Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/September 2006

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

Image:Eiffeltornet.JPG - not featured edit

Info created by Moralist - uploaded by Moralist - nominated by Moralist
Support --Moralist 20:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support great photo..no matter of the quite low resolution --AngMoKio 00:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - low res, not very special, too much sky - MPF 02:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose — too much sky and point of view is not informative. Indon 02:49, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - bad composition - too much sky, as previously told, and weird perspective. Pko 09:26, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like the perspective but nothing else. Technical quality and composition are bad. Roger McLassus 10:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't even like the perspective. --Digon3 12:37, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Confusing angle. --Lhademmor 14:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I like the perspective (it is different, and I have seen enough "standard" photos of the Eiffel tower for a lifetime), but it is too low res and there is too much bleached-out sky for me to support it. --Fastfission 19:45, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose where are the clouds? --Queryzo 12:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- totally agree with Fastfission! -- Boereck 09:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2 support, 8 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured Roger McLassus 05:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Eilean donan castle2.JPG - not featured edit

Info created by Moralist - uploaded by Moralist - nominated by Moralist
Support --Moralist 19:59, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Inclined to support, despite rather low res, as the pic is so nice - MPF 02:14, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too low res for FP, and not everybody knows Britain (Scotland) well enough to situate this castle, so some more info would be welcome. Otherwise nice and unusual view of the castle. -- Lycaon 06:36, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Now I have got more geographical info, and also some other info about the picture.Moralist 18:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - This castle probably is the most visited castle by tourists, apart from the castle in Edinburgh. Tbc 19:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice point of view, but the technical quality is too low for FP status and the picture is leaning to the left. Roger McLassus 10:22, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose agree with Lycaon --Digon3 12:56, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support At first I thought it was a painting, somewhat overromanticised, but still nice. Only in full view did I see that it is a photograph. Nice! The twigs at the top left could be removed. And the colour of the sky is somewhat overdone, but if it supposed to emphasise the painting-notion it is spot-on. Something similar goes for the green. Oh, and it is tilted. That might emphasise the old-ness (it's about to fall apart) but somehow doesn't work. For the rest, I love it. DirkvdM 17:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support The composition is very 19th-century, but I like a creative anachronism every now and then. Ack MPF. QuartierLatin1968 19:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose leaning to left --Queryzo 12:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- this pic says "castle" for me - the lean is a bit disturbing, you should fix that :-) -- Boereck 09:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have uploaded a new image, that don't lean. If I tried to get it more straight it leaned the other way, so it is as straight as I could get it.Moralist 16:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

5 support, 4 oppose → not featured Roger McLassus 05:48, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Cat.jpg - not featured edit

Info created by Traroth (I think) - uploaded by Traroth - nominated by Neo2000
Support --Neo2000 11:17, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Its a cat. Not only is it just a cat, but its legs are not in the picture. And its just making the same expression that any other cat can make. Maybe if you had the full cat in there I would vote differently. --Digon3 14:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose just another roadkill ;-) -- Lycaon 16:03, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - ditto to Lycaon - MPF 02:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unfortunately cats killed by traffic are anything but unusual - and the quality of this picture is not outstanding either. Roger McLassus 10:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is it actully roadkill??? Doesn't look like it. It looks like its just being lazy and yawning --Digon3 12:25, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - pr. everyone else. Funny picture (provided it's not a roadkill), but not featured picture. --Lhademmor 14:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is it actully roadkill??? --Digon3 16:58, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Agree with Digon3. --Javierme 22:08, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeOne more cat--Hi-tacks 16:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Picture like many others. Erina 22:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Verbas 12:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose agree with Digon3 Tbc 19:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not good quality picture and the subject is poor. Declic 18:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Day 7: 1 support (nominator), 11 oppose → not featured Roger McLassus 21:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Cape Disappointment1.jpg edit

Info created by (Digon3) - uploaded by Digon3 - nominated by Sunshade1
Support another good picture by digon, like this photo because of the sky, nice contrast --Sunshade1 15:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose boring picture Lycaon 07:56, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose rather drab. Which Cape Disappointment? - I presume from the Picea sitchensis at the right, the one at the mouth of the Columbia River, but the pic really ought to say - MPF 02:10, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose In addition to being boring this picture is considerably leaning to the right. Roger McLassus 10:14, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This photo was intended to be just informational. I didn't take this picture for beauty, just to show a lighthouse. It should not be featured. --Digon3 12:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Innsbrucklarge.jpg - featured edit

Info created by Know_Nothing - uploaded by Know_Nothing - nominated by Dagonator
Support Cool Night Shoot
Support --Luc Viatour 07:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Balanced picture, very nice, but is it valuable? --Digon3 13:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support--AngMoKio 13:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XN 16:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - depends on how it is viewed. As a thumbnail it doesn't look special. To see how nice it is (the streets, the mountain ridge) you have to view it at a low resolution (ie big). So this is sort of a conditional support, but there is no template for that. :) DirkvdM 17:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In this case you should support the picture, since only full resolution counts. Roger McLassus 21:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get what you mean to say. I use the word 'resolution' in the sense of 'pixels per cm' (or 'dpi' or whatever), which I beleive is the original and correct sense. A bit confusing this ambiguous terminology. Anyway, what I meant is that that the picture only works when viewed big, not in the size that is normal for Wikipedia (and most other websites). Full-screen it is beautiful, though. DirkvdM 09:51, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The term "full resolution" means that every pixel of the screen corresponds to exactly one pixel of the picture. You can judge the value of a picture only when seeing it this way. Even the best picture can look bad when compressed to a thumbnail. The suitability of a photograph for Wikipedia is not of primary importance in the Commons, and even the featured picture discussions in the Wikipedia (the English or German one) never refers to the quality of thumbnails, since it always only takes one mouse-click to get the whole picture. Roger McLassus 10:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a thumbnail. It's about the size pictures will mostly be shown on the Internet. DirkvdM 04:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support Very cool in full resolution -- Lerdsuwa 16:48, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - sorry, streetlight pics don't do anything for me - MPF 02:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice, very nice night shot! --Sam67fr 15:05, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice pic--Hi-tacks 16:35, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice. --Erina 22:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's a quite nice pic, because the best side of innsbruck. --umgc_Yoda 16:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

10 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured Roger McLassus 20:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Evening at Dodwell-Rixon Pass.jpg - not featured edit

Info created by Nathan La Porte - uploaded by Nlaporte - nominated by Nlaporte
Support --Nlaporte 06:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nice panorama, but not that interesting. Maybe if the sun reflected off the snow(making it orange glow)? --Digon3 13:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - fairly nice, but the sky is just a bit too cramped. I suppose the Sun made it difficult to avoid that but was at the same time needed for the contrasts in the snow, but knowing that doesn't help. DirkvdM 17:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The sky is cropped too niggardly, and the photographer forgot the white balance before taking the picture. Roger McLassus 21:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like panoramas and that one is very nice --Queryzo 12:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose — I like panoramas too, but not this one. White balance is not properly set. Indon 14:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2 support, 4 oppose → not featured Roger McLassus 20:44, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Wfm area51 map en.png - not featured edit

Info created by User:Finlay McWalter - uploaded by User:Finlay McWalter - nominated by Gnangarra
Support The map was nominated and promoted as Commons:Quality Images, This map is exceptional and deserves to be FP --Gnangarra 00:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose it doesn't cover that big of an area. All it shows is 3 military bases. Not interesting to me. --15:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC) by Sunshade1 - Roger McLassus 22:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - it's a map. Very useful, but so is a car (see below). DirkvdM 17:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support This map is very well done. I cannot see any reason for not featuring it. Roger McLassus 22:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose All it shows is 3 military bases, well done, but not that big an area. Oppose unless someone can convince me otherwise --Digon3 01:20, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support To DirkvdM: We've had maps (and diagrams) as featured pictures before. Truth is, FP should probably include a lot more useful, informative, and well-crafted maps like this, and a lot fewer insects and sunsets. To Sunshade1: It shows a lot more than 3 military bases! I can see you've never drawn a map for Wikipedia before. We've got county and state boundaries, topographic features, roads, cities and towns, a locator map, a detailed legend, a scale... The map is very easy to read and nicely laid out. And as for interest – well, it would be of interest if only for Area 51 alone. This is a major arena of US federal government activity. The only thing I don't see on here is a compass rose; otherwise this is a Cadillac-class map. QuartierLatin1968 02:02, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment Something I didnt mention earlier because I didnt know at the time of nomination is its Featured on en.Wikipedia. The reasoning behind nominating this map compared to many others is this one has such a significantly detailed legend/key. The description on the image page explains why certain details are there and other information is omitted. Gnangarra 07:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it is a good example of how a map should be made, which can be used by others as a template to make more maps, then I would agree. But the legend isn't very detailed at all. Most )commercial) maps show many more features. The reason is there aren't that many features in that area (despite the size). A map of a place that has many differnt landscapes in a limited area, would make more sense, such as is the case for many areas in New Zealand, for example. DirkvdM 10:02, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just so I understand you right, you don't believe that any map of this region could be FP quality, because "there aren't that many features in that area"? QuartierLatin1968 00:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But this isnt a map of topographical features its a map showing military facilities, and associated civillian area. I'm sure NZ doesnt have such an expanse of military facilities. Even if it does they arent where near as notiable as the Mythical area 51. Gnangarra 10:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how that area is mythical (does anyone?) and the map doesn't clarify that either, so that doesn't count. I admit I don't have any experience in mapmaking, so I'm not sure if I should judge maps. Then again, is it only meant for the incrowd or as a pat on the back for the effort? What I meant to say was that one reason a map could qualify as special is that it shows many aspects of map making. But the area is too boring to qualify for that. The presence of a military area is not that special and size doesn't matter. However, it does have Death Valley on it. One of the few areas in the world that are below sea level. But the map doesn't reveal that. The height is indicated, but not quantified in the legend. So the map shows two special features but doesnt reveal that. Big oops. Bad map. DirkvdM 17:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just did a survey on the ref desk and it seems the area is quite well known outside the US. DirkvdM 06:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Legend letter size is quite small. Legend could be added as text outside the image. --Javierme 15:07, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's Area 51, US top secret millitary area for those who doesn't know it. -- Lerdsuwa
Oppose - no contours, altitudes, etc. - MPF 02:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - It's a very nice map, very well done. Very useful for articles on this region. It would be nice if the SVG was available, though I know that the background bitmap wouldn't travel well with it. --Fastfission 19:49, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- It would be useful if the alleged flying saucers were shown;) MartinD 11:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Good design, but again SVG would be the suited format. The shaded relief map could be embedded as a bitmap into the SVG, all other elements are probably vectorbased anyway. This is commons, think about translations people! --Dschwen 13:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not so bad, but should be SVG, this way it's badly editable. --Leclerc 15:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- I think it is an informative piece of material! -- Boereck 09:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support not SVG - no problem Aotearoa 20:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

7 support, 7 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured Roger McLassus 20:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Flower jtca002.jpg - not featured edit

Info created by (Tomas Castelazo) - uploaded by tomascastelazo - nominated by Tomascastelazo
Support --Tomascastelazo 02:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support--TPM 00:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose no name "flower" --Luc Viatour 07:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral agree, no name for flower, if it did I would vote for it to be featured --Digon3 13:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support--AngMoKio 13:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It is a very interesting photo, but no name, and it needs to be cropped a little closer to the flower --Sunshade1 15:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
The tao that can be described
is not the eternal Tao.
The name that can be spoken
is not the eternal Name.
So, then if no name, no picture? No flower? No beauty? Maybe we should change this to "Feature Name Candidates" :o) --Tomascastelazo 17:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It needs a name so that it can be identified and use properly in a article. However, oppose just on the basis that it has no name is a little harsh, so I'm changing mine to neutral. --Digon3 18:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose no name -- Lycaon 23:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - there is no info at all, not even where the photo was taken. DirkvdM 10:08, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Solving the lack of information pointed by DirkvdM would make the pic more useful. --Javierme 15:05, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - it's a Passiflora; should be readily identifiable to species, I'll give it a go tomorrow (location would help, please) - MPF 02:03, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment MPF: it was taken at the Guadalupe Valley, Baja California, Mexico, in a garden... it does not look like a native species. --Tomascastelazo 22:17, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good pic.--Erina 22:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice pic. Needs a name. However I have a hunch: Passiflora picturata. Its either that or another w:Passion flower. Don't say I didn't do nothing for you :). Please confirm flower name and also categorise and add all details of location/date etc. -- Tomhab 12:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support very nice structure --Queryzo 12:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose Not even a species, but just one of many hybrids. Passiflora palmeri is endemic in Baja California. If you can arrange an image of that species I would vote support. Hans B. 22:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Tbc 14:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC) Hans B. is an authority on passion flowers. His vote should be considered seriously.[reply]
Comment all non-anonymous votes are considered seriously. Lycaon 15:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I know, that's not what I meant. I wanted to say, in Dutch, dat zijn stem meer zou mogen doorwegen. Tbc 20:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

7 support, 7 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured Roger McLassus 20:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Lycaena virgaureae.JPG - featured edit

Info created by (IMAGEAUTHOR) - uploaded by Algirdas - nominated by Algirdas
Support --Algirdas 22:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Luc Viatour 07:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful butterfly, I love it. --Atlantas 09:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Has a name for it, beautiful picture, good colours/close-up. --Digon3 13:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Lycaon 13:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support--AngMoKio 13:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice, but not such a great res (1300x900). -- Tomhab 22:49, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - very nice butterfly! --Hugo.arg 07:20, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - MPF 01:59, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Indeed a nice picture, and good and correct name. --Lhademmor 15:13, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dirgela 15:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Vp loreta 16:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful picture. Kvitas 17:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice butterfly, very nice Verbas 12:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice image Tbc 21:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nemo5576 06:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

15 support, 1 oppose → featured Roger McLassus 20:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Grand Canyon South Rim Sunset.jpeg - not featured edit

Info created by (Digon3) - uploaded by Digon3 - nominated by Sunshade1
Support Very nice colours, beautiful picture of the Grand Canyon --Sunshade1 19:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice picture! Moralist 14:49, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support captured the Grand Canyon well --Teh Dvd 16:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I disagree. Unlike the unforgettable impression of the real Great Canyon this picture is rather boring. Furthermore, there is too much sky and the lower left corner is too dark. Roger McLassus 20:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be better if I cropped it and got rid of the dark corner and some of the sky? --Digon3 01:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Lycaon 08:02, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - tend to agree with Roger McLassus, particularly re the sky; also a bit hazy - MPF 01:58, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Nice picture, I like the tree in the left very much, it makes the picture less boring, and the light on it is great. Also nice clouds. Moralist 10:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - we've got many pictures of GC, and I can't see why this is special. --Lhademmor 15:14, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Background is too dark--Hi-tacks 19:57, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose — Lack of composition, lack of quality of light, the sky is dull, harsh shadow, not a special picture of GC (that means not qualified as FP). Indon 14:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

4 support, 6 oppose → not featured Roger McLassus 20:39, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Bryce Canyon Hoodoos.jpg - featured edit

Info created by (Digon3) - uploaded by Digon3 - nominated by Sunshade1
Support Very unique, great colours/angle, amazing pic. --Sunshade1 15:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mjem 15:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very interesting, amazing picture --Teh Dvd 16:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - combines nicely with the Winchester cathedral flags below. Nature's cathedral, so to say. :) DirkvdM 17:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Romary 21:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good diagonal, good shadow area in foreground left, throws view to main subject, good texture. --Tomascastelazo 00:42, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support- nice Andreas.Didion 06:42, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lerdsuwa 16:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - MPF 01:56, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too high color saturation and apart of that not a special composition. The trees disturb. --AngMoKio 14:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I did not modify this picture. What you see is what I had seen.--Digon3 17:03, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Nice. --Lhademmor 15:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- I think you have not taken full advantage of the great motives you can shoot at Bryce Canyon. I have taken nicer pictures back in the day with my analog camera - it rained that day... - Boereck 09:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- I wasn't there but have seen much more interesting pictures from that place. Perhaps I'm missing something to focus my eye in the foreground. Andreas Tille 09:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose composition (or rather hardly any composition) norro 21:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

10 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → featured Roger McLassus 20:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Winchester cathedral flags.jpg - featured edit

Info created and uploaded by Tomhab - nominated by Tomhab
Support --Tomhab 18:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mjem 15:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Leclerc 13:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC) Good composition, good technical quality (res, focus...)[reply]
Support - has a very 'massive' feel to it and I like the contrast between the grey and the red. DirkvdM 17:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Converging lines due to camera position, curvature of lens too evident. Poor technique in general. --Tomascastelazo 00:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What curvature? I dont see any curvature(they look straight). --Digon3 01:14, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is an ever so slight curvature, but that only adds to the effect. To me the main criteria here are beauty and educational value and the curvature doens't hurt either. Many people are too focused on technicalities. Take the rule of thirds. You may find that many beautiful pictures follow this rule, but that doens't mean one can reverse that. If one day I find that most girls I like are blondes, then that doensn't mean that I should reject all brunettes from then on. :) Beauty is instinctive and true art is often even based on breaking the rules in stead of following them. DirkvdM 10:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The curvature is most notable if you photograph big building from close distance. Or if you photograph ... pretty much anything with short focal length (very high FOV)

For me, if the image have high resolution, the important areas are sharp and it is not overexposed or underexposed - then the technical quality is perfect. --Leclerc 16:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Pluke 09:37, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Dirk, yeah, sure, there seems to be a lot of double standards around here... but one thing is for sure, a general lack of knowledge in distinguishing the elements of photography. Personal taste is no substitute for informed critisism. I have no problem with either one, but they are two different things --Tomascastelazo 16:51, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. The question is just which one counts most. DirkvdM 04:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Lerdsuwa 16:56, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - would support if the blue person edited out - MPF 01:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - agree with MPF. Get rid of mr. Blue and I'll support
Oppose - good when downscaled, I'm not that impressed when viewving 1:1. --Wikimol 22:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral feels powerful, but agree with MPF --Jollyroger 21:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

6 support, 2 oppose, 4 neutral → featured Roger McLassus 20:37, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:ColosseumAtEvening.jpg - not featured edit

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Andreas Tille
Oppose Edit the people out and this would be a great picture, but the people ruin it for me, sorry --Digon3 13:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - it's tilted for one. I like sharp light/dark contrasts, but this one doesn't have anything special. Just a ruin. DirkvdM 17:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I disagree, I think the wedding adds context, no longer just a cold technical photo of an over photographed building. -- Pluke 09:39, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo 00:46, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Could benefit from judicious application of unsharp masking, to improve local contrast. --MarkSweep 01:48, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - ditto to Digon3. Specially that big piece of white litter. - MPF 01:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support the picture has a nice atmosphere and the photo itself is of a good quality. Well those people...dont know if they really fit but they also dont spoil the pic. --AngMoKio 14:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I guess you will most probably see much more people in front of this building most of the time than after this heavy rain. So I regard the image less crowded than normally and I personally like the wedding people. Normally I tend to get rid of people on my photos but in this situation I regard the people as a special feature. The only problem I have with these people is that they become quite small when using the 20mm lens and are at this distance. Andreas Tille 07:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - agree with Digon. Even though the main focus is the Colloseum, the people can disturb the view/focus. --Lhademmor 15:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- it would be a great pic but that shadow right on the colosseum spoils it -- Boereck 21:28, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think the wedding fits well in the picture Paulatz 15:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sorry, i don't like italian clichès. Quite blurry on side of the building, wedding is too small --Jollyroger 21:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

5 support, 6 oppose → not featured Roger McLassus 20:36, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Burgwald 025.jpg - not featured edit

Info created and uploaded by User:Nikanos - nominated by Andreas Tille (found this image on [1] and wonder how others here would rate this image)
Support Nice swampy scenery in forest, good resolution, sharp image--Leclerc 16:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Shry tales 17:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support good resolution, sharp image, very pretty and interesting photo. --Digon3 19:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Romary 06:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mjem 15:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support--AngMoKio 13:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - being very green makes it somewhat striking, but I don't see anything else in it. DirkvdM 17:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Stunning, striking, and very focused. Most of all, very green :). --^{Brandt Luke Zorn}_{talk to me} 06:34, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - beautifully restful after all those cars! - MPF 01:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - nice nature pic. --Lhademmor 15:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very well done, very nice looking, very well composed. --Fastfission 19:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- IMHO: pretty low quality and - since I grew up in the counryside - nothing special -- Boereck 21:26, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Despite of good technical quality, this photo has no particularly special point of interest to show. I believe this is not an FP material, due to no valuable information to share. Indon 23:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A simple forest, nothing special Verbas 12:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support @verbas: then try taking a photo in a forrest. you'll see, it is not that easy :) --Queryzo 12:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly this is what I read in John Shaws "Landscape Photography" and IMHO this picture is a very good example that it is true. But what makes it featured then. Where can I find the good old rules of composition like Golden ratio etc. The leaning tree in the foreground is distracting in my eyes. So except that I feel the good smell of fresh air I can not make anything out of this picture. Andreas Tille 20:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose simple any forest, nothing Special - Andreas.Didion 20:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose something missing, can't put my finger on it... Lycaon 06:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose composition, overexposure norro 21:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

11 support, 7 oppose → not featured Roger McLassus 20:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:SAAB9000.jpg - not featured edit

Info created by Liftarn - uploaded by Liftarn - nominated by Liftarn
Support -- Wikipedia has no picture of the SAAB 9000 with the old front. I also like that there is little distractions from the subject (the car). I also like how it turned out with the sky and the wet tarmac. // Liftarn 11:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bad composition,Colors, nothing special --Luc Viatour 11:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing Special--Joel McLendon
Oppose Its just a close-up of a car, Nothing special --Digon3 19:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Normal Car Picture. Nothing Special--Know Nothing 08:20, 25 August 2006
Oppose DirkvdM 17:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is the best of the several pictures you have nominated. --^{Brandt Luke Zorn}_{talk to me} 06:37, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing Special. Romary 11:49, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - the sky is too bright. Other than that, this pic is nice. --Lhademmor 15:22, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nothing special --Queryzo 12:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2 support, 7 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured Roger McLassus 20:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:1995-SAAB900T-front.jpg - not featured edit

Info created by Liftarn - uploaded by Liftarn - nominated by Liftarn
Support Fixing tha lack of car pictures. I like this because it has very little clutter around and behind the car. // Liftarn 10:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bad composition,Colors, nothing special --Luc Viatour 11:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Joel McLendon
Support Good composition, no clutter in background, light background and dark car make good contrast. Though the edge of road in bottom right corner is a little bit disruptive, so cropping it away might help the picture --Leclerc 16:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Its just a normal car, bad colours. --Digon3 19:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Just a car, Nothing Special.--Know Nothing 08:18, 25 August 2006
Oppose - even worse than the previous one. DirkvdM 17:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - ditto to Digon3 - MPF 01:45, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - nothing special --Queryzo 12:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2 support, 7 oppose → not featured Roger McLassus 20:32, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Tulipa fosteriana.jpg - not featured edit

Info created by (Uğur Başak) - uploaded by Ugur Basak - nominated by Ugur Basak
Support, first picture nomination. --Ugur Basak 23:52, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Mjem 15:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

* Support Nice colours, sharp, flower named --Sunshade1 20:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral not bad, but what's inside? pfctdayelise (translate?) 11:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral a good shot. But nothing special --AngMoKio 13:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose agree, nothing special --Sunshade1 15:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Good pic of a named species, but would like to see leaves as well - MPF 01:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Nice first picture nomination! --Lhademmor 15:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Chosovi 12:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - there isnt much spectacular in it --Queryzo 12:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with Queryzo --Luc Viatour 04:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- for no particular reason other than my feeling -- Boereck 09:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with Queryzo norro 21:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

4 support, 5 oppose, 3 neutral → not featured Roger McLassus 20:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Uvsun trace big.jpg - not featured edit

Info created by (TRACE, NASA) - uploaded by olegivvit - nominated by Olegivvit
Support --Olegivvit 09:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice photo, not very good qulity, but still nice in smaller verision. Moralist 11:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Gordo 18:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Paulatz 09:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Shry tales 17:41, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Wrong contrasting of colors, if bit changed would be really good foto. --Atlantas 09:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MarkSweep 01:50, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Likeitsmyjob 04:56, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose low quality at full resolution. Poor patchwork. -- Lycaon 06:49, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Boereck 21:20, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Chosovi 12:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Looks great for me. --Erina 22:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral — There are better ones. [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] and there are higher-quality TIFFs of each. — Omegatron 01:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Leclerc 15:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC) Blocky, too visible that it is composed of more shots. And Omegatron is right, there are better ones, like this one he mentioned: [8][reply]
The photo you like is only in one color, the photo given here is in tree colors.
This one is three colors, and higher quality. — Omegatron 12:36, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, since it's from NASA, it should be PD ... maybe vote this one away, put the new one here and start voting again. 2100x2100 is good enough and it's sharp. --Leclerc 15:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I guess not. Copyright notice. They might re-license one or two images though, if we asked. — Omegatron 18:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see ... Well, if they'll relicense [9] unser some acceptable license, it'll be great. do you think there are any chances? --Leclerc 19:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, someone can certainly ask. — Omegatron 16:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Strange but interesting picture. Saproj 21:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

9 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured Roger McLassus 20:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:DirkvdM cienfuegos palacio de valle.jpg - not featured edit

Info created, uploaded and nominated by DirkvdM
Support --DirkvdM 06:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose low res (why not upload the highest resolution, as it's clearly existing?), very grainy. -- Lycaon 11:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is grainy because it is a night shot. For that same reason a bigger image size will not help. DirkvdM 13:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose its too small, grainy(i don't care that its a night shot), and the moon(or whatever that is) ruins the picture for me, sorry --Digon3 13:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you doubt it's the moon? DirkvdM 17:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is very bright for the moon --Digon3 18:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a long exposure. :) Look at the reflection on the water. And obviously it isn't the Sun. Anyway, I know, I took the photo. :) Actually, it's supposed to be part of the beauty of the photo - a moonlit roof terrace. But if that isn't obvious enough, maybe I should have put a couple in love at one of the tables to underline that. :) DirkvdM 20:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its also very small only 837x1126, needs around 2000x1000. I still dont like the moon in this photo, sorry --Digon3 01:00, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose -- Boereck 21:20, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - strange lightning --Queryzo 12:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - would have been much nicer if the moon was recognizable --Thenickdude 06:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I get that point now and it's a good lesson (don't assume the viewer sees what you know), but how could you make the moon recognisable? Without heavy zoom it's just a dot. If the reflection would have been more visible that would certainly have helped, I suppose. DirkvdM 18:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps combine multiple exposures so that the moon is a bright disk instead of a big flare..? Not sure :). --Thenickdude 05:35, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, without zoom the moon is nothing more than a dot. A common mistake. Anyway, I'm not going back to Cuba just to get this right. :) DirkvdM 18:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1 support, 5 oppose → not featured Roger McLassus 20:29, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Eastern Swallowtail.jpg - not featured edit

Info created, uploaded and nominated by AnjelaWhite
Support --AnjelaWhite 18:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Beautiful butterfly, althought it is a quite boring background. Also the flower isn't very nice. Moralist 12:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Oppose nice close up of a butterfly, but nothing else. --Digon3 01:24, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support good view from an angle one doesn't often see - MPF 01:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Nice butterfly --Lhademmor 15:25, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- It seems butteflies are the new sunsets (no offense)! -- Boereck 21:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - very common context (Buddleja), i'm neutral about the angle Tbc 21:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - contrast? --Queryzo 12:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured Roger McLassus 20:28, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Great katsura of wachi01s3000.jpg - not featured edit

Info created by 663highland - uploaded by 663highland - nominated by 663highland
Support Self nomination. The tree of Katsura (C. japonicum) for age-of-a-tree 1000 years "great Katsura of Wachi" in Torokawataira, Kami, Hyogo, Japan--663highland 13:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Doesn't quite stand out. /Dcastor 15:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - MPF 23:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose far too boring Paulatz 09:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose doesn't stand out, not cropped right, something one would find in any forest, so nothing special --Digon3 19:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - Great resolution but not very special image. --Lhademmor 15:26, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Boereck 21:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured Roger McLassus 20:27, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Olympic Stadium Munich.JPG - not featured edit

Info created by (mavca) - uploaded by mavca - nominated by www.mavca.de
Support --www.mavca.de 12:42, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose foreground too messy -- Lycaon 22:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It just isn't that striking a picture. The whole thing feels off-center as well, both because the camera seems to have been tilted but also because the angle of the stadium is tilted (the overall effect is that I feel like I will fall over!). A large part of the photograph is just a series of standard stadium lights which is a bit dull. Though the sunset would potentially be nice, the way it shadows all of the foreground imagery detracts from the photograph as a whole. I like the canvas effect, but it is not well highlighted by the rest of the picture. --Fastfission 00:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - ditto to Lycaon & Fastfission - MPF 23:22, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - agree with Fastfission --Digon3 16:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose - too dark to see anything. --Lhademmor 15:27, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Boereck 21:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the colors is nice, but it seems a random shot Paulatz
Oppose If only the stage wasn't there norro 21:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1 support, 8 oppose → not featured Roger McLassus 20:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Yarra opposite rod laver arena - melbourne.jpg - not featured edit

Info Uploaded and nominated by Fir0002 (self nom)
Support --Fir0002 www 08:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Long time-photo, althought it is sharp. Really good photo!Moralist 11:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose technically irreproachable, in HDR, but the subject is not very interesting --Luc Viatour 11:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good sharp night photo. I don't know the bridge in question, so I won't judge its importance --Leclerc 16:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good lighting, sharp, unique. --Digon3 20:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - sorry, streetlight pics don't do anything for me - MPF 01:40, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Great exposure (blended?) and sharpness. --Dschwen 15:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support -- great picture. Very fine details, great execution, well-chosen scene - very nice! (the only thing that bugs me a bit is the car that goes over the bridge and is suddenly cut off because of (I suppose) the next picture being stitched in...) -- Boereck 21:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I just don't like it. --Erina 22:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lycaon 21:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support sharp and nice Paulatz 15:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Despite the artificial look, it's creative and visually interesting. I like the opposing parabola of the shore. I do agree the subject matter is weak. Masonbarge 13:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support / tsca @ 10:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Declic 16:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing special. Boring. Saproj 22:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Looks strange an unnatural to me Andreas Tille 05:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

10 support, 6 oppose → not featured Roger McLassus 20:25, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Tulum.JPG - not featured edit

Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Reywas92
Oppose Harsh light, framing could be better (part of the stairs is cut) CyrilB 12:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Stairs are cut, half of the small tower on right tends to be disruptive too. Bad composition. --Leclerc 16:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not balanced, bad cropping or shot, a photo of the whole building would be better. --Digon3 20:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Queryzo 12:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

0 support, 4 oppose → not featured Roger McLassus 20:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Agasthiyamalai range and Tirunelveli rainshadow.jpg - featured edit

Info created by (Planemad) - uploaded by Planemad - nominated by Planemad
Support Self nomination. Image shows the arid landscape of a rainshadow region with a backdrop of rainclouds over the mountain range of the western ghats in South India --Planemad 11:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- colors -- YolanC 13:06, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - very informative, as well as a nice pic - MPF 23:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - jolie image - Cerise 10:2, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Neutral- Good picture, very informative, but lacking something. --Digon3 20:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Romary 11:51, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lycaon 06:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose informative, but lacking something to become a featured picture -- Gorgo 15:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Strong support~~ Strongly Support - very pretty picture indeed. --Lhademmor 15:28, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please use the normal voting symbols. Otherwise errors in counting may happen more easily. Roger McLassus 15:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose -- I am a big sucker for color but this one - I can't even really say why - does not do it for me, sorry! -- Boereck 21:13, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Konstable 01:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I simply like it Paulatz 15:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

9 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → featured Roger McLassus 20:21, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Information Architecture Concept - not featured edit

Info created by User:Zana_Dark — uploaded by Žena Dhark…·°º•ø®@» — nominated by Žena Dhark…·°º•ø®@»
Support - Any other possible uses? User:Zana_Dark 02:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeToo me, it looks weird. I don't know is it composition, or colors, but it's kinda ugly...Erina 08:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree, it is simply ugly. Roger McLassus 09:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - ditto to Erina and Roger McLassus - MPF 17:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose What is it? DirkvdM 19:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The image in upper left corner disturb. --Jacopo86 15:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- I take it that it is supposed to illustrate some technical process, but if so, it fails to do so. At least, for me. MartinD 09:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Collages in general have to be expecially brilliant to become featured. Neutrality 18:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Neutrality. TheBernFiles 15:54, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Day 7: 1 support (nominator), 8 oppose → not featured Roger McLassus 20:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Independencia RMoreaux.jpg - Original nomination edit

Very bad colours, kind of yellowish. Not exact description page and not also in English. --ALE! ¿…? 10:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

this picture is not featured, so what exactly do you want? ;) -- Gorgo 20:47, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cancelled (invalid object) Roger McLassus 21:11, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Opened Qur'an.jpg - not featured edit

Info created by Flickr.com user "el7bara" — uploaded by TheBernFiles — nominated by TheBernFiles
Support TheBernFiles 14:55, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retracting my nomination: I overlooked the low resolution, sorry. TheBernFiles 19:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

0 support, 0 oppose (withdrawn) → not featured Roger McLassus 20:47, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Magnolia eix.jpg - not featured edit

File:Magnolia eix.jpg

Info created by zen (flickr) — uploaded by Imartin6 — nominated by Erina
Strong support I know it's another flower macro, and low-res... But it looks so awesome (and has much value IMO) that, it really should be a featured pic. It's just cool and by cool I mean absolutely sweet! (only lacks black pajamas... ;DDD ) Erina 15:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, it's 500x373 px in size (*way* too small for a featured picture), the foreground is out of focus and the rest of the leaves are cut out of the picture. --85.197.228.236 16:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC) – please log in to vote Lycaon 17:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose problem with license (no commercial use allowed), and way to tiny Lycaon 17:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too small; and if license is non-commercial, it will have to be deleted anyway - MPF 22:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose — yes it too small. Otherwise I'll change into {{love}}. Indon 08:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't care about size and licence. It's a nice photo. DirkvdM 18:16, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Voting aborted. License was not ok, images was deleted. Lycaon 23:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2 support, 3 oppose (aborted because of license) → not featured Roger McLassus 20:49, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Rain-drops-on-leaf.jpg - not featured edit

Info created by Adamantios — uploaded by Adamantios — nominated by Adamantios
Support Adamantios 15:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I don't find anything special. Raindrops ! -Andreas.Didion 19:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing special. Just waterdrops on not-so-nice leafs, distractive background ... I think this one is under-average in category of "water drops on leafs" photos. And so I think it does not belong into FP --Leclerc 19:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Hi-tacks 20:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - background - MPF 22:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for the background --Jacopo86 15:46, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Background. Neutrality 18:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per the above. TheBernFiles 15:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Day 7: 1 support (nominator), 7 oppose → not featured Roger McLassus 20:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Caer.jpg - not featured edit

Info created by Jod-let — uploaded by Jod-let — nominated by --Jod-let 13:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ — the image is too dark and not sharp. 145.88.209.33 14:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, it is required for you to be logged in in order to vote. Freedom to share 17:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sharpness is okay, but the castle is too dark anyway. Roger McLassus 17:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too dark. Freedom to share 17:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Andreas.Didion 18:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The castle is broken! :-) anyway, too dark --Jollyroger 20:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blame the English for that! - MPF

Oppose - ditto to Freedom to share - MPF 22:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- I uploaded a light-corrected version -- Fabien1309 11:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Day 7: 0 support, 5 oppose → not featured Roger McLassus 20:54, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Suomijoje.jpg - not featured edit

Info created by Verbas — uploaded by Verbas — nominated by Verbas
Support Verbas 12:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose — It's very blur. It's even a useless picture. Indon 14:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very strong motion blur, too long exposition time to hold camera in bare hands probably. Nope, the quality of the picture is very bad. --Leclerc 15:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose bad picture with no description. Darkone 18:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose In fact it is a submarine that can be seen on an island in front of Helsinki. Sorry I have no time to give a link. The idea is nice, but the pic is not of good quality.--Hi-tacks 12:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose definitly --Queryzo 12:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose Blurry, low contrast. Erina 09:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose - its a joke ! for a Featured pictures ! - Andreas.Didion 19:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Salmo 00:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Vesikko is the only finnish submarine left from the five used in the World War II. --Hi-tacks 16:52, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Day 7: 1 support (nominator), 8 oppose → not featured Roger McLassus 20:55, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Frozen Lake.jpg - not featured edit

Info created by Leena — uploaded by KenWalker — nominated by KenWalker >> I liked the pic but I see what you mean about the resolution and the licence restriction is indeed a show stopper so I withdraw the nomination (will check more closely next time!) KenWalker 18:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Could almost be B&W. Nicely exposed.KenWalker 03:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nice picture, but Low res --Luc Viatour 05:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose very low res, please read Guidelines for nominators before nominating. Lycaon 08:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose 650×487? No. --Leclerc 15:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Wrong license! I have updated the image page (and too small anyway). --startaq 15:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Nice photo despite the problems. Masonbarge 13:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Day 7: 1 support (nominator), 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured Roger McLassus 20:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Bagpiper 06WDBY 011.jpg - not featured edit

Info created by JFPerry — uploaded by JFPerry — nominated by JFPerry
Support JFPerry 21:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose overexposed, cut, definitely not FP. Lycaon 08:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose — The person is not sharp and there's a harsh shadow in her face. Yes, it's definitely not FP material. Indon 14:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose- any Person or any Bagpipe - Andreas.Didion 15:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Day 7: 1 support (nominator), 3 oppose → not featured Roger McLassus 20:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Petrovaradin and Danube.jpg - not featured edit

Info created by Tone— uploaded by Tone — nominated by Tone
Support, I think I got a good composition, looking for comments. Tone 19:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't find anything special (no real subject and no originality in the composition), and the colours are a bit dull. good Quality shot, thought CyrilB 21:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, ack CyrilB. --Wikimol 22:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - nice HolidayPic Andreas.Didion 22:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose — nothing special about it. Indon 14:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nothing special about it Tbc 19:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose why you loaded it up? --Queryzo 12:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- per Queryzo -- Boereck 10:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Day 7: 1 support (nominator), 7 oppose → not featured Roger McLassus 20:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Capucines rouge et jaunes.jpg - not featured edit

Info created by J-Luc - uploaded by J-Luc
Oppose colors are really nice, but it lacks of originality to be featured, IMO. However this is a very good Commons:Quality images candidates CyrilB 21:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral colors are nice and the presence of two flowers is relatively original too :) --Wikimol 22:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose it is a nice picture, pretty subject, but there are many pictures of flowers KenWalker 00:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Day 7: 0 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured Roger McLassus 20:59, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Mantid Sp.Jpg - not featured edit

A Mantid nymph(Species unknown) that lived on a pear tree. It was taken in as a pet but later released to its original home.
Info created by Halved sandwich - uploaded by Halved sandwich - nominated by Halved sandwich
Support --Halved sandwich 00:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose colors and resolution --Luc Viatour 15:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose no name, low resolution -- Lycaon 20:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The background is a bit too present, and the colours are a bit dull CyrilB 21:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Wikimol 22:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - contrast? --Queryzo 12:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Boereck 08:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Day 7: 1 support (nominator), 6 oppose → not featured Roger McLassus 20:59, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Vespa animale.jpg - not featured edit

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Sir mark246
Support --Sir mark246 00:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Subject too small and badly lit. --Dschwen 13:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose If it is wasp, we have better ones. If it is flower, we have better ones too. No english description in image --Leclerc 15:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not exceptional --Luc Viatour 15:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with Leclerc that the subject is not really chosen, making the image unsatisfying for both CyrilB 21:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose if the animal wouldn't be in the shadow... --Queryzo 12:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Boereck 08:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Day 7: 1 support (nominator), 6 oppose → not featured Roger McLassus 21:00, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:California wine grapes 2.jpg - not featured edit

Info created by Thomas Oldcastle - uploaded by oldcastle - nominated by Oldcastle
Support --Oldcastle 23:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I would disagree with the photographer's choice of depth of field. Furthermore, I do not see anything about the image that would make it especially valuable or even interesting. Some overexposure or blown out highlights are also visible at full resolution. Freedom to share 19:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose — Overexposed areas are unacceptable. Indon 14:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose If you do a picture that has been done a thousand times and you can take all the time you need for it, it has to be perfect, and this isn't. DirkvdM 18:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - have to agree with DirkvdM, tho' I do like the effect of the sun shining through the grapes - MPF 22:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- ditto to Freedom to share -- Boereck 08:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Day 7: 1 support (nominator), 5 oppose → not featured Roger McLassus 21:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Cabernet wine barrels.jpg - not featured edit

Info created by Thomas Oldcastle - uploaded by Oldcastle - nominated by Oldcastle
Support --Oldcastle 22:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Doesn't thrill me. --Dschwen 13:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Quite uninteresting section of barrels. --Leclerc 15:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose leclerc is completely right --Queryzo 12:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose With a wooden cap instead of the plastic one, support. Non now, sorry --Jollyroger 20:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ditto to Jollyroger--Hi-tacks 16:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- not really that thrilling a motive -- Boereck 08:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Day 7: 1 support (nominator), 6 oppose → not featured Roger McLassus 21:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Information Architecture Concept - not featured edit

Info created by User:Zana_Dark — uploaded by Žena Dhark…·°º•ø®@» — nominated by Žena Dhark…·°º•ø®@»
Support - Any other possible uses? User:Zana_Dark 02:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeToo me, it looks weird. I don't know is it composition, or colors, but it's kinda ugly...Erina 08:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree, it is simply ugly. Roger McLassus 09:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - ditto to Erina and Roger McLassus - MPF 17:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose What is it? DirkvdM 19:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The image in upper left corner disturb. --Jacopo86 15:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- I take it that it is supposed to illustrate some technical process, but if so, it fails to do so. At least, for me. MartinD 09:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Collages in general have to be expecially brilliant to become featured. Neutrality 18:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Neutrality. TheBernFiles 15:54, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Day 7: 1 support (nominator), 8 oppose → not featured Roger McLassus 20:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Francesco Hayez 008.jpg - featured edit

Info Painting by Francesco Hayezcreated, published by The Yorck Project: 10.000 Meisterwerke der Malerei - uploaded by File Upload Bot (Eloquence) - nominated by ----Javierme 15:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Besides its artistical and historical value, it illustrates finely the romantic concept of kiss. I used it for the Spanish Wikiquote kiss entry (q:es:beso).--Javierme 15:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not very attractive - MPF 02:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose agree --Digon3 12:38, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I think it looks rather nice. And a fine illustration of the subject --Lhademmor 14:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Love the intens, love the composition, love the subtle color differences. Indon 16:00, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Luc Viatour 08:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Gordo 10:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lycaon 09:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jollyroger 20:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Pluke 00:50, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

7 support, 3 oppose → featured Roger McLassus 05:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ant head closeup.jpg - not featured edit

Info created by Steve Jurvetson on flickr.com — uploaded by TheBernFiles — nominated by TheBernFiles
Support TheBernFiles 15:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Retracting my nomination: I overlooked the low resolution, sorry. TheBernFiles 19:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ss181292 18:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC) - great photo, but way to low resolution (see Guidelines for nominators above).[reply]

1 oppose (withdrawn) → not featured Roger McLassus 19:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Crimson sunset.jpg - not featured edit

Info created by (Fir0002) - uploaded by Fir0002 - nominated by Sunshade1
Support This is an amazing pic, very colourful, I like the contrast between colour and ground --Sunshade1 23:49, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose — Not an informative picture. It's just a sunset sky image. Indon 10:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ----Hi-tacks 16:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the different between the colors, espacially that it is orange in the lower left corner and gets more purple. Moralist 16:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose no sunsets -- Tomhab 12:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nice colors, but I don't like the composition, plus it is rather ordinary for a sunset. --Dschwen 13:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because the right half of the skyline is missing - MPF 18:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose just a sunset --Queryzo 12:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- wanna see my folder of sunsets? nope? that is probably how I feel about yours ;-) -- Boereck 10:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2 support, 7 oppose → not featured Roger McLassus 09:44, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Dvdiconcover.png - not featured edit

Info created by user:Fallout boy - uploaded by user:Fallout boy - nominated by Javierme
Support Pros: It's witty, and a lovely example of how you can make a nice work CC out of PD material. Cons: It would need a translation for projects in language other than English, and is almost only internally useful for Wikimedia projects.--Javierme 22:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wait... Is it protesting against this: [10] 172.206.127.151 14:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it was just a little icon used for copyright tags. There are a bunch of them at Category:Wikimedia_icons, many of them try to be humorous (since they are usually very tiny anyway you can't see what they say usually unless you click on them). The goal was to avoid having to use trademarked and copyrighted logos in the tags and still be able to tell a DVD tag apart from a movie poster tag, for example. --Fastfission 00:21, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Wrong fileformat. SVG would also help with the translation and it is obviously vectorbased to begin with. --Dschwen 22:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing really interesting --Leclerc 15:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Leclerc. —dima/s-ko/ 00:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This is a vector image exported to PNG. Please upload the original. — Erin (talk) (FAQ) 12:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- I don't get it -- Boereck 08:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's used in the templates for copyrighted film ilustrations in the wikipedias that use them, like in en:Image:Enemy at the Gates DVD.jpg. The main pun is that it represent the poster/cover of fictional Free Wiki film, with a design that reminds the one of American Free Willy movie. Vector version is Image:Dvdiconcover.svg. Should I start a new nomination for the svg?

1 support, 5 oppose → not featured Roger McLassus 09:43, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:India roadway map.svg - featured edit

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Planemad
Support The map includes every national highway in India and uses the color scheme defined the wikiproject maps --Planemad 19:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It is a very nice map (I can't speak at all for accuracy since I don't know a thing about Indian roadways). My only negative feeling is that it is very, very busy—there are lots of very small cities indicated which are not on any of the roadways. I would support if it was trimmed to something closer to the minimum information needed to understand the roadway system—at the moment it is so full of information that it is hard to get a sense of what is meant by the big picture, and most of the information is too small to ever been seen unless it was hugely blown up. Also, on the legend, some of the text (the "Disputed" parts) do not seem to be rendering well with Mediawiki's SVG renderer. I find that spacing things out a little better helps with that. --Fastfission 19:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- big work, seems accurate. ♦ Pabix ^ℹ 08:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Indeed, it's a lot of work. But I agree with the comment above. If small cities are not included, then it would be great. About the accuracy, I not an expert either. Indon 10:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Author comment The map has been created in such a way that, from the thumbnail, state capitals and major cities can be located. By opening the largest raster version [11], major towns and tourist places can be located. And only by zooming into the vector version, can small towns by located. The places that you see that are not on the road network are places of tourist intrest only. Regarding accuracy, the map can be cross checked with, w:List of National Highways in India, Maps of India website(outdated) or Survey of India map explorer. This map is the only complete national highway map available on the net --Planemad 11:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- MartinD 11:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Nice work! --Dschwen 13:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice and high quality map --Leclerc 15:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well, but maybe the road legend (which color is which road) could be put in the file too ... either on the right of the legend, or in southeast or northwest corner of them map. This would improve the map even further bit. Since if you print just the file without it's description, the road legen is not there ... --Leclerc 15:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support The quality is very good. I'm not happy with the way the map-maker has chosen to indicate the status of Kashmir (for example, it would be as true to call the Pakistani-controlled area "(disputed) Indian territory" as it is to say so for the Indian-controlled area), but this thorny political issue should not stand in the way of a good map being featured. QuartierLatin1968 19:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I needed that for work! --Jollyroger 20:55, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support / tsca @ 10:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

9 support, 0 oppose → featured Roger McLassus 09:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Boyd's Forest Dragon - (Hypsilurus boydii).jpg - not featured edit

Info created by (Sam67fr) - uploaded by Sam67fr - nominated by Sam67fr
Support I was very lucky to see the little green guy in the forest --Sam67fr 17:29, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I improved the colors a bit and tried to make that little guy a bit more visible in front of the background. --AngMoKio 19:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~ Comment - isn't the photo upside-down or on its side? The sun doesn't usually shine on the underside of branches (or is this the proof we've all been waiting for, that things in Australia really are upside-down?? :-)) MPF 18:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Oops! I checked my original files and, yes, the photo should be upside down... Sorry! --Sam67fr 21:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Change my vote to

Support now it is at the right angle. Prefer the original, as it is a superb example of natural camouflage. - MPF 16:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose -- this image makes me feel like I need glasses - I still refuse that fact, so: sorry! -- Boereck 10:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2 support, 1 oppose → not featured Roger McLassus 09:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Wasp pho.jpg - not featured edit

Info created by Per Harald Olsen (en:User:Perhols) - uploaded by Lhademmor - nominated by Lhademmor
Support I really think this is a nice, and unusual, picture --Lhademmor 14:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Nice macro, though cropping upper part would make the picture better. Indon 15:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose no name, unnatural background and low resolution Lycaon 16:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose agree --Digon3 17:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
SupportUnusual--Hi-tacks 19:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Unnatural background wouldn't be a disavantadge in a species which usually visits artificial environments. Please provide region the pic was taken at, and biological information on this kind of wasp. --Javierme 21:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
SupportNice and unusual, though region and some biological information about the wasp species would be nice to have. --Leclerc 16:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice picture, where you almost can get the expression of Wasps as not evil.Moralist 16:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Unnatural setting, uninteresting composition. Rex 22:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with Lycaon --Luc Viatour 15:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - wasp identification is primarily done with the face pattern, which is very well shown here, enabling easy identification as Dolichovespula sylvestris, a common species in Norway (where the photographer is based). - MPF 17:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sweet and informative --Jollyroger 20:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose background --che 04:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- ditto to Lycaon -- Boereck 08:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've reuploaded the picture as Image:Wasp (Dolichovespula sylvestris).jpg to show the name of the wasp. --Lhademmor 06:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

7 support, 6 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured Roger McLassus 09:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:USA grand canyon pano1 AZ.jpg - not featured edit

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Dschwen

Seeing the two other GC nominations further down the page, I thought let's throw a different (mood picture type) photo to the wolves ;-). Please elaborate!

Oppose — The only part that I like is the golden sunlight at the rock on the left. Overexpose on the right part. Indon 15:57, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, it is photographed straight into the sun through a light haze, so yes, it is overexposed. But my eyes were equally overexposed (translate: blinded) when witnessing this scene. --Dschwen 16:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oppose So obviously neither your eyes nor your camera were sufficiently well equipped to create a good image of this sunrise-scenery. Roger McLassus 18:57, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - There are many tricks to overcome overexposed problem. One of them is to use ND-grad filters. Overexposed like this is just unacceptable. Indon 10:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It could have been a nice pic, but sorry, there's too much sun :/ --Hi-tacks 19:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Overall I like it. However, I would have placed the horizon a little higher, catch some more foreground. Horizon in the middle of pictures tend to cut the image in half. --Tomascastelazo 22:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I really like this picture, just darken the sun a little bit and this would be a great photo --Sunshade1 23:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral a bit blurred, and low detail, but nice Paulatz 15:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support !Sorry!, but i think its any Photo from any Planet from StarWars-Andreas.Didion 20:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support Maybe it's the experience I have with such scenes, but it gives me the wonderful feel of fresh new day, a bit nippy, but I will soon be warmed by the briliant Sun. :) DirkvdM 19:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose -- sorry, I don't feel it. of the tens of thousands of pictures taken of the GC a day there are probably a lot that are better than this one. -- Boereck 09:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3 support, 4 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured Roger McLassus 09:38, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Goats in Eketorp Slott.jpg - not featured edit

Info created by Exclamation - uploaded by Exclamation - nominated by Moralist
Support --Moralist 11:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Its not very interesting, just a wall and some goats --Digon3 12:36, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There is nearly no colour-contrast between the goats and the wall. And the whole subject is not very impressive anyway. Roger McLassus 15:13, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with the above comment. If the title does not say about goat, I only see this is only a wall image. Indon 15:58, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose where are the goats? I only see sheep ;-) Lycaon 16:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - yes, definitely sheep - MPF 17:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I don't like the composition. Unbalanced. Erina 18:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support You mean that you don't like the competition? This image is stunning! Admit it or not! Exclamation 16:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- colors are great (!!!), composition is original; yet I could not find a point of focus so the sharpness is probably wasted on the wall where I cannot even tell the specific location. I think it would have been better to put the focus on the goats. but then again, would that have taken away from the original idea of having the wall as the main element of attraction? hmm, I am unsure. maybe I will reconsider later! for now I will go with neutral. -- Boereck 09:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured Roger McLassus 09:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Amanita caesarea.JPG - featured edit

Info created by Archenzo - uploaded by Archenzo - nominated by Halved sandwich
Support --Halved sandwich 23:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Omegatron 00:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support — J-Luc 07:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support very very nice! -- Tomhab 12:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Romary 15:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose yellowness, sharpness Darkone 16:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Supportusuual, interesting, good colours, could be useful KenWalker 00:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - MPF 18:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yerllowness? That's the mushroom color! it is not white... --Jollyroger 20:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tarawneh 00:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

9 support, 1 oppose → featured Roger McLassus 07:00, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Empis livida (aka).jpg - featured edit

Info created by User:Aka - nominated by — Omegatron
Support — Omegatron 18:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Erina 18:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Chosovi 18:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support — The best macro shot I've seen. Looks like a professional stock photo. This is definitely FP image. Indon 20:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rex 22:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Luc Viatour 03:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Congratulation. --Gloumouth1 06:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dschwen 12:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support One of the best insect photos I've seen ... --Leclerc 14:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --AngMoKio 19:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support we want more !! Lycaon 21:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Here are some: User:Aka/Images/Animals There are so many and they are so good it almost makes me think this user is a fake. :-) — Omegatron 21:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think not a FAKE, but here any Photo from the WikiMeeting [12] Andreas.Didion 22:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - SUPER Andreas.Didion 22:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - what else? --XN 22:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
strong Support ♦ Pabix ^ℹ 12:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I thought it was computermade at first. The only thing that disturbs is that the mosquito isn't in it's natural environment. Moralist 14:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If you put the insect on white paper, use a good camera and maybe touch the file with photoshop/gimp/whatever afterwards to make the white paper really white ... you'll get probably something like this. I just wonder how to make the insect stay in one spot on the paper, if it is some species that can fly. I've read of one method that you put the insect in the fridge, let it cool down and after you put it out after some time, they won't move much for a while till they warm up again ... though I've never tried that --Leclerc 15:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The animal sat at my white-painted balcony balustrade for a few seconds. I never would harm an animal just to make a better photo. -- aka 15:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, if you have luck for the insect to stay in one place for long enough to make a shot, you don't need to freeze or glue the poor creature --Leclerc 16:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the technical data (Camera, Lens, Flash,…) , that helps me to better, do you are model for me : -) --Luc Viatour 04:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support O_O!! Beautiful, thought it was a 3D model --Jollyroger 20:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nemo5576 06:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Jacopo86 13:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Salmo 00:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support If this is indeed a live animal, not stunned or anything, it's a matter of immense luck, but you also have to make the luck work and the result is stunning. DirkvdM 19:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support / tsca @ 10:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tarawneh 00:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

22 support, 0 oppose → featured Roger McLassus 06:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Actun Tunichil Muknal.jpg - not featured edit

Info created by Peter Andersen - uploaded by Peter Andersen - nominated by Peter Andersen
Support --Peter Andersen 11:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lhademmor 15:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Interesting subject and quite good composition, but too blurry and overexposed light Roger McLassus 19:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose — The picture is not focus. Indon 19:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, see Roger McLassus. Rex 22:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose see Roger McLassus Tbc 19:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sharpness --Queryzo 12:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment looks like very difficult lightning in this one. Might need HDR to really pull it off. Scoo 20:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2 support, 5 oppose → not featured Roger McLassus 06:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

summer field - featured edit

Info created by Luc Viatour - uploaded by Luc Viatour - nominated by Luc Viatour 08:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Luc Viatour 08:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colors, angle, composition, everything is perfect ♦ Pabix ^ℹ 08:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support — It's a beautiful picture. I like the color a lot. Indon 10:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Barcex 11:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC) Nice![reply]
Support — Lycaon 12:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Chosovi 12:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really nice picture, nice color, an intelligent form of blue on the heaven. Also the picture is almost too good.Moralist 16:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rex 22:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dschwen 12:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral looks like an analog shot (colors, sharpness (all a little bit) / yes I see the exif), heavy editing in ps (or?), take a look in the corner low left Darkone 18:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit the exif? NOT! The colors it is the end of afternoon (and contrast on hard). The left corner is problem of depth of field. --Luc Viatour 05:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support Brilliant! Staggering! --Gordo 09:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support (even if at top resolution it shows a bit of artifacts) Paulatz 15:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - plants in foreground include Papaver rhoeas (red) and Centaurea cyanus (blue) - MPF 18:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - very nice, Luc. Tbc 19:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jod-let 13:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jollyroger 20:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great color! --Jacopo86 13:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Call me what you like, but there is a visible white band on the bottom left corner (is this really a DOF problem?), it gives me the impression it's heavily edited and there is noise and artifacts.A good picture for sure, but not FP worthy. Adamantios 18:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

white band on the bottom left corner is a bad crops after correction of the horizon --Luc Viatour 05:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Beautiful color, but I don't the composition -- strong diagonal between the fields leads my eye to totally boring cropped trees instead of the wonderful golden top field, where I should be looking. --che 04:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral IMHO heavy editing of an image is no reason to be not featured. So just finish the editing and remove the white line at left bottom and once you are at it replace the half tree by some sky. If I just put mit thumb on this tree the image looks (even) better. Andreas Tille 06:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Beautiful landscape shot, but is it a picture of the flowers? a picture of the fields? Neither one dominates, it does not illustrate as to either landscape or agricultural practice.--Tomascastelazo 17:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It clearly illustrates both: the rare, rich plant communities that used to be found bordering grain fields! Lycaon 18:49, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support even used a cropped version of it for my wallpaper. --Konstable 12:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support looks like a paintings ! Ceridwen 22:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

18 support, 3 oppose, 2 neutral → featured Roger McLassus 06:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Flame tree mali.jpg - featured edit

Info created by Robin Taylor — uploaded by KenWalker — nominated by KenWalker
Support I like the shapes, the range of colours and the red accent of the tree, found it quite striking when I came across it. KenWalker 21:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The tree is a Flamboyant Tree (Delonix regia), cultivated pantropically. Lycaon 08:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I really like it. Good composition and colors. ♦ Pabix ^ℹ 12:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Noooooo!!! Not second one, please. First is really better! ♦ Pabix ^ℹ 09:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral — Yes, the color and composition are very nice, but what is so special of this picture to be an FP. Indon 14:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support It looks like a photo from an agency like corbis or sth. Very good. --Queryzo 12:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support aa amazing picture --Jollyroger 20:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Great! Erina 09:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support really nice. --Tone 14:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's a nice photo, but not all that special. DirkvdM 19:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - and a note: 23:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC) the license was cc-by, in case of changes. Wikimol 23:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC) original only, to be clear. Oppose edit.--Wikimol 20:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support original one, edit is badly cut. Lycaon 09:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support the original --Tarawneh 00:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The collinearity of the tree's prominent branch with the hut's roof is a severe compositional flaw. Furthermore, the roof is overexposed. Roger McLassus 17:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support beautiful tree Ceridwen 22:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose original Super Oppose edit. Agree with Roger, plus edit is butchering the composition even more. --Dschwen 19:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

10 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → featured Roger McLassus 10:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image: Caterpillar face.jpg - not featured edit

Info created by Tom Murphy VII — uploaded by Tom Murphy VII — nominated by Erina
Support Big, very detailed, really interesting and looks great. Erina 09:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Konstable 13:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose DOF is too shallow, as having the body sharp would improve the pic alot. This way, only the quite small area of face is sharp. --Leclerc 15:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral good colors, interesting subject (at last a closeup that show that small animals are not all nice!), but the smooth face of the caterpilar and the small DOF makes it difficult for my eyes to focus on this image CyrilB 21:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support exceptional view, though in additon a little cropping and herbal background may help the picture generally. --XN 22:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Echo XN's comments about editing, but I like the image, sharp detail of unusual nature.KenWalker 00:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Normally I'ld oppose because of the low resolution (see Guidelines for nominators), and the missing name, but this is a very nice closeup. Lycaon 09:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great closeup --Jollyroger 20:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose cropping, lighting norro 21:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Olei 23:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- while I have no real problems with short DOF the border between sharpness and blur is that harsh that it looks very unnatural and I expect a postprocessing that adds artifical unsharpness. So it looks very strange in my eyes. Andreas Tille 11:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

5 support, 4 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured Roger McLassus 09:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Pieniny-map2.png - not featured edit

Info created by Aotearoa — uploaded by Aotearoa — nominated by Aotearoa
Support Aotearoa 17:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nothing special, should be svg. Lycaon 18:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because it's not .svg. --Erina 22:18, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. TheBernFiles 15:37, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Which software was used to create this map? Fileformat should be SVG. The relief shading could still be embedded as a bitmap. --Dschwen 16:43, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Day 7: 1 support (nominator), 4 oppose → not featured Roger McLassus 10:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:MingXiaoling CanYuan.jpg - not featured edit

Info created by (farm) -uploaded by Farm - nominated by Farm 12:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral would have preferred uniform light and better angle. ♦ Pabix ^ℹ 14:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Bad lighting, composition and angle. What is it? Looking at it in full size stopped me from adding a strongly to my oppose, but the angle makes it very confusing and hard to see the terrace setup. Also the wall is cut. You should either have taken a step back and/or gotten to a higher vantage point. The House in the back is to shadowy. --Dschwen 14:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't see anything special about the photo and the guy should have been edited out. And what is it anyway? DirkvdM 18:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, tourist snapshot. TheBernFiles 15:37, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Day 7: 0 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured Roger McLassus 10:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Map of Quebec.png - not featured edit

Info created by John Fowles — uploaded by Leslie — nominated by Mortadelo2005
Support Mortadelo2005 23:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. A little on the small side, and don't get me started about the fileformat. --Dschwen 23:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I cannot support non-SVG map when the resolution is so low. ♦ Pabix ^ℹ 13:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Aotearoa 20:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose png format Tbc 22:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2 support, 3 oppose → not featured Roger McLassus 09:27, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Baja coast 3.jpg - not featured edit

Info created by Tomas Castelazo — uploaded by User:tomascastelazo — nominated by Tomascastelazo
Support Tomascastelazo 21:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Black & White photograph--Hi-tacks 12:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I see no reason for abandonig colours. Furthermore the picture is too dark and the time of exposure too long. So the moving water looks quite unnatural. Roger McLassus 18:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - ditto to Roger McLassus, particularly re the long exposure. - MPF 22:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose B&W Erina 09:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think that cropping out about 1000 lines from the bottom would do it good. --Adamantios 20:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ss181292 19:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC) - I agree with Roger McLassus[reply]
Comment One does not have to like all phototgraphs, that is ok. I welcome criticism, I accept it, but when people opine about photography, they too open up to criticism of their criticism. In this particular case it is obvious, given the reasons you express, that you do not possess the distinctions necessary to distinguish crafstmanship of photography. Read up a bit about judging photography, just like milk, it does the body (and mind) good. --Tomascastelazo 15:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment OK, but AFAIK the main purpose of Commons is information, not art. (Ergo: B&W photos=bad. Maybe it is a work of art, I don't know.) Maybe you should post this photo on DeviantArt, or something like that. :) --Erina 11:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Erina, the comment is not about this photograph, but about the criticism I read about and the disqualifications of photographs on the basis that they are b&w (and other bogus reasons). My point is that if people are going to judge, to do so based on informed criteria and to state the reasons so the photographer can thus improve his techniques/motives. To criticize the critics is not very popular around here, but IMO, a lot of good, informative, technically good pictures get disqualified due to incompetence and thus deprive this effort of better participation. A critic has the duty to educate her/himself in the discipline she/he criticizes. At the same time, lots of "pretty" pictures get selected that have absolutelty no value due to the same shortcomings. The criteria is very inconsistent. Anyone with a basic knowledge of photography (and I am not talking about just any camera owner, as if owning a camera makes a photographer) would laugh at this forum. I believe that Wikipedia is a noble effort and my contributions are focused in bringing a little understanding of the medium. Problem is that I feel that people around here just do not like blunt talk. I quote Mark Twain: One mustn't criticize other people on grounds where he can't stand perpendicular himself. - A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court --Tomascastelazo 12:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2 support, 5 oppose → not featured Roger McLassus 09:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Fortepian - mechanizm angielski.svg - featured edit

Info created by Orem — uploaded by Orem — nominated by odder
Support odder 19:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nux (talk) 01:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support A wonderful mechanism that really needs an illustration. Very useful. An explanation would be nice, though (and in English, if possible). An animation would be even better. DirkvdM 09:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support ♦ Pabix ^ℹ 09:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support beautiful, but translate and animate! --Jollyroger 20:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support / tsca @ 10:02, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support please translate Lycaon 10:46, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lestat 21:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ziga 21:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ss181292 19:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC) - very good piece of SVG[reply]
Support --WarX 15:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

11 support, 0 oppose → featured Roger McLassus 09:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Fortepian - mechanizm wiedeński.svg - featured edit

Info created by Orem — uploaded by Orem — nominated by odder.
Support odder 19:42, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Szczepan1990 19:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nux (talk) 01:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support ♦ Pabix ^ℹ 09:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support / tsca @ 10:02, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lestat 21:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ziga 21:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ss181292 19:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC) - very good piece of SVG[reply]
Support --WarX 15:09, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

9 support, 0 oppose → featured Roger McLassus 09:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Sveti Nikola.jpg - not featured edit

Info created by Tone — uploaded by Tone — nominated by Tone
Support, I wonder if it would be better to cut the upper and lower part. Tone 18:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I think cropping would definitely be in order. Also, the colours look a bit dim to me. (I understand, however, the icon might have been in shadow.) QuartierLatin1968 19:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice --Jollyroger 20:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - nice pic, but needs more info for context - where is the monastery, what size (10 cm? 1 m? 3 m? - it could be anything!) and position (plate? wall? floor?) is the mural? - MPF 22:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added the info on the image's site. Is it ok or would you like any more details? Regards. --Tone 22:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's ideal, thanks! Changed vote to support - MPF 23:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Janeznovak 06:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Eleassar ^{my talk} 11:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice light, but it isn't the photo that I like, it's the painting. It's no compesition at all, just a painting.Moralist 16:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- So what? I think the painting (BTW it's rather some kind of mosaic, not a painting) makes the photo valuable enough. Support --Erina 16:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Terrible. Underexposed. --Olei 23:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Should be cropped on top and bottom. Lighting and colours are not impressive. Given how easy it is to take a photo of such an object, it could be much better. By the way - it is not a painting but a mosaic. Roger McLassus 10:36, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Boereck 09:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

6 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured Roger McLassus 09:23, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Venice 056.jpg - not featured edit

Info created by Jikael — uploaded by Jikael — nominated by Jikael - (initialized by Pabix :))
Oppose — Yes, it's a beautiful canal in Venice. If there is a gondola in the canal, then I would support it. Indon 14:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral a nice photo - but i think it is a too high color saturation which makes it kitschy. But that could get changed. --AngMoKio 15:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good enough as it is, no gondola needed to spoil the view. --Leclerc 16:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I don't think a gondola is necessary, either - MPF 17:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice colours, nice play of dark and light. And no gondola (now that would make it kitschy). Plus details like the reflection and the door (and I even like the washing line). Only the composition could have been a bit better, but that's nitpicking DirkvdM 18:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Luc Viatour 04:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose Not a representative pic of Venice and ditto to Indon the gondolas are missing and I agree it is high color saturated (look at the blue-white-red flag), I have been there two weeks ago and I took 150 pics, I can upload some examples of representative pics if necessary. Moroever, the highest size of the pic is ugly, check by yourself.--Hi-tacks 12:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's not blue white red. That's the Peace flag, and color semms quite ok for being sunlit. --Jollyroger 20:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Info It's the end of a small Canal in Venice where there are never gondolas. This pic show the not commercial face of venice (the local life style)with you to appreciate the relevance of it..--Jikael 15:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Venice is great... But this is not a great picture, IMO. --Jod-let 13:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. I am absolutely opposed to those who think that a gondola is necessary. Gondolas are tourist traps. But this photo needs a bit less saturation and more sharpness. ♦ Pabix ^ℹ 13:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- To be honest, if this is a voting for an artistic photography contest, then I will rate it above average. Not high because of too much saturation. However, there is non-technical guideline in this voting process, that the picture should be informative. Gondolas make this picture more information. Another element is people, if you want to show local llife style as Jikael mentioned. What so special about an empty canal in Venice? Indon 14:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  No. On Commons, we don't judge on encyclopedic value. This is not Wikipedia. If you want to judge information, go to the equivalent page on Wikipedia! There are featured pictures candidates on en: too. An image can be featured here and not there, and vice-versa. ♦ Pabix ^ℹ 16:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  Some people here judge mainly by technical quality, some by encyclopaedic value, some by artistic impression, some by something else maybe ... I think this mean that the encyclopedic value is judged by some people as important factor and it can affect voting results if "encyclopaedic value" is low. --Leclerc 18:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. No details, it's blurry grainy and blown-out. --Dschwen 16:09, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support no gondolas, please. That's a sad clichè --Jollyroger 20:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The saturation looks pushed which,to me, is wrong for the subject matter. It's not pretty, it's not special in any way, and it doesn't capture backwater Venice all that well. The gondola discussion is a red herring. Masonbarge 13:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support This image makes me wonder where the people are, where the gondolas are and what would be found in the windows and doors, variety of colours appeal. Very interesting. Prefer the cropped version. KenWalker 06:49, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question Why do several people hate the colours here, but most love the colours in the Summer Field photo below (15 down)? To me that one looks a bit fake (though I stil like it). DirkvdM 19:40, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Supportno gondolas, please. That's a sad clichè --Jacopo86 15:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great picture! Neutrality 18:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lycaon 05:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I have been in Venice last week and I definitely do not believe the colours. Roger McLassus 17:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like colors Ceridwen 22:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

9 support, 7 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured Roger McLassus 09:21, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Wellington.JPG - not featured edit

Info created by User:Kiwimandy — uploaded by Kiwimandy — nominated by Kiwimandy
Support Kiwimandy 20:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
SupportQuite informative picture, with a nice view. Moralist 09:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Foggy. Neutrality 18:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose quite foggy and not that special -- Gorgo 22:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We already have a Wellington pic featured, which is of a higher standard. Snowwayout 03:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Yes, foggy and not special. Indon 12:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, a mere snapshot. TheBernFiles 15:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Boereck 09:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2 support, 5 oppose → not featured Roger McLassus 06:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Koln bell.jpg not featured edit

Info created by Jollyroger — uploaded by Jollyroger — nominated by Jollyroger
Support Jollyroger 20:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - the glowing overexposed area is a bit disturbing. I think this would be great case for HDR. --Wikimol 20:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

it was meant to but the other shots were ruined by a group of chinese tourists. I proposed that because I feel the morning sun glow adds a mit of magic to the composition. Any suggestion for improving is welcome --Jollyroger 21:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support Helios89 23:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fabexplosive 07:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree wiki Wikimol and no sense of scale - important if its the biggest swinging bell in the world -- Tomhab 09:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Overexposed. Erina 09:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose— composition the subject is to hidden, central flared light through the window. There are sufficient size references within the image. Gnangarra 10:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I'm very surprised to learn it's so big, which is not conveyed at all. William Avery 11:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too bright in the central area and too dark everywhere else --Leclerc 18:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Tell me, what is Special on the Bell ? - Andreas.Didion 19:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

biggest of the world and nice light and composition? --Jollyroger 14:48, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral I love the geometry, but for that reason it really should not be tilted. Now that can be remedied, but the overexposure would be more difficult. It has good potential but only just doensn't reach it. DirkvdM 19:25, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

tilted? It is not tilted

slightly tilted to the left. Look at the center piece or at the floor hole. It can be fixed without much loss, I think. Eden2004 13:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutralgreat composition but the window is overexposed. --Jacopo86 15:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Poor lighting, luminosity out of range; poor composition, besides the exposure problem, subject is too centered, and it is almost like a mirror image if viewed in halfs, left half is a reflection light of right half. Although symmetry works sometimes, not here, lacks proportion and scale; Poor technique in general. --Tomascastelazo 16:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Neutrality 18:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, distracting light among other things. TheBernFiles 15:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Boereck 09:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3 support, 10 oppose, 3 neutral → not featured Roger McLassus 06:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Mountaineers in High Tatry mountains winter.jpg - not featured edit

Info self-nom. There are so many insects and flowers, but only a few people, so I decided to throw in some. Wikimol 19:55, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Pluke 00:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Szumyk 08:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice -- Tomhab 09:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support— nice composition, but would like to know height and gradient at site of photo. Gnangarra 10:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, some more details would be welcome, indeed. --Tone 14:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support great picture. --AngMoKio 13:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - technically an excellent photo, but it doesn't grab me as special. Can't see the peoples' faces, and the very dark blue of the shadow at the top of the pic are my main dislikes - MPF 17:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I see nothing special in it. DirkvdM 19:27, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Neutrality 18:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lycaon 18:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Color contrast (back) is nice. --Ziga 20:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with DirkvdM. --Olei 23:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. I like the composition and subject, but the shadow is bothersome. TheBernFiles 15:59, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The colour of the snow shows a flaw in the white balance. The trampled snow in the foreground is admittedly difficult zu avoid but disturbing nevertheless. In addition to all ciritical arguments already brought forward by myself and others, this picture simply fails to attract me. Roger McLassus 20:06, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I was not convinced by the reasons given for oppose
- The white balance is correct, the snow in direct sunlight is pure gray with better than 1% accuracy, the shadows are blue, which is the natural colour of shadows in the mountains. If you see some visible unnatural color cast, the problem is IMHO not in the image.
- The attractivity/unattractivity is very subjective criteria.
- The requested info: gradient is hard to give if not measured by inclinometer, as humans suck in estimating gradient and I don't suppose I'm an exception. I'd guess 45-50˚. The height difference from the bottom of the slope in shadow is about 500m, altitude may be ~2500m. --Wikimol 22:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Boereck 09:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

9 support, 6 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured Roger McLassus 06:26, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Detailaufnahme Weizenfeld.jpg - featured edit

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Queryzo
Support - Andreas.Didion 18:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Olegivvit 09:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Best photo of species... Colors are wonderful and photo shows all variations of blooms. Žena Dhark…·°º•ø®@» 02:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Roger McLassus 09:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice photo, but above all it shows various stages of bloom, which gives it great educational value. DirkvdM 19:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo 17:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support really nice photo Kiwimandy 17:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ziga 20:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. TheBernFiles 16:00, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

9 support, 0 oppose → featured Roger McLassus 06:24, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:XN Sympetrum sanguineum w prey 658.jpg - featured edit

- Info created by XN - uploaded by XN - nominated by XN 15:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)]][reply]
Support --XN 15:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Awesome! --Jollyroger 20:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nemo5576 06:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent Photo Žena Dhark…·°º•ø®@» 17:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Life is wonderful. Nice picture. Salmo 00:02, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Colours, noise in version 1, both far worse in version 2. We have much nicer images on commons of this animal (see: here) Lycaon 05:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice. Declic 02:41, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree --Lmbuga ^{gl, pt, es: contacta comigo} 14:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm surprised about these edits and the additional animation, which isn't a nomination? I'm not sure. These edits aren't my cup of tea very much. But this template is getting funny colorfull... so see my edit on the right. --XN 13:08, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Andreas.Didion 19:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree --Lmbuga ^{gl, pt, es: contacta comigo} 14:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

8 support, 1 oppose → featured Roger McLassus 06:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Sympetrum sanguineum.jpg

Image:Buchenwald-J-Rouard-06.jpg - not featured edit

Info created by Jule Rouard — uploaded by Lviatour — nominated by Fastfission
Support Original photograph from the liberation of Buchenwald, taken by User:Lviatour's father-in-law, released GFDL/CC-BY-SA. Stark, dark, sad, immediate—a scene of horror without being distasteful. The photo is scratched, but I think that only adds to its feeling of authenticity, its gritty realism. I think it's a really beautiful, haunting picture, and I think it's being available under a free license on Commons is truly amazing. --Fastfission 19:35, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Technically, poor composition, sujbect is cropped at wrong places. Informative value poor, does not reflect time-place without explanation. There are a lot of images from the camps that do not need words. --Tomascastelazo 16:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment IMHO this is an excelent composition. The "subject" is only a "representative" and 1) does not need to be shown entirely 2) has already lost his dignity and this composition means respecting this human being. This picture is carying a great mood of sadness. It's a snapshot of horror, brutality and inhumanness. I think this is the really subject. For this great composition:
Support --XN 19:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I have to go with XN here. The composition is beautiful, IMO. I think the fact that it is not shown in its entirety makes it even more artistic and provocative. --Fastfission 23:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Tell me why any "Featured pictures" Photo. Whats Special ? - Andreas.Didion 19:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone into detail up above about what I think was special about it. --Fastfission 23:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support with emotion --Luc Viatour 04:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Neutrality 18:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'd prefer something more recognizable, like Image:Buchenwald-J-Rouard-03.jpg or Image:Buchenwald-J-Rouard-12.jpg. --che 04:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the beauty of this is that it's not just another photo of stacked bodies, but is much more intimate, though not so intimate as to be uncomfortable. --Fastfission 23:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not uncomfortable ? I don't know what you need... Rama 10:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support very moving and tasteful. Rama 10:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I appreciate the historical and emotional value of this photograph, but there are many better pictures, from a technical point of view, at Category:KZ Buchenwald. TheBernFiles 15:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I suppose this is only a part of the original picture, since I can hardly imagine that the photographer wanted to create an image showing just half a body plus another person's shoes, which makes a very bad composition. Furthermore, as stated above, the information value is rather poor and cannot be improved by using the euphemism "tasteful". Shocking facts deserve shocking pictures that can say "more than a thousand words" - not cropped ones that lack important parts (like the face) in the name of tastefulness. By the way, cutting off the toes is a compositional flaw unrelated to taste. Roger McLassus 17:15, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

4 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured Roger McLassus 10:10, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Wray Gunn-Porto - Palácio de Cristal-Noites Ritual Rock 2005-02-foto de JPCasainho.jpg - not featured edit

Info created by Casainho - uploaded by Fabien1309 - nominated by Fabien1309
Support -- Fabien1309 11:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Border, copyright notice at bottom, resolution too low. --startaq 15:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose B/W, border, not much info, uncategorized, weird perspective... I'm starting to think that self-nominations should be prohibited. Erina
- Must be logged in to vote. --KenWalker 16:20, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This isn't a self-nomination, technically. He just uploaded it; he didn't create it. --Fastfission 19:27, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess I forgot to login. Corrected. (comment above) Erina 17:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Low res. Please read Guidelines for nominators before nominating. Lycaon 16:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Low res, logo at bottom.--KenWalker 16:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose grotty pic, no redeeming features - MPF 17:27, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose If it was higher res and didn't have the white border I think I'd be inclined to support it. --Fastfission 19:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Pluke 20:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lestat 21:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Neutrality 18:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support well sorry but I like it :) Rama 10:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose due to resolution, text on image, although i like the photo too. TheBernFiles 15:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The flaws of this picture are already well documented here, but I cannot find even one single point in favour of it. Roger McLassus 17:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2 support, 11 oppose → not featured Roger McLassus 10:08, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Sanctuary.jpg - featured edit

Info created by John D. - uploaded by KenWalker - nominated by KenWalker 07:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I know it is another flower, but it seems to me to be a lovely picture. --KenWalker 07:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No species name. -- Erina 08:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC) Anyway I'm still Neutral. Too much flowers in FP, but this one is good. Too hard to decide. --Erina 20:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yellow Day Lily is Hemerocallis lilioasphodelus. This should be added to the info (I'll do that right away). Lycaon 16:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice photo --AngMoKio 13:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice photo, with nice colors. Moralist 09:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice --Tomascastelazo 16:46, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lestat 21:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I love the composition! --Thenickdude 06:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Neutrality 18:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tarawneh 00:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support but name is not descriptive --Jollyroger 15:07, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nice composition but noisy. If you would reduce the noice (try neatimage) it would be gorgeous! --Olei 22:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. TheBernFiles 15:54, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support forgot to vote Lycaon 17:44, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

11 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured Roger McLassus 09:52, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Loligo vulgaris.jpg - not featured edit

Info created and uploaded by Lycaon — nominated by Tone
Support Tone 13:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support ~~Neutral~~ really nice ~~no more resolution?~~ --Luc Viatour 14:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

oh yes :-) Lycaon 18:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose appears to be in an unnatural position Žena Dhark…·°º•ø®@» 17:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

it is, it was meant as a taxonomical illustration. Lycaon 18:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

* Neutral - Low Res. but Photo is nice -Andreas.Didion 19:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

* Neutral Really nice picture, but lowres. I'll support if it would be a higher res. --Leclerc 19:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support, as the pic was replaced with hi-res one .... --Leclerc 14:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Another Version, now is a High Res. /Andreas.Didion 19:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Picture of animal corpse should not any more be necessary today. Simply ugly. Salmo 23:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree: Would rather see live specimen Žena Dhark…·°º•ø®@» 04:56, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support Romary 15:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent detail, surely this is valuable. --KenWalker 21:33, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with Salmo and Žena Dhark Declic 01:48, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support / tsca @ 10:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Just a lab shot, like many others. --Tomascastelazo 16:47, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Neutrality 18:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - ditto to Salmo - MPF 21:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The fact that it's not in it's natural environment is totally irrelevant (it not dead btw), we 're judging a photograph here, not a philosophy. Quality is imo not high enough due to limits of the camera used. I'll try to shoot a new one in three weeks time... Lycaon 18:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Lycaon What then are the criteria then for FP? Your voting record oppose/support fluctuates and in cases is contradictory, seems more like the result of personal taste and preference than objective evaluation based on long established photographic convention. Environment is totally relevant, if you judge photographic merit. Heck, I see people here opposing pictures for lack of a name... regardless of the image itself! Maybe it is time to establish serious, objective criteria free of personal bias. Just like science. --Tomascastelazo 21:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@Tomascastelazo Criteria I use to oppose are: wrong license, low res (under 1 Mpx), obvious bad photography (exposure, DOF, sharpness), obvious bad composition (heavy tilt, bad crop) and missing or wrong info (incorrect or missing name). Support if oppose criteria are not met +/- points for rarity. Quite objective imo.
@Declic I did not nominate this picture because I know its faults (being the photographer) and although hi res, the quality is not sufficient, yet it got extra point for rarity in my book ;-) Hi res is important. 640x480 pictures are of very little value, while analog images can be scanned with fairly cheap scanners to yield accurate hi res renditions of the original. B.T.W., the picture was not taken in a lab but outside on a ship (RV Belgica) at 6 Beaufort. ;-o
We could use a scoring card system, where you assign a number (e.g. from 0 to 5) to several criteria. Summation of the scores will then tell you whether the image is feature or not. Similar systems are widely used in ecological assessments. Lycaon 13:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In this case much of photographs will be disqualified because they were taken at one time or the numerical cameras did not exist. I think "hi res quality" should be considered only lastly. A good camera does not make necessarily a good photograph. Declic 01:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
@TheBernFiles The majority of serious contests of animal photographs disqualify the photographs which are not taken in natural environments. The labs photograph is relevant for taxonomic goal but without more and certainly not for FC. Salmo 20:39, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support incredibly great taxonomic image, perfect specimen too. And we are judging photo tecnique merit, not philosophical or ethic question. Anyway, millions of that are caught everyday as human food, so can't see what's wrong if you take a photo of one of them before? (moreover, it is alive)--Jollyroger 15:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Agree with Jollyroger. --Olei 22:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Good illustrative value, so what if it's dead. TheBernFiles 15:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tbc 08:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I also prefer pictures of living animals (unless there is a special reason, why the should be dead), but the critical point for my opposition is the missing environment. Roger McLassus 10:13, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree --Lmbuga ^{gl, pt, es: contacta comigo} 00:35, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

12 support, 7 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured Roger McLassus 07:17, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Chapelle Notre Dame du Chene 5.JPG - not featured edit

Info created by User:Denis.helfer Denis Helfer — uploaded by User:Denis.helfer Denis Helfer — nominated by Erina
Support Erina 09:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC) Good perspective, good colors, and it just looks great.[reply]
Support nice. --Tone 14:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - see without shadow. Žena Dhark…·°º•ø®@» 17:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow! Looks even better, IMO. Erina 08:25, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support the original one. The edited look a bit weird in closeup of the area where the shadow was --Leclerc 17:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support original. Ditto to Leclerc on edited version - MPF 17:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not a very special building and no special composition or anything. And the edit is done really bad. DirkvdM 19:20, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose original and very strongly oppose edited. Great photo, straightfoward picture, not feature-quality. Neutrality 18:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Makes the building look like a pyramid. --che 04:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ss181292 19:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC) - I agree with che.[reply]
Oppose, really no distinctive qualities. TheBernFiles 15:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Boereck 09:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Queryzo 14:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

5 support, 7 oppose → not featured Roger McLassus 07:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Crocodylus acutus 04.jpg - not featured edit

Info created by Tomas Castelazo — uploaded by Tomascastelazo — nominated by Tomascastelazo
Support Tomascastelazo 23:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Crocodylus acutus, taken at swamp of La Manzanilla, Jalisco, Mexico. This baby must have measured at least 2 meters (6 ft plus). Maybe this should replace picture below?--Tomascastelazo 23:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral — a typical croc photo Gnangarra 01:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral not bad, but suffering from the same as below, so not FP. Lycaon 06:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Neutrality 17:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose — yes it's a typical croc photo and it's not sharp either. ~~145.88.209.33 10:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)~~ (sorry it was me not logged in) Indon 10:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose very poor contrast, croc cropped, very flat composition. Hope he didn't bite you! --Jollyroger 15:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Day 7: 1 support (nominator), 2 oppose, 3 neutral → not featured Roger McLassus 05:54, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Crocodylus acutus 03.jpg - not featured edit

Info created by Tomas Castelazo — uploaded by Tomascastelazo — nominated by Tomascastelazo
Support Tomascastelazo 17:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Picture taken at a swamp in La Manzanilla, Jalisco, Mexico. Thanks to the conservation efforts of the local people, the population of crocodyles has seen a great recovery. --Tomascastelazo 17:20, 3September 2006 (UTC)
Oppose Tail cut, bad DOF (snout not sharp). Missed opportunity, could have been a hit... Lycaon 17:32, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yeah, well, it´s called a close up, and close ups are often cropped... and besides, these things are alive... they tend to bite... unlike dead, fishmarket stationary objects :0) --Tomascastelazo 20:46, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Crop it even more, there are enough pixels. --Wikimol 23:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support — I like the features others are critical of. Gnangarra 02:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Neutrality 17:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose crop, colors, no sharp --Luc Viatour 04:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose bad breath, too fat, doesn't looks smart even for a crocodile :-) (out of joke, same as before) --Jollyroger 15:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose lightning is poor--Queryzo 14:17, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2 support, 4 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured Roger McLassus 05:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Kazakh shepard with dogs and horse.jpg - not featured edit

Info created by Carole a — uploaded by Airunp — nominated by Aslak
Support Aslak 07:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Great composition, subject. But let down by the shadow and low res. Snowwayout 10:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ack Snowwayout. Please read Guidelines for nominators before nominating. Lycaon 10:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose low res, shadow -- Gorgo 16:12, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Despite low res, and being that guideliness are informal. Informative and in the absence of like images, valuable.--Tomascastelazo 16:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Low-res. Where does the shadow come from? Rex 18:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support — I agree with Tomas, when it comes to photographs sometimes the guidelines(rules) should be ignored. The shadow would come from the vehicle the photographer was driving, doubt that there are many natural features that could cast the shadow. Gnangarra 02:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- ditto to Gorgo; why should the guidelines be ignored if the shadow spoils the pic? -- Boereck 12:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very nice photo, interesting subjects; but the low-resolution and shadows prevent it from reaching feature quality. Neutrality 17:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose due to shadow, per above. TheBernFiles 15:47, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose shadow --Queryzo 14:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3 support, 8 oppose → not featured Roger McLassus 05:35, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:00440.jpg - not featured edit

Info created by Jhowcs — uploaded by Jhowcs — nominated by João Felipe C.S
Support João Felipe C.S 02:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jhowcs 14:32, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Rüdiger Wölk 14:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Strange perspective. Appears to be leaning to the left. Rex 18:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Perspective. Lestat 21:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose — perspective, gardens like these are one place where the symetry can be exploited to enhance the image Gnangarra 01:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Neutrality 18:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ss181292 19:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC) - for completely uninformative file name.[reply]
Oppose, strange angle. TheBernFiles 15:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The filename, sigh... --Dschwen 21:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose schief --Queryzo 14:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2 support, 9 oppose → not featured Roger McLassus 05:34, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Four Southern Hemisphere Tropical Cyclones (2003).jpg - not featured edit

Info created by Jeff Schmaltz, MODIS Rapid Response Team, NASA/GSFC — uploaded by Hurricanehink — nominated by Nilfanion
~~Support~~ Nilfanion 23:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the waste of time here (was half-asleep at the time :P ). A comment on the poor connections of the panorama - thats because of the significant time gaps between the satellite passes (and the consequent motion of the clouds).

Strong oppose - This is a panorama made with five pics, but they are very poorly connected. I cannot support this image. ♦ Pabix ^ℹ 07:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose — Ditto Pabix. Indon 11:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. TheBernFiles 15:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Boereck 09:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Day 7: 0 support, 4 oppose → not featured Roger McLassus 11:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Horse snout.jpg - not featured edit

Info created by Doug Stremel on flickr.com — uploaded by TheBernFiles — nominated by TheBernFiles
Support (well, for the comic appeal, I think...) TheBernFiles 15:20, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose Ss181292 18:49, 9 September 2006 (UTC) - absolutely no value[reply]
Oppose comic appeal, but not a lot else - MPF 22:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Tbc 22:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Andreas.Didion 06:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose It would look good on Onion or something like that, not on Wiki, IMO. --Erina 08:05, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This picture does, indeed, look funny, but this is not sufficient for FP-quality. The resolution is low, the background unappealing, and there seems to be a tilt to the left. Roger McLassus 10:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, but mainly because of size. Nice variety for commons, if you think about it as a free media archive. I'm sure some people will find this picture useful. --Dschwen 16:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for me even a comic appeal is a legitimate one, but background is distracting and resolution could be higher norro 15:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Giant nose? Maybe it's funny, but I think it is not worth being FP --Leclerc 01:55, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Day 7: 1 support (nominator), 9 oppose → not featured Roger McLassus 07:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Lake St Peter.jpg - not featured edit

Info created by Rick Harris — uploaded by Mortadelo2005 — nominated by Mortadelo2005
Support Mortadelo2005 16:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Nice motif, but unfortunately noisy, oversharpened, oversaturated, has color fringing (left side in the trees), and is a little on the small side. --Dschwen 17:23, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Great picture but bad quality. --Teme 19:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nice picture but low res and bad quality --Luc Viatour 06:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Oversaturated. --Erina 07:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose oversaturated! (Can we have a new icon for "oppose because of oversaturation"?) Apart of that a nice composition. --AngMoKio 07:45, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- How do you like that: ? ;) --Erina 08:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nice photo but low quality and oversatured. sorry. --Jacopo86 11:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - ditto to Dschwen. It would look better with about 15% cropped off the left edge to remove the worst colour artefacts. - MPF 18:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ditto to Jacopo86--Hi-tacks 08:59, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Day 7: 1 support (nominator), 7 oppose → not featured Roger McLassus 07:17, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Beas river and mountains as seen from Van Vihar, Manali.jpg - not featured edit

Info created by Kprateek88 - uploaded by Kprateek88 - nominated by Kprateek88 18:06, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kprateek88 18:06, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nothing special colors --Luc Viatour 06:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose What's so special? River too bright, evertything else too dark, random composition. --Erina 07:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A run-of-the-mill picture without anything outstanding. Partly too dark, but the water is overexposed. Roger McLassus 08:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ditto to Erina --Jacopo86 11:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - not very good lighting, but otherwise a good habitat pic of an area of the world we don't have many photos of. Some nice close-ups of the trees of the area would be really useful. - MPF 18:24, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Average river photo. FP images should be better than average. --Leclerc 02:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Day 7: 1 support (nominator), 5 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured Roger McLassus 07:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Alcea rosea threeflowers.jpg - not featured edit

Info created by K!roman — uploaded by K!roman — nominated by K!roman
Support K!roman 17:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose DOF (the flower is partially blurred), shadow, something weird with the background (You did some edge detection on this pic, didn't you?) --Erina 11:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I tried for improving this photograph contrast, colors, and uploaded a better. K!roman 14:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Lighting is unappealing to me (subject in shadow). --Dschwen 16:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The right one is indeed better, but to me it still isn't quite an FP, sorry :-( --Dschwen 06:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Day 7: 1 support (nominator), 2 oppose → not featured Roger McLassus 07:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Rudolph I of Germany - stained glass window.jpg - not featured edit

Info created by Michal Maňas — uploaded by Snek01 — nominated by Snek01
Support Snek01 23:29, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Subject is cut, and a window like this should be shot straight on. The exposure could be better (less blown), maybe exposure blended to show detail in the frame as well. --Dschwen 16:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As above. --Adamantios 18:59, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Day 7: 1 support (nominator), 2 oppose → not featured Roger McLassus 07:10, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Cassilis historical area.jpg - not featured edit

Info Uploaded and nominated by Fir0002 (self nom)
Support --Fir0002 www 11:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - workmanlike, but unexciting panorama shot. TheBernFiles 15:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I love the composition, the colours and the lighting. But especially in the upper left corner you can see stitching artefacts (twigs). Perhaps you can work on that, Fir0002? norro 20:01, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Technically good picture of a bunch of junk! Nomination of the other picture with the cars would have sufficed. --Dschwen 16:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per above Arad 02:27, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Day 7: 1 support (nominator), 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured Roger McLassus 07:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Canada goose flight cropped and NR.jpg - featured edit

Info created by Alan D. Wilson — uploaded by Diliff — nominated by Atamari
Support Atamari 23:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- ~~Support~~ Oppose Problem licence to see coment of the user Wikimol --Luc Viatour 09:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Gordo 09:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Absolutely beautiful! --Tomascastelazo 13:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great! --Erina 15:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support despite small size - MPF 15:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great! --Tone 20:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tarawneh 00:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Jacopo86 09:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ziga 20:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wongsamuel 04:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support WHOHAAA! --Jollyroger 14:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support El ComandanteHasta ∞ 17:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support — Love the bokeh. Indon 10:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - There is not only lab picture ! :-) Declic 12:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the copyright info is strange. The original is copyrighted by Alan D. Wilson, www.naturespicsonline.com, under cc-by-sa-2.5. The edit by Diliff was marked as self-published (is it suitable in case of minor edits?), dual-licensed under gfdl, and the website name disappeared from the authorship info. --Wikimol 11:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As in many other cases before, my opinion differs from the community's mainstream. The coincidence of the bird's upper boundary with the line of apparent horizon is a considerable compositional flaw. In addition to this the lower parts of the right wing are somewhat blurred. Roger McLassus 19:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. About the license, just drop Diliff a note, I'm sure that's a non-issue. The composition is ok, the flaw Roger pointed out is not grave at all (IMO). The apparent horizon is not a line, it is significantly blurred, and doesn't make the subject stand out less at all. The shot is good enough and with a subject like this, I suppose you don't really have the luxury of composition... --Dschwen 21:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree small size but great --Lmbuga ^{gl, pt, es: contacta comigo} 00:56, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral small size balanced by rarity and technical merits. Lycaon 05:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

16 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → featured Roger McLassus 07:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:TaErSi2.jpg - not featured edit

Info created by (farm) -uploaded by Farm - nominated by Farm 05:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Nice, but not much info, and quite low-res (below 1000px _is_ low-res for a FP, IMO). BTW you did something very weird to this page, I don't know how to correct it (and move the nomination to the top of page...). Can anyone help??? --Erina 18:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thank you, now the res is 1752*1168. --Farm 15:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And now it looks much better! Support --Erina 15:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment fixed nomination Lycaon 18:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - tilted, and the blue rag (even if it is supposed to be there) is distracting. - MPF 21:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, has that tourist snapshot quality, no striking subject. TheBernFiles 15:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Queryzo 14:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1 support, 3 oppose → not featured Roger McLassus 07:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Kozolec.jpg - not featured edit

Info created by Tone — uploaded by Tone — nominated by Tone
Support Tone 13:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Shry tales 17:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good photo, Tone! But not quite featured quality. Neutrality 17:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - Nice to have some more info. I presume they are hay-drying racks? - MPF 22:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, these are used to dry hay. Sadly, this traditional construction is used less and less due to mechanization. I linked the English WP article, here. Or is there anything else you would like to know? --Tone 11:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; I assumed Kozolec was a place, not the name of the item! Adding "Xxxxx, Gorenjska region, Slovenia" would help (as not too many people are familiar with where Gorenjska region is) - MPF 15:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose — Would be better if the point of interest is more visible. Some part of the sky is overexposed. Indon 08:49, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ziga 20:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Indon. TheBernFiles 15:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Queryzo 14:17, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured Roger McLassus 07:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:The Rest.JPG - not featured edit

Info created by Yovi — uploaded by Yovi — nominated by Yovi
Support Yovi 17:31, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose. I like the dreamy look and the basic idea behind the picture. But the colors and the sky do not look inviting to take a rest there. --Dschwen 16:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ss181292 17:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC) - unless someone tell me what is the idea behind the picture.[reply]
Oppose colors and no informative --Luc Viatour 06:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose What is this pic for? --Erina 07:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose If I had made this picture, I should not even keep it. Roger McLassus 08:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose obviously a prank Lycaon 10:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral ditto to Dschwen, i cannot support bau also cannot oppose. --Jacopo86 11:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose - ditto to Roger McLassus. Methinks this could more realistically be nominated for deletion, not for FP - MPF 18:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose - What the .... I think this one have lot more changes in winning deletion voting than FP. --Leclerc 15:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I quote one of the rules: "Nominators can withdraw their nominated pictures at any time." Roger McLassus 17:46, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion was to withdraw the nomination. This is done by the nominator's statement: "I withdraw my nomination" - not by deleting the template from the list, as was done yesterday by Yovi. Like all nominations also withdrawn ones must afterwards be moved to the archive. I'll do this later and keep the template here for a while to make this point clear to everyone. Roger McLassus 13:24, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'd disagree with that. If a nomination is withdrawn, it should be removed, and nothing recorded in the archive. The archive is for successful and unsuccessful nominations; not for something where the uploader may wish, for whatever reason, to have the pic as if it were never nominated in the first place. - MPF 21:53, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think, your opionion is not the mainstream view. Until now, withdrawals were always handled this way. Furthermore, removing the nomination-template does not delete it. It contiues to exist, but becomes isolated. But if you like, you can start a discussion about this point. Roger McLassus 07:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1 support, 8 oppose, 1 neutral (withdrawn) → not featured Roger McLassus 13:24, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Hippo pod edit.jpg - featured edit

Left: image for voting, right: original image for comparison (spot the mistake ;-) ).

Info Pod of hippos in Luangwa Valley, Zambia, 2002. Taken by Paul Maritz (Paulmaz), edited and uploaded by User:Fir0002, nominated by Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення)
Support Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 21:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - took a look at the hippo pics, and it is by far the best we have - MPF 22:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tarawneh 00:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support I think I even recognize a few of them ;-) Lycaon 07:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support — The hippos fill all the frame. Indon 08:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Luc Viatour 09:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support simply a well done photo --AngMoKio 11:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tone 12:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo 13:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XN 15:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ziga 20:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jollyroger 14:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --TheBernFiles 15:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. Highlights look terrible in fullsize (not the fault of the edit though), but the removal of the leaf is unnecessary photo manipulation. However the nice subject prevents me from opposing. --Dschwen 17:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. I think the same than Dschwen--Lmbuga ^{gl, pt, es: contacta comigo} 01:03, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

13 support, 0 oppose, 2 neutral → featured Roger McLassus 06:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Golden-Mantled Ground Squirrel, Mount Rainier, July 2006.jpg - featured edit

Info Golden-Mantled Ground Squirrel (Spermophilus lateralis), at Mount Rainier National Park, July 2006. Taken at or near Panorama Point on the Skyline Trail. created by K.lee — uploaded by K.lee — nominated by Atamari
Support Atamari 18:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tone 20:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - MPF 22:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tarawneh 00:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, very interesting. --Farm 02:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Sam67fr 03:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Lycaon 07:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Goes to my favourite ;-). Indon 08:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cute! :> --Erina 08:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Luc Viatour 09:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --AngMoKio 11:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Brave squirrel! I wouldn't dare to climb that high. Moralist 13:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think it is a bit noisy, and furthermore resolution is a bit low compared to current new FPs here. Sorry. ♦ Pabix ^ℹ 15:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lestat 18:45, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ziga 20:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jollyroger 14:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't think its too noisy. It's a pity its only 1024x1024 crop. --Wikimol 21:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice! --Olei 22:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 12:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support As announced in the German discussion I support this picture here. Roger McLassus 11:41, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

19 support, 1 oppose → featured Roger McLassus 06:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Persian rugs.jpg - not featured edit

File:Persian rugs.jpg File:Persian rugs.jpg

Info created by Nauman Ahmad (RWP, Punjab, Pakistan) — uploaded by Hautala — nominated by Hautala
Support Hautala 11:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Too dark. If it was less dark, it would be a great pic, anyway. It's still very good. Hmm... Neutral --Erina 15:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support --Tarawneh 00:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support — Nice angle and it has valuable information. Indon 08:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - ditto to Erina, a bit too dark, would be nice if it could be brightened a bit. Minor point - the pic is wrongly titled, they are Punjabi rugs, not Persian rugs - MPF 09:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - A bit dark, but I prefer live photographs anyway. Rama 10:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, brightening would probably hurt the colours of the carpet. --Tone 12:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ziga 20:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- below average quality at full size, poorest lighting, lame subject -- Boereck 09:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose poor light --Jollyroger 14:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - good subject and framing, poor lighting. TheBernFiles 15:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Prefer Edit 1. Good picture. Arad 22:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the subject and perspective, valuable. KenWalker 04:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - good subject but poor quality Lycaon 10:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good composition Ceridwen 22:38, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose beautiful subject, Poor lighting, dull colours --Luc Viatour 06:45, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - poor quality, poorest lighting--Lmbuga ^{gl, pt, es: contacta comigo} 00:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as above Roger McLassus 15:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

9 support, 7 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured Roger McLassus 06:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Cassilis historical area02.jpg - not featured edit

Info Uploaded and nominated by Fir0002 (self nom)
Support --Fir0002 www 08:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Historical? The wreck in the BG looks like a Volkswagen Bug. Still, technically a great picture again. You really have advanced your exposure blending skills! --Dschwen 09:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! :-) And it is the a Historical Area - there's a huge sign telling you so! :-) --Fir0002 www 10:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The car in the background is a late 30´s early 40´s car, it is not a VW bug. --Tomascastelazo 13:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It looks like an FX/FJ Holden, quite suprised the body is still there Gnangarra

Support Nice photo, though the res may be a bit higher (1280x853 is not that great). I wonder how long is that place abandoned... --Leclerc 16:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose — Though the photo is nice and properly taken, I don't think if this deserves FP. Perhaps if the angle is changed that the wreck car is more exposed and the historical area is more visible, then I would vote it as FP. To me, this picture looks only like an ordinary junkyard. Indon 08:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral — I'm concerned about the colours particularly around the truck they look altered? Gnangarra 12:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can promise you that no color alteration was made. This effect was achieved by firing a remote flash just out of frame of the picture. The "look" of the picture is a result of HDR tone mapping - personally I find it aesthetic. --Fir0002 www 07:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Lestat 18:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose artificial colors --Luc Viatour 04:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- I love it! To me the colors are especially great! The composition is great! -- Boereck 09:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose can't see why "historical". Anyway, colors seem fake. --Jollyroger 14:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Declic 12:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Opposefake colours, nothing special --Digon3 14:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing unusual. --Olei 22:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Marginally interesting subject, pedestrian composition, fake colours. TheBernFiles 15:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose contrast --Queryzo 14:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

5 support, 8 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured Roger McLassus 06:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Yellow_woolly_bear_caterpillar.jpg - not featured edit

Info created by DonES - uploaded by DonES - nominated by DonES 01:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Please forgive the narrow DOF. --DonES 01:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --> I think this is the caterpillar of the Spotted tussock moth (Lophocampa maculata). Yellow woolly bear caterpillars (Spilosoma virginica) are all yellow. I might be wrong. Might need a filename change? Snowwayout 01:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think you're right. I tried to ID it myself based on the woolly bear caterpillar, which looks quite similar, but has an orange band. How do I go about renaming the image? DonES 04:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See FAQ but its a bit of a pain. Snowwayout 08:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've uploaded the correct image here. Image:Lophocampa maculata caterpillar.jpg. Do I re-nominate? --DonES 04:32, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral I don't like the central composition. Anyway good pic, but not FP-quality, IMO. Maybe if it was cropped a bit or something... --Erina 15:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support good depth and details. background fills the space but is not disturbing --Jollyroger 14:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I like the documentary-style composition and the cute subject. TheBernFiles 15:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Boereck 09:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose composition--Lmbuga ^{gl, pt, es: contacta comigo} 00:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lycaon 05:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not even the caterpillar itself is all sharp, let alone its environment. The composition is a bit boring and the background somewhat disturbing. Altogether the picture misses FP-quality. Roger McLassus 15:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

4 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured Roger McLassus 06:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Conchiglie e biglie.jpg - not featured edit

Info created by Luigi Chiesa — uploaded by Luigi Chiesa — nominated by Luigi Chiesa
Support Luigi Chiesa 16:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose What is so special about this pic? And what are the glass balls for??? --Erina 18:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentThe glass balls are chilldren toys, often used on beaches. I think that the photographer means to recreate his childhood.--Jacopo86 10:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - would be better without the marbles - MPF 20:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This may be nice as some sort of desktop wallpaper, but I find nothing special on this collection of balls and oysters to deserve being FP --Leclerc 01:57, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose to narrow field of wiev (Italiano: campo di visuale troppo stretto) --Jacopo86 10:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose — Yes, the marbles spoiled the content, but with or without marbles, this photo has nothing special value for FP. Indon 11:04, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nice idea, but wheres the point?--Queryzo 14:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Day 7: 1 support (nominator), 6 oppose → not featured Roger McLassus 06:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Statue of Peter the great.jpg - not featured edit

Info created by Moralist — uploaded by Moralist — nominated by Moralist. The statue of Peter the Great in Saint Petersburg.
Support Moralist 14:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ss181292 14:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC) - needs cropping[reply]
- CommentCropped it will be too small, anyway. --Erina 18:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not special -Quasipalm 14:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bad composition (too much sky), an electric wire in the background crosses the heads of both the Tsar and his horse. Furthermore sharpness is insufficient even to read the inscription on the stone. Roger McLassus 15:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as Roger McLassus --Erina 18:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lestat 10:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This one seriously need cropping. But it is almost too small even without cropping, so ... no.--Leclerc 15:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Jacopo86 10:34, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose — Too much sky and makes peter not the great, but small. Indon 11:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The "rule of the thirds" can be nice sometimes, but this is really too much (and the rule of the thirds makes no sense if you are only showing lots of uniform blue sky) Rama 11:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nice desktop background for historians--Queryzo 14:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose another joke ???--Hi-tacks 16:43, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Day 7: 1 support (nominator), 11 oppose → not featured Roger McLassus 06:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Eilean donan.JPG - not featured edit

Info created by Moralist — uploaded by Moralist — nominated by Moralist. This is Eilean Donan Castle.
Support Moralist 14:24, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose cropping / resolution -Quasipalm 14:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Insufficient sharpness and resolution, disturbing object in the lower right corner, boring composition, oversaturated colours. Roger McLassus 15:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good, but resolution is too low. Lestat 10:04, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose — The subject is already interesting, but the result is not great. Contrast can be improved and cropping can also help. Indon 11:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Info How about the version with improved colours ? Rama 11:47, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose i dont know, sth is missing to make it a special one--Queryzo 14:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Day 7: 1 support (nominator), 5 oppose → not featured Roger McLassus 06:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Cartesian coordinates 3D.svg - not featured edit

Info created by Gustavb — uploaded by Gustavb — nominated by norro 13:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support clear and instructional norro 13:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ss181292 14:55, 13 September 2006 (UTC) - arrowheads should be only on one end of axes.[reply]
Oppose well-done, but not outstanding Roger McLassus 15:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose see Ss181292's comment, + I don't like the arrow showing origin (0,0,0). Just an O should be sufficient. ♦ Pabix ^ℹ 16:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as Ss181292, and I don't like the arrow too. Anyway even if corrected, it's not FP quality - very good, needed and informative SVG but not this much of work. --Erina 18:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not bad for picture displaying cartesian coordinates, but these are just coordinates. I don't think such simple drawings should be FP. --Leclerc 02:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose informative, but not featured--Queryzo 14:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Day 7: 1 support (nominator), 6 oppose → not featured Roger McLassus 06:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Cheetah4.jpg - featured edit

Info created by Schani of Flickr — uploaded by Jacoplane — nominated by Pharaoh Hound (talk)
Support Pharaoh Hound (talk) 22:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Luc Viatour 04:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support – Wow! The cheetah is sharp and good DOF. Indon 11:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacopo86 15:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Declic 12:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, has encyclopedic value also. TheBernFiles 15:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - although likely a zoo shot, there's nothing visible to say that it definitely is and so spoil the pic - MPF 22:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support ♦ Pabix ^ℹ 15:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree --Lmbuga ^{gl, pt, es: contacta comigo} 00:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -LadyofHats 22:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

10 support, 0 oppose → featured Roger McLassus 06:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:DirkvdM baracoa cabin.jpg - not featured edit

Info created, uploaded and nominated by DirkvdM
Support DirkvdM 18:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nothing special, rather low res. Lycaon 18:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support This picture tells me about the living conditions of a particular place and time. Arquitecture, building material, surrondings, vegetation, etc. --Tomascastelazo 19:18, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - ditto to Tomascastelazo - MPF 00:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose — Agree with Lycaon, unless it is a very special & unique picture, low-res is not a problem for FP. Indon 11:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Olegivvit 10:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, pretty but unexciting subject and photo. TheBernFiles 15:36, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I would support except for low res since higher res is available. -- KenWalker 04:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I don't like the composition at all, cabin is obstructed, weird shadow in the lower right corner. A step back and left would probably have been a better vantage point. Oh yeah, and what's the deal with uploading crippleware?--Dschwen 07:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crippleware? Hadn't heard of that term. This is not it, though, because I want my photos to be for free - for non-commercial use, that is. Since that is not allowed here, I was suggested this alternative. I don't like it, but don't have much of a choice. The basic idea is that if someone is to make money with a photograph, the photographer should be the first to benefit from it. I love the notion of freeware, but then it should be completely free. Pretty much what you say, but for me that also includes 'free of commercial gain'. Still, commecial websites are already using my photographs, so they don't consider them crippled, it seems. DirkvdM 18:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say you are wrong in several assumptions. IMO

1. People go to Commons for free files. If they were inclined to buy something, they'd looked elsewhere in first place. They'll either use the file for free even in low res, or find something else.

2. CC-BY-SA and especially FDL are unsuitable for majority of serious commercial/advertising usage. Serious photo buyer would usually need different licence. Photo users who don't care about licences usualy also don't need quality, and if they need higher image size, they would simply upscale your photo, even with the degradation!

I sell some of my photos here with stock agencies (see eg. Image:Tea leaves steeping in a zhong čaj 05.jpg), the photos here under free license and there under royalty-free license are the same resolution, and IMO presence on Commons don't affect the sales at all. --Wikimol 20:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - uploading downscaled versions is not the practice which should be promoted by FP. --Wikimol 20:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- apart from the discussion above: I think it is not that great a picture! sorry! -- Boereck 09:08, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose great picture, but where is the subject? --Queryzo 14:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as above, plus rather dull composition -LadyofHats 22:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

4 support, 9 oppose → not featured Roger McLassus 06:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Hong kong bruce lee statue.jpg - not featured edit

Info created by Johnson Lau — uploaded by Johnson Lau — nominated by Johnson Lau
Support Johnson Lau 05:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose — Background is too distracting. Indon 08:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have another version using f/1.4, which the background was blurred--Johnson Lau 14:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I'm still opposing it to be FP, sorry. The shadow on the statue is too harsh. The picture looks like an ordinary touristic photo. Really, if you can retake this scene picture again, can you wait for a better light than this? Indon 11:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose — Background ; the subject is cut. Rama 09:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice photo. The Hong Kong background is imho part of the composition and fits very well to Bruce Lee. Maybe the colour saturation could be reduced a bit. --AngMoKio 11:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The photo was taken in RAW format and colour saturation could be reduced easily.--Johnson Lau 14:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like the composition, including the city behind. Unfortunately its only part of the statue. Gnangarra 12:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Here is a photo showing the whole statue: Image:HK_Star_Bruce_Lee_16.jpg. The statue is fenced and I found impossible to take a full picture of it without being distracted.--Johnson Lau 14:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I agree with Dschwen this other image shows it possible, are you able to retake the image? If so I'd suggest(based on full image) that by placing the statue further right in the frame you could remove sufficient quantities of the fence, it would also loose some of the value in the background but thats not the main subject anyway. Gnangarra 16:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Sorry, but the composition looks random. The statue is unnecessarily cut (your example above only shows me it is possible to get a better angle. --Dschwen 14:49, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentThe background is 2 charateristic buildings of HongKong. The Central Plaza [13] is the 2nd highest building in HK. The Hong Kong Convention and Exhibition Centre [14] was the site of the handover ceremony. I didn't take the whole statue due to the ugly fence around it.--Johnson Lau 15:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per the above, due to suboptimal composition. TheBernFiles 15:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose composition--Queryzo 14:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose due to composition, background, light, and cutting. Roger McLassus 15:42, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as above --LadyofHats 22:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2 support, 8 opposel → not featured Roger McLassus 06:23, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Brooklyn Bridge Postdlf.jpg - not featured edit

Info created by Postdlf — uploaded by DeansFA — nominated by Tarawneh
Support Tarawneh 00:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Nice perspective and line patterns. I wish the bridge is not cut in the middle. Indon 08:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral technically a very good picture. Just don't know if it is special enough --AngMoKio 11:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too many bridges, they are easy to take, so have to be exceptionally good to be FP. Lycaon 18:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, ditto to Lycaon. --Tone 19:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral per AngMoKio. TheBernFiles 15:39, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Average pic. Slightly tilted. --Dschwen 18:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. nothing special. not a bad photo but still... something missing -LadyofHats 22:39, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2 support, 4 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured Roger McLassus 06:20, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Sunset at Torrey Pines State Beach CA.JPG - not featured edit

Info created by levi.crouch — uploaded by levi.crouch — nominated by Levi.crouch
Support Levi.crouch 04:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose All sunsets are pretty, so FP sunsets need to be exceptional Snowwayout 05:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose severe tilt, not exceptional -- Lycaon 06:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Ack Snowwayout, this looks like any other beach-sunset. --Dschwen 07:09, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ss181292 09:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC) - see Guidelines for nominators above.[reply]
Oppose Lestat 10:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose agree with Dschwen--Erina 15:07, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - no Torrey Pines in view . . . 'specially when commons doesn't have a single pic of one :-(( MPF 22:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose — no sunset for FP, please. Indon 11:00, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Maybe the sunset was nice, but the picture of it is boring. Roger McLassus 13:41, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose got thousands of those photos--Queryzo 14:26, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose it is no more than another sunset--Hi-tacks 08:54, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Seen many better sunsets in Commons --Javierme 21:31, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as above -LadyofHats 23:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- no thanks -- Boereck 09:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Day 7: 1 support (nominator), 14 oppose → not featured Roger McLassus 10:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Echinocactus_ingens2.jpg - not featured edit

Info created by Nanosanchez — uploaded by Nanosanchez — nominated by Nanosanchez - Uploaded a new bigger version on 14th sept.
Neutral. Good photo, but a bit small. in fact, not only a bit. much too small! ♦ Pabix ^ℹ 07:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ss181292 09:41, 14 September 2006 (UTC) - resolution + distracting noise in background[reply]
Oppose — per above. Indon 11:01, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose due to lighting, sharpness, composition, and size. Roger McLassus 13:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose pity its dark in the background--Queryzo 14:26, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice picture —the preceding unsigned comment is by Nanosanchez 21:49, 15. Sep 2006 (UTC)

Day 7: 1 support (nominator), 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured Roger McLassus 10:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Kobe port island02s3200.jpg - not featured edit

Info created by 663highland — uploaded by 663highland — nominated by 663highland
Support --Kobe bridge of the Kobe harbor at the time of twilight in Kobe, Hyogo, Japan--21:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)663highland

(UTC)

Oppose, oversaturated... --Erina 15:09, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment maybe usefull: {{oversaturated}} --XN 18:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - glare from lights - MPF 22:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Above, plus slight tilt. And any harbour bridge FP will have to compare to this one .--Dschwen 09:06, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for the ligth of the sun (?) thath is too bright. --Jacopo86 10:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose — Color is good, and I'm not against at saturation, but rather in noise when you see it full size. Indon 11:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose what is that white point?--Queryzo 14:28, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and I don't think that Dschwen's advantage is so great... since it has serious artifact problems. Although, I may have supported it ~_~ --gren 04:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- per above -- Boereck 09:07, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Day 7: 1 support (nominator), 8 oppose → not featured Roger McLassus 10:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gasometer - not featured edit

Info created by XN - uploaded by XN - nominated by XN 11:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)]][reply]
Support --XN 11:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose don't understand the picture norro 12:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Neither do I. Kprateek88 12:24, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I do, and I like it. It could have been a bit sharper though. Lycaon 13:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral i like the colors but the composition is a little disturbing. But i cannot oppose :) --Jacopo86 14:24, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Well, it seems it is some large tank used to holding gas and the photo is taken from the bottom of it. Basically, the lower 2/3 of picture is reflection in the water (probably, may be other liquid). But it is pretty confusing and requires some thinking to realize what it is ... may be nice in "Guess what the picture is" competition, but not as FP --Leclerc 02:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Artsy, but not really useful due to unclear subject matter. --Dschwen 07:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unclear subject matter Lestat 10:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral It took me a while to understand the picture, but then I started to like it. I'd support it, if it were sharper. Roger McLassus 14:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Day 7: 1 support (nominator), 5 oppose, 3 neutral → not featured Roger McLassus 06:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Autumn mountain trail.jpg - not featured edit

Info created by Flicker.com user "a4gpa" — uploaded by TheBernFiles — nominated by TheBernFiles
Support TheBernFiles 15:04, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - very nice pic, but totally lacking in information (location, etc). Will support if details can be added. - MPF 22:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. While I don't understand people complaining about low DOF in macro images, this picture really suffers under the blurry bg. --Dschwen 08:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- the colors are bright (which I like), the composition is quite interesting with the grassy hill cutting the image in half (which I like) but the trees appear as one big lump at full-size. -- Boereck 09:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - composition, lack of sharp --Lmbuga ^{gl, pt, es: contacta comigo} 01:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Day 7: 1 support (nominator), 2 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured Roger McLassus 07:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Bridge at skansen.JPG - not featured edit

Info created and uploaded by Zaphod - nominated by Zaphod
Support *Zaphod 12:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Sorry, but no. The composition is terrible, the way the reflection is cut off, trees randomly occlude the subject instead of framing it, blown highlights. Not FP material. --Dschwen 18:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Wikimol 20:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Well... it's nice, but not FP-quality. --Erina 08:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose In addition to what Dschwen already said the picture is also considerably leaning to the left. Roger McLassus 19:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The bridge is way too obscured by leafs and trees ... and the rest of the picture is not worthy of being FP. --Leclerc 02:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the image contrast is too burned -LadyofHats 23:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- agree with Dschwen -- Boereck 08:57, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Day 7: 1 support (nominator), 7 oppose → not featured Roger McLassus 06:23, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Waterlily.jpg - not featured edit

Info created by Jmbc2 — uploaded by Jmbc2 — nominated by Jmbc2
Oppose. 1500x1108 and just 176 KB shows. Heavy JPEG artifacts! The focus is soft, and the lighting washes out all detail in the flower pod. --Dschwen 18:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Have a look of how is made a jpeg, and you will see why the first part of your comment is irrelevant. —the preceding unsigned comment is by Jmbc (talk • contribs)
  - Sorry, I have no idea what you are talking about. --Dschwen 20:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - A jpeg file size have nothing to do with the quality of the picture. In a jpeg, you loose quality if you decide it (you can have all the pixels from the original picture if you select 100% quality when you create the file). Also, you have a small size with a good quality if the engine which created the file is good. Typically, the processors within the digital cameras are bad because they are slow, and they have to produce a result quickly. They produce big files because they have not enough time to optimize. And a good software engine (like Gimp) can produce good quality pictures with raisonably small files, because a powerfull PC is behind. It's why to say '1500x1108 and just 176 KB shows' is irrelevant.
    - Oh, boy. Your insight into JPEG encoding must fairly limited if you think there is no correlation between filesize and quality. --Dschwen 11:41, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sorry chaps, you make some confusion about jpeg. Just google 'jpeg', read carefully what you'll get, and then take care of what you write. "1500x1108 and just 176 KB shows" is definitely a non sense in image compression. —the preceding unsigned comment is by Jmbc (talk • contribs)
      - My favourite combination, patronizing and clueless.. --Dschwen 17:35, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - With any lossy compression format like jpg the file size compared to the image dimension is absolutely correlational! At the file size you uploaded, uncompressed it would be at least 4.76 MB depending on color depth. To get a jpeg down to 176 KB (28x reduction!) means you had to have set the quality quite low. Even a picture of a sky would not compress that greatly without obvious artifacts, let alone a picture full of sharp color variations like a flowering plant. But please tell me I don't know what I'm talking about either. I've only been using the format since 1994. Talshiarr 21:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - You always loose quality, even at 100%. And not much can be optimized in JPEG compression. Marc Mongenet 14:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose — Picture is too soft and yes, JPEG artefacts are everywhere. Indon 22:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Artifacts and resolution. This picture has potential. Please upload a better version, if possible. --Adamantios 18:53, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose but would support a version with better resolution -LadyofHats 22:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Day 7: 0 support, 4 oppose → not featured Roger McLassus 06:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Dead sea newspaper.jpg - not featured edit

Info created by IMAGEAUTHOR — uploaded by Pcb21 — nominated by Talmoryair 06:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC) (nomination corrected & listed by pfctdayelise (translate?))[reply]
Support yas Talmoryair 06:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the theme, though the newspaper seems to be too bright (it has been a sunny day) --Ziga 12:05, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - interesting subject, but flat newspaper-style photography, as it were. TheBernFiles 19:25, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - looks like he's wearing a buoyancy belt, which spoils the Dead Sea float effect. One foot also looks rather yucky. - MPF 21:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think the buoyancy belt, is the air in his swimming shorts... ;-) Lycaon 17:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose newspaper is overexposed and I agree with MPF's two points Tbc 22:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with MPF. Furthermore — if you have the chance to do this shot again — the feet are dirty, there seems to be a second person standing behind the reading one, the wind bloats the newspaper from the wrong direction and i think, i would like to see him from behind. Just to annotate this :) norro 20:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose is it a citation? i think i have seen several images like this before. -LadyofHats 22:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured Roger McLassus 08:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Poumatua2.jpg - featured edit

Info created by Kahuroa — uploaded by Kahuroa — nominated by Konstable
Support Konstable 10:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too dark, brighten up the dark areas and this would be a better picture. --Digon3 14:01, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Aside from the encyclopedic value, which I think is great, it has a lot of photographic merit. First of all, it has a wide luminance range, the image encompases from dark to white nicely, therefore exposure is correct. The image is rich in texture and color. Good DOF so as to not lose important and relevant details. Brightening up dark areas would not create a better photograph. It is the play of light precisely what gives this image its rich dark tones and texture. Even lighting is in fact not desirable in most cases, it tends to flatten object. Just study lighting in museums, sculptures are lighted for effect, creating dark and light areas to bring out texture and volume, as it seems to be the case here. This is good museography and the photographer captured the intention --Tomascastelazo 15:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support great photo!!! Žena Dhark…·°º•ø®@»
Support cool photo Brian New Zealand 00:14, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Romary 06:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support no more resolution? --Luc Viatour 07:47, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ziga 12:06, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, though it is a bit too dark, I think. TheBernFiles 15:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The darkness is part of the reason I like it actually. Maori carvings are usually of warriors and in a way are meant to be threatening. The darkness just adds to this.--Konstable 22:08, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - I like it, but it is too dark towards the edges - MPF 21:55, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support great picture --Phoenix-R 15:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support interesting picture of significant value. KenWalker 04:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support. Great composition and lighting, but a bit on the small side and fairly bad quality. --Dschwen 16:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressive Ceridwen 22:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition--Lmbuga ^{gl, pt, es: contacta comigo} 01:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - without doubth -LadyofHats 22:45, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

13 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → featured Roger McLassus 08:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Skylab-KSC-73P-341HR.jpg - not featured edit

Info created by NASA — uploaded by Adamantios — nominated by Adamantios
Support Skylab crew breakfast on launch morning. Adamantios 18:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment --> Excuse my ignorance, but it looks like a b&w picture of people having breakfast, what exactly makes it FP quality? Snowwayout 23:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- its 1973 would have thought that NASA would be using colour by then, Skylab was that hunk of metal that fell on Western Australia 1979. Interesting to see the methods for isolation but the image IMHO isnt FP. see wikipedia:Skylab for the full story Gnangarra 03:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not interesting, ditto to Snowwayout - MPF 09:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose — B/W picture of a meeting?? Indon 09:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose agree with opposers, its just a B&W picture of some people have breakfast --Digon3 14:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Snowwauot, you asked, here´s your answer. If you "read" the photograph you can learn about life in NASA. A space mission is no ordinary thing, and this is a glimpse behind the curtains. Notice the mouth covers of non astronauts.. can you guess why? Notice the photographs, the note pad, the food itself. Just add it all up. A picture is wort a thousand words. Of course one needs cultural capital to decipher. And by the way, B&W photography has been around much longer than color photography, it was the standard of the press just until a few years ago and it has not lost its usefulness yet. Even with the introduction of color, B&W remained in use. Digital technology pushed it out much more than color film. To invalidate a photograph just because it is B&W is foolish. In fact, true photographic crafstmanship is revealed in B&W photography. Just look over Ansel Adams...--Tomascastelazo 15:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lycaon 22:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose Interesting but nothing else. --Olei 22:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing special. Thanks Tomascastelazo for your reply. Snowwayout 00:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Romary 06:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Uninteresting, pedestrian. TheBernFiles 15:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't miss the colours, but I miss the excellence. Roger McLassus 08:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nothing special --Queryzo 14:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support huge historical value. // Duccio 19:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - ...and?? -LadyofHats 22:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3 support, 12 oppose → not featured Roger McLassus 07:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:LOC Brooklyn Bridge and East River 8.png - not featured edit

Info Based on Image:LOC Brooklyn Bridge and East River 8.png — nominated by San Jose
Oppose take a picture of either one or the other, but not both the building and the bridge. --Digon3 14:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Romary 06:36, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support i think it is a nice composition --AngMoKio 15:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, too crowded. TheBernFiles 15:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition would be fine, if the picture were cropped a bit on the right side (about the width of the half blue car). This would also eliminate the blurred flying object. But the left part of the building is too dark anyway. Roger McLassus 10:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- the shadow spoiled it for me; other than that: a very nice and strong composition -- Boereck 09:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - as above -LadyofHats 22:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1 support, 6 oppose → not featured Roger McLassus 07:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Aquila spinogaster (African Hawk Eagle).jpg - not featured edit

Info created by Steve Jurvetson on flickr.com — uploaded by TheBernFiles — nominated by TheBernFiles
Support TheBernFiles 15:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I know how difficult it is to get photos of flying birds right and this one definitely looks very nice (to put it mildly), with a great view of the wing, but the missing tail completely spoils it. Too bad. DirkvdM 18:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - ditto to DirkvdM - MPF 22:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support The missing parts give a great look, like if the bird'd get out of the frame - Jmbc2 13:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Pity about the tail, it would have been great... --Adamantios 19:13, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support the image has a dinamic composition, wich would become quite plain if the bird would apear complete -LadyofHats 22:53, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Boereck 08:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3 support, 4 oppose → not featured Roger McLassus 07:54, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Girl with styrofoam swimming board.jpg - featured edit

Info created by Tommy Wong — uploaded by TheBernFiles — nominated by TheBernFiles
Support TheBernFiles 15:17, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ss181292 18:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC) - not exceptional in any way, way too much out of focus.[reply]
Oppose - ditto to Ss181292 - MPF 22:20, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - nothing Special -Andreas.Didion 06:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - ~~i also dont know if it is exceptional (have to think abt it)~~ Finally decided for pro. The photo is technically perfect and for sure not out of focus --AngMoKio 20:37, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The greatest part of the girl is out of focus, and so are the swimming board and the water. The picture is just a snapshot far below FP-quality. Roger McLassus 10:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The photo is made with f/1.8 so of course you have only a small area that is in focus - but in this photo it is exactly the face of that girl and that is how it was most likely meant to be. Such a pic is not easy to make and for sure it isnt just a snapshot. --AngMoKio 13:06, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. Technically a great photo (apart from the sucky bokeh). Like the Horse pic, it has not particular encyclopedic value, but it is nice stock photography. --Dschwen 16:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it. Excellent quality at full resolution. --startaq 13:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Adamantios 19:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support — It makes me smile about out of focus comments above. The most important thing the precious moment. This picture has nice story of a girl felt asleep while swimming. Oh, if I ever have this picture, I'll sell it to the stock agency. It's a very valuable photograph. For encyclopedia? Well, this picture can be used for leisure article for example, which only has 1 image, currently.Indon 22:42, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree--Lmbuga ^{gl, pt, es: contacta comigo} 01:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Same as Indon -- Fabien1309 15:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. --MichaelMaggs 21:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Darkone 08:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support norro 14:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Stephane8888 20:17, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

11 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → featured Roger McLassus 07:52, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Alstroemeria pod opening.jpg - not featured edit

Info created by Flickr.com user "tanakawho" — uploaded by TheBernFiles — nominated by TheBernFiles
Support TheBernFiles 15:11, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - not enough depth of field - MPF 22:21, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support I love good macros, and it's not a flower. ;) --Erina 08:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support — It's wrong to say that DOF is not enough. It's perfect and makes the subject — I don't know what it is — properly exposed. Nice black backdrop and noise is very low. Indon 11:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Only because of the resolution! Adamantios -- 19:06, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support still would be nice to have a better resolution version -LadyofHats 22:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ack Adamantios -- Lycaon 08:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tets 16:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ack MPF Roger McLassus 19:06, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

5 support, 4 oppose → not featured Roger McLassus 07:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Argentine horned frog (Ceratophrys ornata).jpg - not featured edit

Info created by Flickr.com user "avmaier" — uploaded by TheBernFiles — nominated by TheBernFiles
Support TheBernFiles 15:06, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wonderful colours. One has to view it big to see what it is, but this size it is still intriguing enough to invite one to do so, so it still works. DirkvdM 18:21, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Luc Viatour 20:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - amazing pic! - MPF 22:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral For me it is cropped too much... Tbc 22:47, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose poor DOF and oversaturated (or that frog just looks like this?).--Erina 08:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose composition. I don't see any frog, i just see a varicoloured bag norro 20:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - despite being cropped too narrowly --Javierme 22:23, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Blurry, unplausible color-intensity, poor composition, a niggard cropping, and the picture does not make the frog's appearance clear. Roger McLassus 10:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's all been said. --Dschwen 08:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support- wow -LadyofHats 22:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

6 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured Roger McLassus 07:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ocean City Ferris Wheel.jpg - not featured edit

Info created by Troy McCullough on flickr.com — uploaded by TheBernFiles — nominated by TheBernFiles
Support TheBernFiles 15:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - nowt special; odd tilted angle - MPF 22:20, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Andreas.Didion 06:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Support--Erina 08:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the composition, the contrast, the powerful colours and the glow. Resolution is great. norro 19:54, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support a great composition. We need more such photos --AngMoKio 20:38, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support--ditto AngMoKio and Norro. KenWalker 04:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Lycaon 08:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - good point of view Ceridwen 22:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Artsy pic, but the quality in full size sucks, grainy and weird color fringes. Oversaturated, overcontrasted (lots of under- and lots of overexposed parts), and I don't like the vignetting. --Dschwen 08:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- I like the composition; yet even though I am a sucker for colors, this one is a bit too much. the photoshop-colors and the too hefty light-dark contrast ruin the good first impression. Boereck 09:21, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
-the license on Flickr was probably changed, as it is now non-free © All rights reserved. Is it possible to proove it was originaly free? --Wikimol 08:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. All I can do is attest that it was cc-by when I uploaded it; I don't know if Flickr has a versioning system. At any rate, CC licences are irrevocable, aren't they? TheBernFiles 17:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They are. Once released under CC license by the copyright owner it cannot be withdrawn. norro 21:34, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CC is irrevocable, the only problem is how to prove it was released. Flickr does not display versioning info. I think it was recently disscussed somewhere, but don't know what was the conslusion. --Wikimol 19:30, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ss181292 15:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC) - boring[reply]
Oppose Photographer apparantly does not want this to be freely licensed. Even if we are willing to say that we don't care about the photographer's wishes, we cannot demonstrate that this is freely licensed. Should be deleted. Jkelly 18:57, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

7 support, 6 oppose → not featured Roger McLassus 07:47, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Pepsi in India.jpg not featured edit

Info created by Claude Renault on flickr.com — uploaded by TheBernFiles — nominated by TheBernFiles
Support TheBernFiles 15:00, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - don't want to support pepsi ads - MPF 22:12, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if anything it's a commentary on the impact of first-world products in a third-world country; I doubt Pepsi would use this image as an ad. See Pepsi in India on Wikipedia. TheBernFiles 06:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Actually, the pic contains 2 ads, but the whole image would not work as an ad.--Javierme 16:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like the idea, but actually there's missing the kick norro 19:54, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. Nice juxtaposition of poverty and first world branding, but I fail to see how the image comments on the impact of first-world products. Is the woman poor because of Pepsi? Sorry, but this smells a little of POV and using this image in Pepsi in India is a bit questionable. --Dschwen 20:11, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose — If the subject is the women then the signs are too dominant, if the subject is the signs then they are cut, if the subject is suppose to be both then its POV, POV implies that Pepsi is cause of this women being poor- thinking maybe it should e Nominated for Deletion or at least be renamed. Also theres no release from the women to use her in image. Gnangarra 06:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

there is no need for a permission, since she is barely recognizable (face almost completely covered, low res, ...) -- Gorgo 12:50, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even if we consider that bothe the woman and the signs are main subjects of this picture, it does not imply that this woman is poor due to the impact of of first-world products. That POV is the uploader's interpretation, but not necesarily the creators neither any viewers. Other viewers may understand that proximity does not imply causality. This images are powerful symbols of concepts that contrast by its proximity (big companies market economy and poverty in India)--Javierme 19:41, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose In addition to everything already said the resolution is very low. Roger McLassus 09:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- poor composition -- Boereck 09:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - as above -LadyofHats 22:48, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose low res -- Gorgo 12:50, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2 support, 7 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured Roger McLassus 07:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Cat in tree03.jpg - not featured edit

Info Uploaded and nominated by Fir0002 (self nom)
Support --Fir0002 www 11:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - any cat and any tree - Andreas.Didion 14:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - no distinguishing features whatsoever. TheBernFiles 15:29, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - It's a puddy tat. There's 5 gazillion pics of the things on wiki. Now if it had been a Quoll or a Numbat . . . - MPF 22:08, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Tbc 22:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose — ditto to MPF – Lycaon 08:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Nice composition, and it is an iconic moment well captured. Only thing that bothers me is (hope I'm not overusing it) the bokeh. The way some of the out of focus twigs create unpleasant non-soft double-images. --Dschwen 16:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The subject is not outstanding and the blurred twigs are disturbing. Roger McLassus 08:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not interesting--Hi-tacks 09:00, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose still it is really cute. try on quality images -LadyofHats 22:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2 support, 8 oppose → not featured Roger McLassus 07:45, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Orion Nebula - Hubble 2006 mosaic 18000.jpg - featured edit

Info created by NASA — uploaded by HighInBC — nominated by HighInBC
Support per amazing detail, NASA says "one of the most detailed astronomical images ever produced". HighInBC 14:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support; beautiful. --tomf688 (talk - email) 03:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support exceptionnal --Luc Viatour 06:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Technically perfect, despite the fact that it has just killed my browser... ;D --Erina 07:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I am very inclined to support this picture (I am an astronomer myself), but unfortunately I am unable to watch it in full resolution. Roger McLassus 08:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yes, the picture is very large 18000 x 18000px 2,43GB decompressed! Very very long to open, but very very beautiful!--Luc Viatour 05:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

18000x18000x24bit=972Mb. How did you get 2.43Gb? --Leclerc 16:08, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have write too quickly! Converted into Tif it is exactly 949Mo already enormous! --Luc Viatour 05:34, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support Image doesn't display in Firefox, but works fine in Opera. Looks great at full resolution. --startaq 13:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You will do better to use a proper image viewer like Photoshop or GIMP(free), browsers are not designed for such enormous images. HighInBC 02:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Hmmm ... Gimp does not work either, it loads entire image in memory and then it hangs ... is there any software to chop such image in tiles and view the tiles separately? --Leclerc 16:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I know... But the page should have a big, red warning. There are more browser-killing pics (all from NASA), maybe a template? --Erina 08:06, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree, I put a warning there, but perhaps it needs to be bolder, please do something like that as I have never used color markup on a wiki before. HighInBC 15:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - ditto to Roger McLassus. It is possible to have too much of a good thing. - MPF 18:13, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can the warning be put above the pic, rather than below it? - currently it isn't visible until one scrolls down, and one might already have clicked on the pic by then. - MPF 18:13, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support "My God, it's full of stars!" --Adamantios 19:21, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Very nice deep space image and the resolution is great. Well, maybe too great, 1 gigabyte of ram is barely enough to load it :) --Leclerc 22:42, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -LadyofHats 22:54, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jkelly 18:54, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree --Prevert^(talk) 21:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I lack of words good enough to describe it. Jon Harald Søby 21:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It does seem like a very nice picture, but what's the point of featuring it if only those with rather hefty comp requirements or relatively high computer savviness can watch it? Could we provide a scaled down version or something? / Peter Isotalo 20:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

11 support, 0 oppose, 2 neutral → featured Roger McLassus 06:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:StPetersBasilicaEarlyMorning.jpg - not featured edit

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Andreas Tille
Oppose Blurry, and I don't like the colors. Nothing special. --Erina 10:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Slightly blurry and a tad tilted to the right. I actually like the colors, but the picture would have benefited from a higher vantage point. --Dschwen 16:25, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Adamantios 19:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - ditto to Erina - MPF 22:54, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - blury -LadyofHats 22:54, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- per above -- Boereck 08:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Good photo - 213.249.248.154 please log in to vote. Lycaon 22:20, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1 support, 5 oppose → not featured Roger McLassus 06:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Salt lake city county bldg.jpg - not featured edit

Info created by Talshiarr — uploaded by Talshiarr — nominated by Talshiarr
Neutral Talshiarr 20:47, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Wow, good self-nomination! Rare thing. And not supporting-own-work-with-no-real-reason: even more rare. :) Anyway: quality - sure, featured - not. Not interesting enough, IMO. Central composition, and I'd crop it a bit more However it's very good technically. --Erina 22:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I thought it would be a little arrogant for my first submission/nomination to blow my own horn and try to influence people when I'm still learning what makes a FPC :-). I value the opinions of people who've been doing this type of critique for a long period, please pick it apart so I can learn myself. Talshiarr 06:58, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sharpness and colours are fine, composition is a bit boring and converging lines somewhat disturbing. Altogether not really outstanding. Roger McLassus 10:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The trees occlude most of the building, especially that green tree on the right ... Basically, only the tower is fully visible, so ... nope, I don't think this should be FP --Leclerc 12:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral interesting composition - the trees are an issue but I suspect there isnt a more open view. reshooting and removing the highway sign on the left and the lamp post on the right as well as reducing the foreground road surface would negate some the tree issue as they would become more of an enhancement to the subject rather than a hinderance Gnangarra 16:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I did a quick crop/resize to show what I was suggesting Image:800px-Salt lake city county bldg-ed crop.jpg when you have reviewed and FP nomination closed please tag the image for speedy deletion Gnangarra 16:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I would like it as a Quality Image or Wallpaper, but not FP. --Digon3 17:19, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Day 7: 0 support, 3 oppose, 3 neutral → not featured Roger McLassus 06:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Official Portrait- President George Walker Bush, 43rd President of the United States, Republican - DPLA - 7482eac0e113bf03014d1686a3733f97.jpeg

Image:Jezero Sadska zapad.jpg - not featured edit

Info created by Petr Pakandl - uploaded by Petr Pakandl - nominated by Petr Pakandl 17:13, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Petr Pakandl 17:13, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose. Yeah, pretty, but boring and ridiculously low res. --Dschwen 17:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too low resolution, and central composition (it usually makes the pic boring). --Erina 17:34, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but I have to agree. The symmetry does make this an unexciting picture.--MichaelMaggs 17:37, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose Aaaarghhhh, another sunset! Ss181292 18:38, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - its a nice sunset but its way too small considering the number of sunsets already FP, Gnangarra 08:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - agree, too small, though a nice pic - MPF 09:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The sunset is great, the picture is not. Roger McLassus 18:30, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think that in order to be a sunset FP, it needs to be VERY high res, like 5000 x 5000 --Digon3 17:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Day 7: 1 support (nominator), 8 oppose → not featured Roger McLassus 07:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Diuris 03 gnangarra.jpg - not featured edit

Info created by Gnangarra — uploaded by Gnangarra — Self nominated by Gnangarra 06:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Gnangarra 06:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The backgound is unfortunately rather distracting.--MichaelMaggs 17:43, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. I don't find the backgound distracting at all, au contraire, nicely blurred and color contrasts with the flower. But unfortunately the exposure on the petals is off (too long), making them look washed out (some channels, R and G are blown out I believe). --Dschwen 09:24, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I completely agree with Dschwen norro 21:10, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Yes, the background is fine, but the petals look bad. The picture should be cropped a bit on the right side, and its sharpness is not overwhelming. Roger McLassus 18:45, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Day 7: 1 support (nominator), 2 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured Roger McLassus 07:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moss in bloom - not featured edit

Moss in bloom

Info created by Kószó József — uploaded by JoE — nominated by JoE
Support JoE
Oppose Is it just me, or it's a piece of moss taken from it's natural place and put on a pipe? Would be a great pic if the moss were photographed where it grew. --Erina 20:42, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose it is not just you ;-) Lycaon 05:49, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I cant say it's 100% fake, but even if it's authentic it has very little value. Especially with this tight cropping (I mean without showing the rest of this machinery/facility). Ss181292 09:25, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't that the trunk of a fallen tree (like a sycamore, perhaps)? Rmhermen 21:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- a rusty and painted sycamore then... ;-) -- Lycaon 21:43, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'd bet it's a fake. Roger McLassus 14:45, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - ditto to Erina. Also bad filename; moss is a spore-bearing, non-flowering plant, so does not 'bloom'. - MPF 20:11, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -as above -LadyofHats 23:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Day 7: 1 support (nominator), 6 oppose → not featured Roger McLassus 07:02, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Statue-Of-Liberty.jpg - not featured edit

Info created by User Uris on en.wikipedia — uploaded by Shizhao — nominated by Erina
Support OK, if this one doesn't deserve featuring, than I give up... It's really, really good. Erina 17:36, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lycaon 17:45, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition, angle, lighting, subject... --Adamantios 18:25, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Hi-tacks 18:41, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment OK, I give up. ;) (That is: I'll try to limit my enthusiasm to one nomination per week.) -- Erina 20:47, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose it is just an ordinary photo, not FP for me. --Jacopo86 11:06, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose awful sky. Rama 17:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and? -LadyofHats 23:11, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Boereck 09:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Day 7: 1 support (nominator), 7 oppose → not featured Roger McLassus 09:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Coprinus Plicatilis.jpg - not featured edit

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Halved sandwich
Support Halved sandwich 01:41, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OpposeBad DOF, central composition, and I just don't like it. (Why there aren't any FQ pics lately?) --Erina 08:48, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Only objects in foreground (grass) are sharp, bad composition (too much space above subject, too little below). Ss181292 13:23, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Subject is slightly out of focus. --Adamantios 18:37, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Hi-tacks 14:19, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - as above -LadyofHats 23:09, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Boereck 09:11, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Day 7: 1 support (nominator), 6 oppose → not featured Roger McLassus 18:41, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Singapore Zoo Tigers.jpg - not featured edit

Info created and uploaded by Nachoman-au — nominated by Arad (info fixed by Lycaon 06:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Support - A WOW quality photo of an extremely rare animal (around 100 +/- around the world) in a semi-natural environment. Showing the animal in great detail. With such rarity and quality, I'm proud to nominate it on FPC. Thanks in advance for your votes. Arad 23:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support ♦ Pabix ^ℹ 08:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose composition, cropped norro 12:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Ack norro. --Dschwen 12:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Zoo pic. Environment doesn't look 'semi-natural' to me! - MPF 20:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose — not so wow, it's in the zoo, a.k.a. touristic photo. Indon 22:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support zoo or not the image has the quality to be a FP -LadyofHats 23:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- even though it was taken in a zoo, has an obstructive log in the background and - at full-size - looks a bit blurry, I support it for it's informative value (for once). -- Boereck 09:01, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Zoo pic. Jon Harald Søby 21:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ack Jon Harald Søby -- Lycaon 22:16, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

5 support, 5 oppose → not featured Roger McLassus 05:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Four_pulleys.svg - featured edit

Info created by Prolineserver and Tomia — uploaded by Prolineserver — nominated by norro 14:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support clear and instructive norro 14:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Diagram 3 is not correct, as 33+33+33 does not equal 100. If this is corrected, then support. Kprateek88 17:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per norro. Kprateek88 12:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Pfft, it's the right order of magnitude ;-). --Dschwen 18:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- And it is very well done, absolutely clean and clear, and very instructive. Textbook material! --Dschwen 09:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lot of good work. --Erina 08:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment problem on diagram 3 with 33+33+33<>100 corrected! Ss181292 08:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Strangely, I can see the (1/3) here on the featured picture candidates page, but not on the image description page. This version has the (1/3), but not the latest version as of now. Kprateek88 10:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I suppose, the SVG has been updated. Maybe it's a issue with your browser cache. Just force it to reload the image. norro 12:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Before writing my previous comment, I had cleared my browser cache. I didn't see the (1/3) then. Now, I again checked the image description page. I could see the (1/3). I again cleared my cache, and loaded the page. No 1/3. Refrehed. 1/3 was there. In all this (including when I wrote the previous comment), the file history remained exactly the same, so the file hasn't been modified while I was doing all this. Kprateek88 12:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC) [reply]
  - Hmmm, that's indeed kinda misterious. Perhaps some of the wikimedia image servers didn't refresh their cache yet and the image was provided by different servers while reloading. norro 13:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lot of good SVG work. Ss181292 08:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice Lycaon 13:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - MPF 20:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Andreas.Didion 22:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've changed the curve of the label back to text since my firefox displayed this bolder than die other labels, only the 1/3 is a curve. Strictly speaking all lables are not correct since the mass of the wire and the pulley wheel aren't took into account and therefore I omitted this 1/3 - it is only a sketch for the principle. But thanks for correcting it. --Prolineserver 09:43, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

8 support, 0 oppose neutral → featured Roger McLassus 05:48, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Zipper animated.gif - featured edit

Info created by DemonDeLuxe (Dominique Toussaint) — uploaded by DemonDeLuxe — nominated by norro 14:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support norro 14:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Simple yet at the same time complex and informative. Freedom to share 15:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I would like a reverse motion too, though. And a bit slower please! ♦ Pabix ^ℹ 15:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes, slower would be better. Kprateek88 17:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. useful. --Dschwen 18:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support--AngMoKio 19:09, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Luc Viatour 05:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Lycaon 06:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XN 07:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Erina 08:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support K!roman | ☺‼↑♫♥☻ 09:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - How long till it reaches the top of the zip? :-) MPF 20:24, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - simple ;-) - Andreas.Didion 22:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice and simple, though the blue sides may be moving too --Leclerc 02:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rex 19:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support a bit slower would be nice though Tbc 22:56, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support A wonderful image.--MichaelMaggs 17:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Perfect. --Hoffmeier 22:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -LadyofHats 23:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Perfect, just perfect.--Jelly50
Support Jon Harald Søby 21:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Francisco M. Marzoa 14:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

22 support, 0 oppose → featured Roger McLassus 05:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Interchange near Frankfurt airport as seen from an aircraft.JPG - not featured edit

Info created by Kprateek88 — uploaded by Kprateek88 — nominated by Kprateek88 If you have Google Earth, compare with http://kprateek88.googlepages.com/Interchage_Near_FRA.kmz
Support Kprateek88 07:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Shy Support. I like it but there is something disturbing me. I don't know what. ♦ Pabix ^ℹ 08:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The airplane-window is like a veil between the camera and the subject creating a foggy impression. There is also a patch of dirt in the window. The part outside the window in the lower left corner ist disturbing. The landscape is heavily tilted and not outstanding anyway. Roger McLassus 08:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose like Roger McLassus --Jacopo86 11:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. For Roger's reasons, plus if the interchange is the subject, as the title suggests... ...it is cut, only half of it is visible. --Dschwen 18:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - that ugly building site in the middle of the pic is what really grabs the attention - MPF 18:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - if interchange is the subject - it is cut and the window corner is distractive. And that orange spot distract attention from the subject. Nope. Not a good photo.--Leclerc 02:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose — What's so special of taking a picture from an airplane window seat? Also the quality is so bad. Indon 22:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ditto to Roger McLassus--Hi-tacks 08:56, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blury and bad composition -LadyofHats 22:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- agree with Leclerc -- Boereck 08:54, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2 support, 9 oppose → not featured Roger McLassus 05:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Cyclone Catarina from the ISS on March 26 2004.JPG - featured edit

Info - Created by NASA and uploaded and nominated by tomf688 (talk - email).
Support. This is a photograph taken from the ISS of the only known hurricane of the South Atlantic, unofficially dubbed Cyclone Catarina. Due to high wind shear, tropical cyclones are exceedingly rare in this region of our planet, not to mention ones of hurricane-force. Besides being an attractive image, this is an excellent example of the structure of a cyclone, and documents an event which may not occur again for a very long time. tomf688 (talk - email) 03:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Luc Viatour 06:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the fact this is a South Atlantic hurricane is not really visible from the picture (or am I missing something?). It looks just like any other ISS hurricane picture. --Dschwen 18:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The clouds are spinning clockwise (they spin counterclockwise in northern latitudes) and the coast of Brazil is faintly visible in the NW corner of the image. --tomf688 (talk - email) 20:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment that could easily be changed on any other storm pic just by a horizontal flip :-). Not enough of the coastline visible to identify it easily as Brazil, either. - MPF 18:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support Both nice and encyclopedically valuable. 3000x2000 resolution is also very good. --Leclerc 02:22, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support-LadyofHats 22:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jon Harald Søby 21:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

5 support, 0 oppose → featured Roger McLassus 05:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Pregnant woman black and white shadows.jpg - not featured edit

Info created by Tom and Katrien — uploaded by Grenavitar — nominated by norro 13:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support norro 13:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral i like the compostion but the face of the woman is half iin light and half in darkness, it is better, fo me, if it is all in darknes or all i light. --Jacopo86 14:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The background is disturbing. Due to its darkness, the person shown is practically a silhouette, but the characteristic silhouette of a pregnant woman is destroyed by the positioning of the arms, the towel, and the face's deviation from side-view. Furthermore there seems to be something in the lower back resulting in an implausible outline. Cutting off the legs is not commendable either. Roger McLassus 15:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Roger McLassus is right, but... There is something more about the pic. Hard to describe it. It's not technically perfect, but has lots of potential, IMO. --Erina 18:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - MPF 20:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Wikimedia Commons is for teaches and informative contents there thus only useful contents, NO privat gallery - Andreas.Didion 22:55, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't unserstand this comment. The woman isn't even recognizable. How does this pic try to make commons a private gallery?--Dschwen 07:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Very recognizable indeed, just up the brightness and the contrast, and there she is. This also reveals the graininess and streakiness of the image. Lycaon 07:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - ?????! That's what you call very recognizable? Yeah all pictures in my private gallery have to be decyphered like this ;-). --Dschwen 19:55, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Basically a dark silhouette on light background, rest of details are badly visible. No, I don't think this should be featured picture --Leclerc 01:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. It does have lots of potential. It is a very tasteful rendition of a a pregnant womans shilouette. To me that is informative content. --Dschwen 07:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Luc Viatour 14:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Adamantios 19:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as said, there is a lot of potential, but somehow it is a leaning composition, of course, not that dramatically it sounds like, but in a way it seems to be leaning--Queryzo 14:34, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A pregnant woman's silhouette might be better solved with a simple icon design, rather than a photo with so little information. --Javierme 21:34, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose due to distracting background. Perhaps if that were cleaned up? --MichaelMaggs 17:49, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as above -LadyofHats 23:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Shant 15:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose it isn't interesting or informative enough to be a featured picture eirisssa
Oppose it's interesting as an exercise in lighting, composition and actually making the viewer try to figure out what it is. Unfortunately those qualities aren't good for illustrating encyclopedic content. I'd say it's good as an art shot but lacks the subject-illustrating qualities needed for FP. Roadmr 23:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

4 support, 10 oppose, 3 neutral → not featured Roger McLassus 13:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Kleiner Fuchs (Nymphalis urticae).jpg - featured edit

Info created by Darkone — uploaded by Darkone — nominated by norro 13:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support norro 13:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Luc Viatour 16:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yay! :D (despite central composition) --Erina 18:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - MPF 20:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice closeup. Resolution and description is ... fine. --Leclerc 02:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --AngMoKio 09:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lestat 10:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nemo5576 13:32, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Resolution too low... --Adamantios 19:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rex 19:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Resolution and composition are not impressive, but sharpness is definitely insufficient, especially in the outer part of the left wing. Roger McLassus 13:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ack Roger McLassus -- Lycaon 05:53, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as left wing is distractingly not in focus. A shame. --MichaelMaggs 17:51, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support unsharp on the tip of the wings, for the rest it is a beautiful picture -- eboy 09:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support-LadyofHats 23:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jon Harald Søby 21:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

12 support, 4 oppose → featured Roger McLassus 13:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Example of trick photography.jpg - not featured edit

Info created by Kprateek88 — uploaded by Kprateek88 — nominated by Kprateek88
Info All the "three" children in the picture are the same child. Kprateek88 12:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kprateek88 12:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment maybe with the same clotes will be better (IMHO). --Jacopo86 14:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Parts of the curtain and nearly the whole carpet are overexposed. However difficult it might have been to do the trick, the result is anything but impressive. Roger McLassus 15:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I think it works well - MPF 20:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - wiki its not a trick - Andreas.Didion 22:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Trick photography? Since the trick is not explained (may be just photoshopped together from 3 photographs), I see it only as picture with 3 children in it. And I don't think it is worth being FP. --Leclerc 02:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. For an example of Trick photography (first time I hear this phrase) I'd expect something more obvious, something rationally unecplainable. Sorry, but it is not apparent to me that this is the same kid three times, might as well be brothers. That's probably why you had to point it out in the first place... --Dschwen 07:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- hey, since when it is not enough any more to randomly post a shot and get featured...? -- Boereck 09:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2 support, 5 oppose → not featured Roger McLassus 13:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Halong ensemble.JPG - not featured edit

Info created by Thierry Borie — uploaded by GeorgesA — nominated by GeorgesA
Support GeorgesA 11:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Resolution is not impressive, nor is sharpness, but the scenery and its atmosphere are. Roger McLassus 19:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - MPF 20:36, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kprateek88 15:04, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support — I like the two red boats in the corner as an anchor of the picture. Without them, I'll bet the comments are: it's too greenish. Good photo. Indon 22:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Resolution too low. --Adamantios 18:47, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's too greenish and uninteresting composition norro 21:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nice view, but its just dull overall, no sharpness --Planemad 06:16, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose it is too greenish, or, more precisely, it lacks red. Even the red boats lack red. --Wikimol 10:29, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- How do you know how red these boats are supposed to be? Roger McLassus 15:40, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - As for visual impression, they're not enough red to anchor the image, IMO. --Wikimol 10:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Yeah, resolution is too low, not much detail visible. Should be easy to get a better picture of a popular vacation spot like this. --Dschwen 06:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- the green-tint, may it be natural or a child of photoshop work, is interesting, no question. but the composition is lame and the resolution really is too low. sorry! -- Boereck 09:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lo. res. but I unlike Boereck I like composition. Francisco M. Marzoa 13:02, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

6 support, 6 oppose → not featured Roger McLassus 13:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:BoatInari1.jpg - not featured edit

Info A Boat on Inari Lake (Finland). Created, uploaded and nominated by Francisco M. Marzoa
Support Francisco M. Marzoa 13:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral nice colours, could have been a bit sharper though. -- Lycaon 15:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Info I've added a new version that's a bit sharper. Francisco M. Marzoa 19:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral I really like it, but the foreground and trees in the backround need to be sharper. Even a photoshop edit would change my vote. --Digon3 17:14, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Quite nice but not conspicuous, and sharpness is rather poor. Roger McLassus 15:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nice, but it would be better without the boat. Also ditto to Lycaon - MPF 16:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Don´t agree with that, the boat is great there. Its just al little bit too dark. Simonizer 12:24, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We agre on the boat issue. :-) Francisco M. Marzoa 13:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral This picture is good, but its a little bit too dark in the foreground and too unsharp Simonizer 12:24, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The darkness can be easily improved with value curve with The Gimp, but sharpness has not good solution. I've use a smart sharping method and trying to get it more sharp results are even worse, so I think there's no solution for this appart from return to Inarijarvi again and retake the picture with proper aperture and tripod, so far out of my hand for now... :-( Francisco M. Marzoa 13:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Info I withdraw my nomination due sharpness problem. Francisco M. Marzoa 13:15, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1 support, 2 oppose, 3 neutral, nomination withdrawn → not featured Roger McLassus 14:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Karhunkierros.jpg - not featured edit

Info "Route of the bear", near kuusamo (Finland). Created, uploaded and nominated by Francisco M. Marzoa
Support Francisco M. Marzoa 20:26, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice, very nice--Tomascastelazo 01:42, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - MPF 15:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Nice picture, but what is special on it? I do not fell that picture can be featured. Romary 15:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral beautiful nature but I agree with Romary, it's not special enough to be featured. eirissa

Comment So... what's "special" in that one? Perhaps this could be a bit sharper, but needless to say that even with that fault I find this one "special" enough, of course. Francisco M. Marzoa 01:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Nice nature indeed, but the composition is boring Simonizer 09:14, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why composition is boring? Just to see if I learn something with this. Thanks in advance. 213.4.20.55 10:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC) (That was mine! Francisco M. Marzoa 12:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]
- Comment The Subject, i guess, should be the whirling water. Its placed in the middle of the picture. Its much more interesting when its not centered. When its placed on the upper left for example, then there would be more forest ground on the picture and that gives you more dimension. Another thing is the framing. Especially the trees and the diffuse lights are disturbing the subject to much. Simonizer 12:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I appretiate your comments, but as in many landscape pictures there's actually no main subject (or the main subject is everything). The two trunks of both big trees at left and right are used as natural frame to contain the whole picture. Thanks by your comments. Francisco M. Marzoa 12:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Quite nice - but nothing more. Roger McLassus 13:45, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Not my cup of tea, looks to arbitrary. Full size looks horrible by the way, like an attempt at sharpening a blurry pic. You do realize that using f/20 doesn't make a whole lot of sense? The maximum sharpness point of your lens is probably closer to f/6! Higher f numbers increase the circle of confusion. --Dschwen 14:19, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Dschwen, you have it backwards. The higher the f stop the smaller the aperture, the lower the f stop the larger the aperture. The circle of confusion increases as the aperture increases, an f1.4 for example, yields a large aperture and a large circle of confusion and shallow depth of field, an f20 represents a small aperture and therefore a smaller circle of confusion and large depth of field. The rule is the smaller the aperture the larger depth of field and viceversa. Furthermore, most lenses are optimized at f8. An aperture of f20, as in this pic, is one and a half stop past the "nominal" optimal aperture but would not really make a difference on overall sharpness in the picture. If it is blurry it would be more the result of either bad focus o camera movement.--Tomascastelazo 02:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It isn't arbitrary and at full resolution it doesn't look sharp, but neither as bad as a superlative "horrible" I think. BTW it has not been digitally sharpening. On the aperture you're probably right, I was not very careful with that and probably that exposure values were full automatic or stablished for a previous picture and I didn't adjust them. Thanks for the link, it seems to be very interesting, but I still think your spider could look beter with a higher f value!... ;-P. Francisco M. Marzoa 15:10, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Info I withdraw this also because lack of sharpening. Excuse me for make you loose your time. Francisco M. Marzoa 15:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3 support, 4 oppose, nomination withdrawn → not featured Roger McLassus 17:42, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Chris ISS013E62787.jpg - not featured edit

Info Tropical Storm Chris (2006) as seen from International Space Station created by NASA — uploaded by Good kitty — nominated by Indon
Support — Found this picture. It has different angle of a tropical storm than other storm pictures. Indon 14:19, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Are hurricanes the next sunsets? Window frame visible in bottom left and right corners. --Dschwen 08:18, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Wrong angle, window visible, just another hurricane --Digon3 17:18, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Day 7: 1 support (nominator), 2 oppose → not featured Roger McLassus 14:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:The White Cliffs of Dover.jpg - not featured edit

Info created by Yovi — uploaded by Yovi — nominated by Yovi
Support Yovi 18:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)There isn't a lot of pictures of White cliffs of Dover in wiki[reply]
Oppose Ss181292 21:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC) - needs cropping[reply]
Support - I like the large areas of sky and sea, gives a good sense of space and size - MPF 22:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Not a bad photo, but for me an FP of the cliffs should have way higher resolution and for a subject with an aspect ratio like this a panoramic image is more appropriate. Some sky and water is nice, but once the main subject is just a thin divider line between the two, the balance is off. --Dschwen 08:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose — Contrast is very low, composition is very bad with horizon line at the middle and the content is not special at all. Indon 10:59, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Boring picture of a great scenery. Obviously just a tourist-shot from the ferry. Roger McLassus 12:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose object too small--Queryzo 14:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nice view but the picture could have been better--Hi-tacks 08:53, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too much sea, etc. as above --Javierme 21:31, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose- uninteresant -LadyofHats 23:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I do not like the aspect ratio Barcex 07:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- I think the composition is worth getting an "I love". -- Boereck 09:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't like the composition, there is too much see and too little of the cliffs eirissa

3 support, 10 oppose → not featured Roger McLassus 13:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Abendstimmung.JPG - Original nomination edit

I do not see why this is a featured picture, it is dark and there is nothing special that I can see. It is a featured picture in the Natural phenomena section --207.203.80.15 18:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well actually it doesn't appear to have been through Commons:Featured picture candidates so I don't think it is really a Featured Picture. In fact the author seems to have added it to the Natural Phenomena section immediately after uploading it [15]. I've now removed it. -- Solipsist 19:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not a featured picture, therefore no voting for delisting it is necessary. Roger McLassus 05:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Should it also be removed from Template:Potd/2006-11#11? -- Solipsist 08:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I certainly think so. It's not half as good as most POTDs. Mstroeck 07:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sure. I have already done it. Maybe someone has got another (and better) picture to fill the gap. Roger McLassus 13:33, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

was never featured Roger McLassus 13:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Tropical Cyclone 3B (2003).jpg - not featured edit

Info created by Jeff Schmaltz, MODIS Rapid Response Team, NASA/GSFC — uploaded by Hurricanehink (low-res version) and Good kitty (high-res version) — nominated by Good kitty
Support Good kitty 14:59, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What is this black,thin line? ♦ Pabix ^ℹ 15:56, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Coastline, I guess... Erina 21:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure. The outline of India is easy to recognise. Roger McLassus 06:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  sorry! I didn't see the thumbnail, just the full size! Yes, it delimits Indian coast. But I think it is disturbing, so Neutral ♦ Pabix ^ℹ 08:01, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -LadyofHats 23:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Another high above picture of a hurricane --Digon3 17:25, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I don't understand what you are saying. Good kitty 02:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I would like to be so tall to take such pictures. Francisco M. Marzoa 12:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I am, and my knees keep bumping into my desk. QuartierLatin1968 19:22, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

4 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured Roger McLassus 07:01, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Peacock tail feather.jpg - not featured edit

Info created by MichaelMaggs — uploaded by MichaelMaggs — nominated by Erina
Support Not technically perfect, but very informative and interesting. I think it deserves FP.Erina 11:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good detail, but a lot of the outer edges of the feather is cut off. —Pixel8 11:58, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because of insufficient sharpness, local over-exposure due to flash-light, and - worst of all - the cutting of the outer parts. Roger McLassus 13:34, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose why is the background red?--Queryzo 14:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Adamantios 18:30, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I must be estethically disabled. ;) But I will keep nominating pics I find valuable unless someone protests. ;) Anyway, to hell with that one... what shall I do to undo the nomination? Erina 20:43, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot undo a nomination, but you can withdraw it, by simply writing that you do. Roger McLassus 10:19, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support Very nice pic. As to the crop: Most photographs crop subjects, the crop here does not diminish qualities of subject. It is a close up!!! On exposure: I do not see over exposure nor fill flash, it would have filled the shadow areas.--Tomascastelazo 15:27, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment And Erina, keep on nominating and participating... the sun will eventually come up and illuminate the universe...--Tomascastelazo 15:30, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. :) I will, just with more criticism. --Erina 20:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Boereck 09:11, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support And I like the crop; if it wasn't cropped, it would be quite generic (and people would probably oppose just because of that). Jon Harald Søby 20:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3 support, 5 oppose → not featured Roger McLassus 07:00, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]