original image... but the last straw was when I showed a non-wikipedia friend some of my newer uploads and on seeing the image page of Image:Reston,_Virginia_-_Lake_Anne_plaza.jpg he commented "too bad the building on the left is out of focus".
In any case, I've written a patch against SVN head which uses --quality 95 for thumbnails 800x600 or larger (i.e. image pages) and applies 1px * 30% USM to images downsampled 2:1 or more. I can't find any cases where this causes artifacts or otherwise reduces quality (I'd like to apply a bit more USM, but I don't want to risk artifacts). I will have time this weekend to finish testing the patch, submit it, and make an argument to Brion.
You might think the quality loss isn't significant, and I wouldn't agree.. but even if it was insignificant: I work hard to make images which are of high quality at every step, from the start when I solicit ideas from article editors, to when I process the output for upload. So even though I don't control downstream use, it is an embarrassment when the pictures *I* upload look less good than they should because of software behavior.--Gmaxwell18:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Voting ended at 02:41 on 28 July 2006 (UTC) votes after this time are invalid
I understand the frustration, but we're not judging thumbnails. The images in commons are not specically to be manipulated by the wikimedia software. I hope you get the patch merged or change your position, because the image is quite good. --Artefacto 23:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC) -- withdrawn --Artefacto02:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we do. The better the images in our featured gallery, the better our project looks and the more attention and contribution it attracts. — Omegatron14:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I never though of featured pictures as attracting contributors, after all.. most featured pictures were not created by commons contributors... the authors of these photos may often be unaware that commons exists. :) --Gmaxwell17:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --> The colour and sharpness are great, however IMHO the composition does not focus on the main subject, while the perspective views the statue from the side. There is also a disruptive shadow. Snowwayout10:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose If the statue is the main subject, then it's kind of lost. Needs better separation from background. --che10:35, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
>> The statue is not only the main subject, it's the whole scenario, courtyard, light, and shadow from the right falling exactly to the statue's fundament -- Calauer11:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I tried to improve the contrast (please feel free to revert if you don't agree), but yet I find this image is not enough for featured status: for example the lake is cropped, the cloud is overexposed. I appreciate the people in the bottom left corner, and I think this image should be nominated for quality image status. I do it right now! CyrilB21:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with Cabin Tom.... it's kind of blown out and... maybe if was a good representation of some artform... gren06:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - ditto to Snowwayout. Also don't care for the edit - the cloned leaf in the lower left is too obvious (tho' the spacing of the flowers from the edge is better) - MPF23:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As I suppose the original picture is a 2:3 or 3:4 rectangle, I think you could give even more breathing space to the picture, and get the flowers less centered CyrilB11:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I would support this image as one of the Commons:Quality images candidates, because it is a good illustration of whatever this insect is, but I think I lacks the creative composition that would make it less look like a scientific shot and more like a featured picture. CyrilB21:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've speedied it and uploaded under a more descriptive name. But hang on... is Adiemus the same person as João Felipe C.S? If not, this may be a bogus GFDL release. João, what do you have to say? — Erin(talk)23:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- something seems a little off... very dull... I wasn't in NYC that day but... was it hazy? I just have a feeling it's because the picture isn't so great and not because that's how it looked. gren06:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The resolution is outstanding, but IMO this image has no specific aesthetic quality nor depicts a well known place CyrilB11:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is the shadow, and not the ground. This is useful when you want to put the image on a background with several different colors. Fixing a color for the shadow would sometimes lead to a poor result, let it be transparent and it would fit most cases. NoJhan07:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- It's good... but, we're getting more and more good SVG images and I'm not sure if this is up to the cut. gren06:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Regarding Gren's comment: You may be right that our standards for .svg's are rising, but my feeling is that it doesn't need to be very complicated to be interesting, illustrative, imaginative, and useful. I also like that it's (1) based on up-to-date scholarship and (2) has school children in mind. QuartierLatin196818:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support — a nice, clear graphic, suitable for an encyclopedia and many other uses. I've made two variants of it, both of which I prefer to the original. One of them has a heavier line weight, and one of them has no lines at all. I don't like "weak" outlines; either all or nothing, in my book! But I'll support any of them. --Fastfission21:46, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --> Composition (Tail missing but large areas of screen remain). Setting is unnatural. Focus is just a little bit out. (Sorry). Snowwayout02:42, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No need to be sorry! I'm honestly more interested in hearing people's criticisms of the photo than "getting a FP." Thanks for the pointers. Starwiz02:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The cropped tail and the two white strips on the background disrupt the composition, and the head of the anole is a bit out of focus. On the plus side, the green color is nice, and I like the texture of the mesh CyrilB11:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose IMO, to be featured, such a simple image should have a outstanding realisation (great light, graphical composition...) CyrilB21:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, sorry then. Useful tips, please give more. I thought a very high-quality, sharp focused and detailed image of a subject so common could be "featured", misunderstanding with "high quality"... --Jollyroger15:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One thing I think is that there shouldn't be the curb and shadow at the top. Which could mean you'd have to find another location on the tracks. gren06:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Nice urban landscape. I don't mind the tourists; I think it would look strangely empty without them. However, I'd recommend cropping it vertically (~25% from the bottom, ~10% from the top). Also, saturation is low due to the haze, position of the sun, and reflections. --MarkSweep00:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too much jpeg compression, a dead pixel right in the middle, and the top and bottom black masses create an oppressing effect CyrilB21:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I can imagine it was great, but I don't think the "ambience" is well rendered on the image, especially because of the cars that destroy the "magic" CyrilB21:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - impressive clouds, it must have been good to see. However, a picture like this also needs an impressive foreground or silhouette - unfortunately this car park isn't it. See the sunset page for many other similar examples, some good, some less so. -- Solipsist18:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose cute, but I don't really like the composition of the first image (especially because the mother(?) is cut, and the group is too messy on the second image CyrilB20:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral noisy and lacks of sharpness, but the colors are really nice. Another bad thing is that the right side seems useless, everything holds in the left half of the picture CyrilB21:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. The source site, Library of Congress, has the original TIFF file at 143MB. I will use it to create a higher resolution JPEG version and will upload it in a couple of hours (I just can't do that right now due to an intermitent bandwidth limitation). --Abu badali18:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- good timepiece. Higher res would be good since it's available... but I'd support either way. gren06:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support By popular request, I have re-uploaded the full-resolution picture, as Abu was going to. Check out her right hand - it looks huge! The expression on her face suggests not concentration in the task at hand, but boredom, or even pent-up anger. Too bad a woman in a factory means lower salary for the same work, now as it did in the 1940s. – Tintazultalk10:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - there's something wrong with the pic, all I get is a little red 'x' in the top left corner - MPF22:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support — appears as if its a staged photograph for propoganda during WWII, that aside I think the image is FP worthy. Gnangarra13:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, looking at some other 1940s photos from the LOC archive this one does stand out in its almost archetypal quality.--Eloquence00:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There is no point in having such a strict cropping, especially because the microscope is not perfectly vertical CyrilB21:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The subject is interresting, but too low resolution, and how old is this statue? Isn't protected by copyright?CyrilB21:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- why is this even up here for a vote? sorry for me being so blunt, but this is probably the worst shot on here. -- Boereck09:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Its such a magical photograph with an illusion of brilliant 'stepping stones' like lily pads to a land of enchantement. 'Christmas' How apposite is that title. Its perfect....makes me want to go there. Anjela White
Oppose You need greater depth of field - try getting down on one knee and then shooting the picture, the different perspective will make it look better. – Tintazultalk08:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Try in a different light and weather conditions - early morning, with golden light and some fog? More sky, and with clouds, too? – Tintazultalk07:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- the rock on the front left hand kinda destroyed the atmosphere. yet the mountains with the fog are not too bad of a composition imho. -- Boereck09:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - I like the effect of the summits sticking out of the haze, but not the bent horizon: can the horizon be straightened? - MPF23:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I love the composition! True, the outcrop at the bottom left feels out of place, but it also gives you a sense of groundedness (and a pleasant thrill of vertigo). We're not just floating in the air, so we have a sense of where the viewer's ground stands with respect to the panorama below. QuartierLatin196818:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Nice night city view, but the lightpost right in the middle is disturbing, especially because it shows the picture is not horizonal! CyrilB22:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Like mentioned above, the lightpost is very offputting. Nice contrast against the trees, but the glaring lights at right seem to spoil the effect. --Ali K04:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Suggestion: take another shot not at night, but at nightfall or sunrise, preferably with clouds in the sky which will give you a nice sky, instead of just darkness. Also, pictures look better if you divide the field of view in three vertical zones and three horizontal zones, and align the subject with one of those thirds. In this case, I would display more sky by pointing a little bit further up. – Tintazultalk07:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - don't like the 'line of light' effect from the traffic, nor the glare of the brighter lights - MPF23:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I love this frog- he looks like he is camouflaged against the steps...waiting for the perfect person to see him- to plant a kiss and bring him into being.Anjela White
Neutral Nice pic in general - I love the tree's reflection at the same level as the frogs "fingers" but the pic does not focus enough on the frog which is a shame if the pic is meant to illustrate it --Stunter00:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks for all comments. No, my aim was to illustrate the frog as part of his wetland-system: swamp with broken birches. --XN00:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- nice... but I don't see it as being anything special from among his works. We aren't going to make all works by Sergei Mikhailovich Prokudin-Gorskii into FPs... and this one doesn't seem to be his best. gren06:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- somehow we enjoy the presence of many tourist shots these days :-) I guess people are taking their vacation time, hum? -- Boereck09:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Info created, uploaded and self-nominated by David.Monniaux
Support -- I like the contrast between the official office building in the back, and the lighthouse boat converted into a dance club in the front. David.Monniaux05:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not impressive on the whole. Blurry, incredibly blown out. Bad representative picture... maybe artistic... but, I don't think it's FP material. gren06:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - the prison wing (well, that's what it looks like!) at the right spoils the pic. Would rather see a photo taken from well over to the left, showing the main building, with the cedars in front of and hiding the prison wing. - MPF22:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunatelly i dont know about the exact species. But i would be grateful if someone could add the correct information --AngMoKio00:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
i also have a cropped version of this photo. I pondered long and was not sure which one is better. i somehow like both. Please move votes here if you prefer the other--AngMoKio10:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, resolution. And good reproduction of historical paintings is IMO true reproduction - what does "contrast enhanced" mean in this context? --Wikimol22:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I created the "contrast-enhanced" version to bring out some more of the detail in the picture, but it is basically arbitrary. Either version is too low resolution to feature, in my opinion. I would really like to see a higher quality repro of the painting, though; it's one of my favorites.--Eloquence00:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment didnt you read the description on the image page, its the motor of a 1924 Chevrolet Superior K 1 ton truck, on display at the Avondale agricultural research station museum Gnangarra02:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support We are talking about 1924 here-a masterpiece of machinery that has been preserved. It's a beautiful parallel to the evolution of our times.
The photograph shows with such clarity the lifeline cord in blue as it runs against a rusty backdrop. I love it! Anjela White
Oppose sorry, way too hard to understand what it is due tro cropping. An image is worth 1000 words, but here we need 1000 words to understand the image :-) --Jollyroger10:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose — some dust from the scan bed is visable in the sky at full resolution, also particulate matter near the intersection of the 1st thirds from bottom and left of screen. The image is very nice the sign doesnt bother me, clean the scan bed, rescan, upload and nominate I'd support. Gnangarra13:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral — I the image technically is very good, the subject matter of the moon is too insignificant compared to the prominance given. Gnangarra10:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral — its like the 1000 other rose images already uploaded. The genus, species, cultivar etc haven't been identified, its technically good but there is no outstanding quality to make it a FP Gnangarra13:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, there are many photographs of roses. However, I found just a few with comparable quality and beauty: . Besides, the nominated rose is in my opinion better than all others.
you probably did not read the summary: A typical maltese boat called luzzu (some times also dhajsa), photo taken in Marsaxlokk (the photo has been been uploaded 2004 just one months I worked in wiki - should I rename it, damned?
This is not just a picture of a grave and agreed it may not be thee most Earth shattering picture to judge but there is such a thing as sensitivity and no, it is Not 'only' a grave- this is part of history and part of someone's life. If a relative of yours or your child were to be drowned in an act of terrorism and her body washed ashore and a whole city saw to giving her a final resting place.....think if it would 'only be a grave to you.
This picture has some historical significance and interest for those who questioned what happened to the passengers of the ill-fated Lusitania when the German's sank her. Anjela White
Sorry, all sensitivity aside, we are judging pictures here, not touching stories of human tragedy. And as a picture this doesn't cut it for me. Furthermore I could imagine pictures with a lot more historical significance than this snapshot, like original photos, drawings, newspaper snippets. --Dschwen21:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My 'bone of contention' was not with you Dschwenand I'd agree its cut off. Requiescat in Pace. Anjela White
Support I thought it was a poor image, but after reading the text i fond it so deeply touching in its historical setting and added my vote. Photos have to express feelings, non only technique --Jollyroger10:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Photos have to make sense in the wikimedia. But they also have to fulfill the standards. This one is badly cut and the motife is not placed well. Akriesch13:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like this somewhat surreal, but still natural image. However, this appears to be monitor calibration sensible image. In my work computer the shadows appear too dark and a lot of detail is lost. However, with my calibrated home monitor, it appears much better. Please, consider this when evaluating this image - whether you support or oppose it. Check whether you can see the four circles in discussion page for FP.--Thermos17:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- even though the image is a bit blurry and the rocks/hills/mountains (I have no real scale and suck at guessing) are very dark, the cloud formation makes up for it! interesting and unique. -- Boereck09:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like the composition a lot, but licensing seems not very clear to me. Is the uploader the photographer? Otherwise we need a clear statement of the copyright holder. Forthermore there should be a description about what is shown on this photograph. norro21:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Support, good as a photo. If copyright status wont be explained by the uploader, should be deteded. --Wikimol22:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
the photographer has previously stated I see no problem with my photos being used on Wiki pages, would be grateful, as before if the credits say "Photo by Mikhail Evstafiev". when this issue was raised onthe other nominated image Gnangarra06:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately the statement isn't appropriate. The copyright holder has to agree to release his works under the terms of a free license not just to have “no problem with [his] photos being used on Wiki pages”. That is not enough. I left the uploader a message. norro08:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support on the condition that the licensing is kosher. (I suspect it will be. He's an artist, not an expert on copyright law, and he had no problem making arrangements with us before.) QuartierLatin196817:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- it does look futuristic: like a nuclear aftermath... yet it is an interesting shot. where is it from? -- Boereck09:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (anonymous vote doesn't count) - This image seems manipulated. The center of Los Angeles is exactly that - the center. There should be 20 miles of sprawl in any direction around it, yet you can see down to the base of the office towers, and there's no sprawl. In fact, now that I see it, the description says it is edited. --24.172.77.13800:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Info Digitized by the U.S. Library of Congress - uploaded by Delirium - nominated by Delirium 08:15, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Support --Delirium 08:15, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Hasta ∞ 19:40, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Oppose and 0
Neutral => featured. -- Lycaon 20:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Comment added author, uploader and nominator Lycaon 17:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Strong oppose --- gildemax 21:25, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Strong support --Tarawneh 03:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Agree Perfect. --Lmbuga gl, pt, es: contacta comigo 11:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
