Open main menu

Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/April 2008

< Commons:Featured picture candidates‎ | Log


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


Contents

Image:Offroad Jeep 05760 2.jpg - not featuredEdit

 

  •   Info created by Nevit - uploaded by Nevit - nominated by norro 12:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support I love the composition. The quality is sufficient, the colours are perfectly fitting and the subject is in focus. --norro 12:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Solid. Freedom to share 14:27, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sharpness, light.

Sorry, you should try Commons:Quality images candidates first! --Beyond silence 14:58, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

  •   Comment I found it there. --norro 17:44, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Aqwis 11:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose As Beyond silence. --Karelj 23:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose -- Good composition (IMO), but I agree with Beyond Silence --D kuba 11:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support -- as per Norro but also for the reasons that Beyond silence opposes, I like the mood created by the lighting. Gnangarra 13:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose way too dark FRZ 18:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
      Question: Too dark for what? --norro 11:05, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
4 support, 4 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 07:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:Yellow-eyed Penguin MC.jpg - not featuredEdit

 

  •   Info created, uploaded and nominated by Chmehl 13:06, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Chmehl 13:06, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Neutral a great QI. For FP the composition is a bit too straight forward for me. --AngMoKio 13:12, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Great! But I agree with AngMoKio. Furthermore the subject (especially the head) doesn't stand out against the background, due to colours and lighting. But I like it. --norro 14:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice, sharp, solid image with not too distracting background and quite a bit of value (species name and geocoding). --Freedom to share 15:42, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Good detail, moving support to one below which I like better in composition --Dori - Talk 13:55, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose As Noro. I think, that head is not in focus and the colors of it are not natural. --Karelj 21:59, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - No doubt a QI, but little wow for FP -- Alvesgaspar 22:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support--Beyond silence 14:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose ack norro --Leafnode 15:47, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support FRZ 18:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Head is not sharp. --Mbdortmund 09:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Heptagon 10:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
5 support, 3 neutral, 4 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 07:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:Yellow-eyed Penguin crying MC.jpg Alternative - featuredEdit

 

  •   Info created, uploaded and nominated by Chmehl 06:44, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Chmehl 06:44, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support though the background is a bit unfortunate. Still a very well captured scene. --AngMoKio 11:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Even better --Dori - Talk 13:55, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Beyond silence 14:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Leafnode 15:47, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice! --norro 17:47, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support, great! --che 18:19, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support--Mbz1 19:30, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Karelj 20:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support - much, much better than the original. --- Anonymous DissidentTalk 08:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --D kuba 11:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Rastrojo (DES) 13:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Chrumps 00:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support FRZ 18:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support - Is the poor thing really crying? -- Alvesgaspar 23:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Yes, and it was so alone on the beach. All its cousins went to the sea to get some fish. It couldn't go with them because it was moulting. But this gave me the opportunity to make some nice pictures :) Chmehl 06:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support - Wonderful picture! --Thamusemeantfan 02:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Comment Looks just a bit Magenta to me - otherwise spot on --WikiWookie 07:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support go ;) Heptagon 10:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Jon Harald Søby 12:27, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Sau-ba .-) --Richard Bartz 21:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
19 support, 0 oppose >> featured -- Alvesgaspar 07:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:Ffm-elf.jpg - not featuredEdit

 

  •   Info created by Username - uploaded by Username - nominated by Username -- Heptagon 18:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Heptagon 18:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose --Goele 13:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - The bill, which seems to be the main subject of the photo, is out of focus, as well as most of the persons. Maybe with a better exposure solution -- Alvesgaspar 09:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Extremely nice view of heads of some anonymous people from back side. --Karelj 17:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose FRZ 18:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Please state you reason for opposing the image. Thanks. --Laitche 18:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)\
  •   Oppose per above. --Thamusemeantfan 05:19, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because too small and out of focus -- Alvesgaspar 21:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC) Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
1 support, 5 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 5th day) -- Alvesgaspar 22:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:Iridescent fog at Golden Gate Bridge.jpg - not featuredEdit

 

  •   Info Partial Solar Coronae, w:Iridescent w:Fog and Fog Shadows of the tower and the cables over the South Tower of Golden Gate Bridge w:San Francisco. The Fog Shadows are dark patches, which are seen around the opening of the tower.
  •   Info created, uploaded and nominated by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 14:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Mbz1 14:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Comment The image may seem a a little bit too dark, but I really had no other choice. The white circle in the middle of the image is the sun behind really, really thin fog. If the image was not so dark, the iridescent colors of the fog would not have been seen. Thanks.--Mbz1 20:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose lacks resolution. FRZ 18:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose And scaling. Sorry... --Berru 08:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
1 support, 2 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 5th day) -- Alvesgaspar 20:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:Hpim3526.jpg - not featuredEdit

 

  •   Info created by Marko Petrovic - uploaded by Iberieli - nominated by Duchamp -- Duchamp 12:30, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Duchamp 12:30, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Comment Nice image, but I am afraid the resolution is way too low.--Mbz1 13:47, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Comment - same oppinion as Mbz1. — [[Manecke]] 14:35, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because too small. --norro 21:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC) Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
1 support, 0 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 2nd day) -- Alvesgaspar 20:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:Nottingham Castle.JPG - not featuredEdit

 

 
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because of very poor photographic quality -- Alvesgaspar 18:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC) Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
1 support, 0 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 2nd day) -- Alvesgaspar 20:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:Nicole Kidman Madame Tussauds.jpg - not featuredEdit

  •   Info created, uploaded & nominated by Cezary_p
  •   Info Wax sculpture of Nicole Kidman, Madame Tussauds Museum, London--Cezary p 02:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Cezary p 02:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Isn't this a copyvio? Derivative work of the wax sculpture, which is not permanently installed? Lupo 07:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
      • But is exact replica of living person subject of copyright;)? --WarX 19:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
        • Yes. Wax figures are sculptures and as such are eligible to copyright. It doesn't matter at all that it's a realistic sculpture. It's just a 3D portrait. Like other portraitists and sculptors, the artist who created this sculpture has a copyright on it. Lupo 21:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Template:F.P.X not shure about fpx after reading the article at en.wp which is full of wax figurines --Richard Bartz 02:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, someone else tagged it as a copyvio (also Image:Johny Deep Madame Tussaud.jpg). Lupo 05:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because a derivative work of a copyrighted sculpture. Lupo 05:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC) Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
Copyright violation >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 20:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:Humboldt penguin 5080.jpg - not featuredEdit

 

  •   Info created, uploaded, nominated by --Dori - Talk 20:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Dori - Talk 20:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support This one is great. Especially colours and composition --Simonizer 22:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Comment Per Simon. The strong overexposure over a wide area on the breast is a tad 2 much 4 me to support. Do you took RAW images ? --Richard Bartz 22:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   until Richard submits his edit which I think is better. --Dori - Talk 03:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Nomination withdrawn >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 20:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:Nueva Esparta Mapa Interactivo.jpg - not featuredEdit

 

  •   Info created by User:The Photographer - uploaded by User:The Photographer - nominated by User:The Photographer -- libertad0 ॐ 17:51, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support -- libertad0 ॐ 17:51, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose (for now) --I like very much this one, more than the other proposition below because it's clearer and hasn't for finality to be as accurate as the other one (which fails in this purpose), but as usual for a map, a SVG version for the labels should be available to be easily translated. Also, a scale would be much appreciated. More problematic, no information is given about the photographs used in the map. Are you the author of all of them ? This should be indicated in the description page. Sting 22:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Soy el autor de todas las fotografías recortadas dentro del mapa. Sería demasiado complejo recrear una versión en SVG --libertad0 ॐ 12:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  Neutral (changing vote) --Due to missing scale and no SVG version available. Sting 17:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Neutral FRZ 18:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
1 support, 1 neutral >> not featured (rule of the 5th day) -- Alvesgaspar 20:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:British Indian Ocean Territory coat of arms.svg - not featuredEdit

 

  •   Info created by Demidow - uploaded by Demidow - nominated by Demidow -- Demidow 01:26, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Demidow 01:26, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Is this coat of arm official and legitimate. Don't forget inhabitants of this territory had all been deported and the island transformed in a US military base. Which assembly decided of this drawing ?--B.navez 13:47, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Info Hello B.navez! According to the book "Flaggen und Wappen der Welt" (Flags and Coats of Arms of the World, Gütersloh, Bertelsmann, 1992, p. 60) the arms along with the new flag (also on Commons) were granted on August 2, 1990 by the British Government in commemoration of the 25th anniversary of the territory's establishment (see also the description of the arms at English Wikipedia). The arms were also printed on an UK 24pc stamp issued in 1990 (see [1] and [2]). Although the US Army leased the island of Diego Garcia as a military base, the territory remains in British possession (see here).
    •   InfoOk, thanks for official information. It is a good drawing but apart the fact the territory is disputed, is a page of shame for UK and so featuring could be considered as not NPOV, the turtles are not credible. The left one is clearly a Hawksbill Turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata) but the right one looks like a terrestrial tortoise with marine members. Information about stamps say it should be Caretta caretta but I doubt (not known nesting there) and I'd rather think it intends to be a Green Turtle(Chelonia mydas) because of the green color and being common in this area. The original coat of arms was so badly drawn it was of no importance, but with a good drawing, accuracy of the representation makes it paradoxically wronger.--B.navez 17:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
      •   InfoGood to know, but the turtles you see are just the ones depicted in the book cited above. I stuck closely to the drawing in this book because it is based on official documents and I myself am not too much into zoology. --Demidow, 19:34, 23 March 2008 (CET)
  •   Support Nice, detailed work. Following NPOV my vote is not affected by political issues. --norro 16:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Comment - IMO if the original image have correct colors, this image isn't correct. --D kuba 12:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose FRZ 18:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Please state you reason for opposing the image. Thanks. --Laitche 18:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Beyond silence 23:36, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
3 support, 2 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 22:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:Copal with insects.jpg - not featuredEdit

 

  •   Info created , uploaded and nominated by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 19:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Info A copal with few bugs inside. The piece of copal measures around four centimeters deep. The w:insects are trapped from 0.5 to 2 centimeters deep inside the w:copal. The w:bubbles around some of the w:insects indicate that they were alive and breathing, when they were trapped inside.
  •   Support -- Mbz1 19:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Karelj 20:44, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose --Composition not as clear as the second one below. Sting 11:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose. To dark. The insects are almost invisible. --TM 15:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose FRZ 18:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Please state you reason for opposing the image. Thanks. --Laitche 18:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

  in the favor of the one below

Nomination withdrawn >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 21:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Image:Copal with insects close-up.jpg - featuredEdit

 

  •   Support--Mbz1 01:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Nice and valuable. Sting 11:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support. Very nice colors. There is a lot of dust inside the copal and it's hard to see the insects. But that's how most of the copals are in real. --TM 15:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Even though I don't like shorten image, in this situation that look's better. --D kuba 12:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Karelj 17:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose FRZ 18:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Please state you reason for opposing the image. Thanks.--Mbz1 19:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Jon Harald Søby 12:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Cluttered. Lots of bubbles make the insects hard to see. --norro 16:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Bubbles make it look natural.--Mbz1 16:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
6 support, 2 oppose >> featured -- Alvesgaspar 07:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:Osprey landing in the nest at Camp Echockotee.JPG - featuredEdit

 

  •   Info created by User:Tibor Duliskovich - uploaded by 159766 - nominated by User:159766 --Tibor Duliskovich 15:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Comment I am not 100% sure about how the nomination works and possibly made a mistake posting this image first time a year ago. I did not receive any comments on it, positive or negative, so I am re-nominating, hopefully properly this time. Thanks.
  •   Support--Mbz1 19:37, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Karelj 20:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Laziale93 07:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Wisnia6522 12:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --D kuba 12:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose No wow and composition. Sorry --Beyond silence 13:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
    •   Comment It is WOW picture - (sharpness) photo was captured when he was landing in the nest --D kuba 20:15, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support FRZ 18:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - It's a shame but the harsh shadows ruin an otherwise excellente picture -- Alvesgaspar 23:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Alvesgaspar. --Thamusemeantfan 02:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support I like the composition, and it's hard to choose the light with hawks. --Dori - Talk 00:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
7 support, 3 oppose >> featured -- Alvesgaspar 22:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:Nueva Esparta Mapa Vial.svg - featuredEdit

 

  •   Comment These images seem to give at least the feeling of being quicker to render when they have the applications namespaced instructions stripped from them; an exercise which depending on the complexity of the image can make the file size more than 2/3rds smaller without affecting the rendering of the image. -- carol 20:05, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
The size has been improved of almost 5 MB to 800 kb, besides making changeable the labels, Thank you --libertad0 ॐ 18:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Chabacano 21:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Comment - Nice map, this is a lot better than your previous nominations. I don't usually vote on maps but here are a couple of suggestions: (i) The symbol used for the scales of latitude and longitude, as well as for the graphic scale, is too heavy. Try something more discrete; (ii) The text fonts used for the geographic coordinates and for labelling the grid should be different in size and colour; (iii) There is little elevation information in the map, those area symbols are mainly decorative. Try to use denser hypsometric classes and/or elevation contours (not labeled this way); (iv) The map projection should be identified; (v) The symbol used to depict the main road is too heavy, try something more discrete; (vi) For this scale, much more topographic information should be provided: hydrography (rivers), natural land cover, ... -- Alvesgaspar 23:11, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose --Nice work but (i) there is a little error for the South 63°55´ longitude label (it is written 63°00´) ; (ii) the filling motive for LA ASUNCIÓN´s area is bugging on the full view ; (iii) at the level of Pta. Sabaneta (North of Juan Griego) is indicated a lake where there is a hill about 188 m high ; (iv) Isla los Frailes is misplaced (centre of the island at about 63°44'W) ; (v) at Isla los Frailes is showed one island where there are at least three other much bigger than other islets represented on the map ; (vi) the general shape of the elevation is correct but well much simplified in comparison to the coastlines ; (vii) the whole text has been transformed in paths which makes the file weight heavier and complicates the translation. (viii) In the description page, it is indicated that the map was drawn wandering around with a GPS. If I can imagine that this device was used for the roads, I hardly believe it was the case for the coastlines as well as the topography for which thousands and thousands of waypoints would have been necessary in order to draw the map the way it is, so I would like to have more details about the sources used. Sting 15:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
The points (i),(ii),(iii) and (vii) have been corrected in the composition --libertad0 ॐ 18:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, but the still ~8 km misplaced island and the missing ones makes that imo the map should be first corrected before being featured. Btw, Alvesgaspar also made very meaningful remarks. Sting 22:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I have used translating but I am not able to understand what tries to be --libertad0 ॐ 16:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
In your map, Isla los Frailes is approximately placed at 63° 49' W while it should be 5' eastwards, at 63° 44' W. This makes a difference of about 8 km and places the island West of Punta Ballena instead of East where it is in fact. Zoom in this area with NASA World Wind (not Google Earth) and you will also see there are four other islands missing North of Isla los Frailes. Sting 19:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I think that it could already be solved. Excuseme, would you Be able to revise it? --libertad0 ॐ 15:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Is a good image. Daga 21:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support I think this is a good image. It has very good information. --Snakeyes 21:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support That's ok. I think that (viii) is innecesary to be featured. Libertad y Saber 21:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - This time, and after the comments by Sting, I have to make an exception and strongly oppose the promotion. The main purpose of any map is to represent geographic information as accurately as possible; it is not enough to be beautiful or to have a "professional look". A map should be a tool we could trust. In this case, we have no guarantee of quality. On the contrary, the data sources are not identified and some gross mistakes were found by Sting. More latin american votes will not make it a better map. -- Alvesgaspar 00:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  Comment I have not forced them to vote, it is your point of view and I respect it. But here it is spoken it is of the work and not of people that vote. The way like you say it it is racist --libertad0 ॐ 12:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  • That is an extraordinary accusation. Is it racism to call someone an European, or a South-African or a North-American? By the way, I am a latin too.. -- Alvesgaspar 12:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Is a good image.--Bartito 12:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Fabuloso mapa / Fantastic map! Rastrojo (DES) 13:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Neutral FRZ 18:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
7 support, 1 neutral, 2 oppose >> Alvesgaspar 07:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:061212-nordkapp.jpg - not featuredEdit

 

  •   Info created by Cascoly - uploaded by Cascoly -nominated by Cascoly -- Cascoly 19:58, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Cascoly 19:58, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support very nice composition. The wider aspect ratio fits very well to the scene. --AngMoKio 20:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support A well executed panorama with a good composition. Chmehl 22:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Böhringer 22:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Aqwis 23:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose -- possible copyright violation, clear assertion at source All images are copyrighted by Steve Estvanik. Except for these links, you may NOT copy any of these images unless you pay for a download Gnangarra 14:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
    • uploader has been advised about this concern with instructions on how to rectify it on their talk page, Gnangarra 14:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
      • withdrawn oppose now   Support copyright issue resolvable Gnangarra 01:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

  Commentsorry, but this uploader cannot find any instructions - it just takes me to pp that describe what's happening, but never tells me how i can clear this up - i AM the copyrigt holder and thought i had already declared that when i submitted the image saying that i was? the source noted is also my domain - pix-now.com and all images there are mine. this image is a version of one on that site that i am releasing with the license indicated Cascoly 20:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

  •   Comment I think the nominator is right. See the deletion request for details -- Slaunger 21:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Comment (Off-topic). Heh, I've seen that ship (MS Fram) before, but that was at the other pole! -- Slaunger 20:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Comment (Off-topic) the Fram's a new ship, this one was launched about 10 years ago and is a bit smaller. Cascoly 20:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
    Ah, it looked very similar. I had read somewhere that MS Fram was also cruising near Antarctica at the other half-season, thus my hasty (wrong) guess. However, the image name also contradicts this original assumption. -- Slaunger 21:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Comment (Off-topic) you do get half-credit -- they run 2 ships in Antarctica - used to be the Nordkapp & NordNorge, but now the Fram is in play too. and thanks for the comments on copyright Cascoly 22:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Nomination resumed, carry on please... -- Alvesgaspar 23:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose --Nice but stitching problems. Sting 11:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose agree with Sting --Simonizer 16:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Yep, pretty bad stitching problems. Dead band extending from near the lower left corner and up to the right as evidenced by smudged out/apparently blurred patches. It is a pity as it is a nice scenary. What stitching software did you use (it is always instructive to specify that on the image page)? I recommend to geocode the image. -- Slaunger 19:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
    •   Comment Could you show where are the stitching problems please ? from near the lower left corner and up to the right : that means the diagonal ? I do not see any stitching problem along this line ? --B.navez 09:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
    • OK seen (but I don't call it lower left corner rather lower middle part of the picture)--B.navez 16:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Yes, my description of where the problems are were not that well formulated, my apologies. It seems like you figured out! Maybe "pretty bad" is an overstatement, but if the original photos are still available, I think it should be restitched. -- Slaunger 20:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose --B.navez 16:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Please state you reason for opposing the image. Thanks. --Laitche 18:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC) That was the conclusion of my discussion just above.--B.navez 15:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose FRZ 18:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Please state you reason for opposing the image. Thanks. --Laitche 18:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
6 support, 5 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 22:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:Acanthodoris lutea laying eggs 1.jpg - featuredEdit

 

  •   Infow:nudibranch w:Acanthodoris lutea is laying w:eggs. The image was taken at w:Tide pools. This is an underwater image taken in the wild.You could see the explanation of the image here
  •   Info created, uploaded and nominated by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 20:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Mbz1 20:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Technically good without any doubt, but beeing no expert on this type of organism, I really don´t know, what I am lookig at. --Karelj 21:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Info here you might find the explanation of what you see at the image. Thank you.--Mbz1 23:29, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support--B.navez 09:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose. As Karelj said. --TM 15:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support FRZ 18:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support I think it is FP worthy as is, but it wouldn't be too hard to make another version (perhaps smaller) with the interesting bits labelled to address the concerns above --WikiWookie 07:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I added the link to the same picture uploaded to Flickr with the notes to the description of the nominated images. May I please ask you, if you believe it is enough? Thank you.--Mbz1 16:10, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Neat. And since when is ignorance of the subject a reason to oppose? Adam Cuerden 03:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
    • two minutes after mankind pulled itself out of the primordial soup with its two little fins, and probably not a second before that.... -- carol 22:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
5 support, 2 oppose >> featured -- Alvesgaspar 07:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:UlvikfjordMountainsPanorama.jpg - featuredEdit

 

  •   Info created by Aqwis - uploaded by Aqwis - nominated by Aqwis -- Aqwis 11:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Aqwis 11:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support The light could have been better, but it's still beautiful. P.S. Is the cat supposed to show up below? --Dori - Talk 12:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support--Mbz1 13:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Simonizer 20:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Beautiful! --Jarvin 21:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Laziale93 07:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too dark --B.navez 18:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
    • precision : it is a wonderful landscape, a beautiful day, in one of the richest countries of the world where people can afford to spend peacefully time and money for photographs, the mountains won't escape, the composition is very good so one can afford to wait the moment when the light is excellent and set one's camera such a way the woods on the left are not completely black--B.navez 16:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose lighting not that great -- Gorgo 18:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support As Dori. --Karelj 20:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support -- MJJR 21:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Böhringer 23:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --D kuba 12:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Laitche 17:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose FRZ 18:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Please state you reason for opposing the image. Thanks.--D kuba 20:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support, great picture. --Thamusemeantfan 02:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Jon Harald Søby 12:20, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Richard Bartz 21:59, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Pudelek 23:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
15 support, 3 oppose >> featured -- Alvesgaspar 22:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:Mock mirage sunset 9-18-06.jpg - not featuredEdit

 

  •   Info Complex and rare mock w:mirage sunset
  •   Info created , uploaded and nominated by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 15:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Mbz1 15:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Richard Bartz 20:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose --Laziale93 07:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Please state you reason for opposing the image. Thanks.--Mbz1 19:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Subject too small for my taste --norro 12:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Comment The subject is seen very well even in a thumbnail.--Mbz1 14:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support So many oddities in the californian sky ! --B.navez 17:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose FRZ 18:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Please state you reason for opposing the image. Thanks.--Mbz1 19:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support People trying to understand the image will be led to some good science articles. Louis Waweru 18:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
    It was the idea - to introduce some new knoledge, except sometimes it is really hard to do. Two of opposers never bothered to tell why they opposed the image and I am not even sure they understood what they were opposing to, and the third opposer complained about the size of the subject like the size is of any importance, when we talk about mirages. The image is not going to be featured, but at least I know I've done what I could. Thank you all for the votes and comments.--Mbz1 00:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
4 support, 3 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 00:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:World War I Observation Balloon HD-SN-99-02269.JPEG - not featuredEdit

 

3 support, 1 neutral, 2 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 00:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:Industry Torrance.jpg not featuredEdit

 

  •   Info created by Flickr user - uploaded and nominated by Alton -- ALTON .ıl 21:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support -- ALTON .ıl 21:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support WOW! Jacopo 22:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose, good use of HDR, but way too small, sorry. --Aqwis 07:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support--Laziale93 07:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I have to agree with Aqwis. Is there perhaps a version with higher resolution available? --norro 12:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose. Heavy overuse of HDRI/TM. Looks like an artistic painting. --TM 14:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose It doesn't look very realistic, also on the smallish side. --Dori - Talk 17:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose low res -- Gorgo 18:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Wow, chemistry could look beautifull!! --Karelj 20:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose low resolution Dmitry A. Mottl 21:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose FRZ 18:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Please state you reason for opposing the image. Thanks. --Laitche 18:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Yeah, right, and the moon is really that big... ;-) --Dschwen 23:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Comment Amazing shot. Too bad it's doesn't meet the size requirements. --Calibas 20:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Comment I would support a higher resolution version. Louis Waweru 18:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
4 support, 7 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 00:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:Mount Kota Kinabalu.JPG - not promotedEdit

 

  •   Info created, uploaded and nominated by me -- T0lk 18:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support -- T0lk 18:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Don't have great detail and/or composition.

Sorry, you should try Commons:Quality images candidates first! --Beyond silence 23:34, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

  •   Oppose --Laziale93 17:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
1 support, 2 oppose >> not promoted (rule of the 5th day) -- Alvesgaspar 22:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:The Catlins MC.jpg, not featuredEdit

 

  •   Info created, uploaded and nominated by Chmehl 12:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Chmehl 12:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose. Good work, impressive landscape. But the lightning is not excellent. It's to foggy, to much clouds. The water looks gray and unstructured. --TM 14:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Good work, impressive landscape and weather conditions are typical for the Southlands. --Simonizer 16:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support So good. --B.navez 17:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not bad image, but for FP lack of wow factor and also the problems mentioned by TM. --Karelj 21:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Aqwis 08:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Beyond silence 13:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose FRZ 18:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Please state you reason for opposing the image. Thanks.--D kuba 20:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --D kuba 20:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose parts look artificially sharpened, foggy, no natural picture of the water --Mbdortmund 09:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
result: 6 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Lijealso 03:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:Silent reverence.jpg, not featuredEdit

 

  •   Info created by Unknown - uploaded and nominated by Luca Z. -- Luca Z. 13:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Luca Z. 13:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support. Wow. It's very dark, but the darkness is important in this shot. The quality of the scan is very high (you can see the grain of the film). --TM 14:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Heptagon 18:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Little bit too pathetic, but looks good. --Karelj 21:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support--Mbz1 23:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Sorry, don't like it at all (a lot kitschy IMO) -- Alvesgaspar 00:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Only artistic, there is soo many similar shot (FP). --Beyond silence 13:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Which FP is similar? What is wrong about artistic shots? --AngMoKio 14:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I speaking about many FP conteyour (may false spelling) photos. --Beyond silence 17:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  • It is "contre-jour", meaning "against the light" -- Alvesgaspar 00:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Neutral I tend to agree with Alvesgaspar...it is really a bit too much. --AngMoKio 14:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support - Ayack 15:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose no imagineable encyclopedic use, whatsoever. FRZ 18:35, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
pls read guidelines before starting to vote. There is no encyclopedic value needed. --AngMoKio 18:38, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Thamusemeantfan 02:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose like Alvesgaspar --Mbdortmund 09:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose like Alvesgaspar: too kitschy. --Diligent 08:58, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Jon Harald Søby 12:18, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Remember, this is a 1944 image. It is powerful and visually as well as aesthetically appealing. The age adds value due to the Zeitgeist. --Freedom to share 08:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Question As Oppose votes without any grounding are ignored, will we ignore or accept the argument of FRZ, who criticised the image based on an aspect on which FPs are not evaluated? Freedom to share 17:51, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
    •   Info - Oppose votes without justification are not ignored in Commons. This was the way COM:FPC was devised and no consensus was still reached to alter that culture -- Alvesgaspar 19:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Freedom to share brings up an interesting thing. I think we should discuss how we handle such cases. FRZ obviously just passed by and made some votes without reading the guidelines. --AngMoKio 20:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
result: 9 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Lijealso 03:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:WaldWespe2.jpg, not featuredEdit

 

  •   Info created by Thomas Kurka -- ThomasKurka
  •   Support --ThomasKurka
  •   Oppose composition, bottom part cut -- Gorgo 18:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Welcome to macrophotography. Yes, it is exciting to be able to get a close-up like this one, but the quality and framing are not the best. Please check the existing insect FP, the bar is quite high! -- Alvesgaspar 09:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Comment Die Jungs haben recht .... da mußt du schon noch ein bischen nachlegen damit die Bande in Wallung gerät :-) Ansonsten guter Einstand ;-)--Richard Bartz 11:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose bad composition. --D kuba 12:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  • {{FPX|not of sufficient quality to be featured - [[User:Alvesgaspar|Alvesgaspar]] 09:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)}}
  •   Support I like it. It may be cropped, but I like it for its outer-world kinda view. And how the wasp looks interested, inspecting us --norro 20:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Gorgo -- Dmitry A. Mottl 21:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Lijealso 03:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:Magnifying glass2.jpg, featuredEdit

 

Otherwise so nice composition... --Beyond silence 13:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose FRZ 18:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Please state you reason for opposing the image. Thanks.--D kuba 20:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support good composition and encyclopaedic image. --D kuba 20:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Wonderful composition. Most of the image is unsharp, but since that is due to the composition and subject is perfectly sharp, I support. --norro 20:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Jon Harald Søby 12:16, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support--Mbz1 16:05, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Very creative. --Calibas 20:45, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I like the creativity, but I'm thinking you can get better sharpness (maybe a bit wider DOF). --Dori - Talk 00:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice composition. --MichaelMaggs 08:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
result: 7 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Lijealso 03:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:Iceberg with hole1.jpgEdit

Iceberg

  •   InfoIcebergs around Cape York,Greenland. The icebergs are beautiful and display many interesting shapes. You could see the iceberg with a hole at the image. The hole was caused by weathering effects - erosion by waves, wind and melting.
  •   Info created, uploaded and nominated by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 20:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Mbz1 20:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Heptagon 10:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Jon Harald Søby 12:14, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Aqwis 15:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Interesting photo, but nothing FP wow for me, sorry. Don't have great detail and/or composition. --Beyond silence 23:27, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Alvesgaspar 21:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Richard Bartz 15:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support A little cluttered composition, but I really like icebergs with holes. -- Slaunger 21:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Good photo, but it is't WOW composition. Sorry. --D kuba 15:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support -- MJJR 21:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose No WOW, as D kuba. --Karelj 21:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, no wow for me. --MichaelMaggs 08:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  • It looks to me that the streets of Europe are flooded with icebergs. That's why the nominated iceberg image,which was photographed in High w:Arctic, never had a chance to generate a "wow factor" with many of our European voters. I guess the only thing which is left for my poor iceberg, is to melt in my own tears :,-( May I please thank you all for the comment and for the votes?--Mbz1 14:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
    You still (just) have 2/3 majority support, so cheer up! -- Slaunger 15:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The iceberg is indeed beautiful at fullres. But I don't like the centered composition and lighting. Perhaps some cropping and toying with colour/ brightness/contrast would improve. --norro 10:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose давай по новой, всё хуйня!--Pianist 03:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose not detail enough, Centered Horizon. βαςεLXIV 05:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

  

result: 8 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral => Withdrawn by nominator Mbz1. Not featured. Richard Bartz 16:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:Nilas Sea Ice1.jpgEdit

 

  •   Info Nilas Sea Ice sea ice w:Buffin Bay w:Arctic.
    Have you ever wondered how an ocean gets frozen? Here's the answer:
    In calm water, the first sea ice to form on the surface is a skim of separate crystals which initially are in the form of tiny discs, floating flat on the surface and of diameter less than 2-3 mm. Each disc has its c-axis vertical and grows outwards laterally. At a certain point such a disc shape becomes unstable, and the growing isolated crystals take on a hexagonal, stellar form, with long fragile arms stretching out over the surface. These crystals also have their c-axis vertical. The dendritic arms are very fragile, and soon break off, leaving a mixture of discs and arm fragments. With any kind of turbulence in the water, these fragments break up further into random-shaped small crystals which form a suspension of increasing density in the surface water, an ice type called frazil or grease ice. In quiet conditions the frazil crystals soon freeze together to form a continuous thin sheet of young ice; in its early stages, when it is still transparent, it is called nilas. When only a few centimetres thick this is transparent (dark nilas) but as the ice grows thicker the nilas takes on a grey and finally a white appearance. The image was taken from an w:icebreaker.
  •   Info created, uploaded and nominated by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 16:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Mbz1 16:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support--Umnik 17:26, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - what is seen is amazing, but the angle and composition of the shot is frankly not close to featured standard IMHO. --- Anonymous DissidentTalk 23:21, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • The subject of the image is Nilas sea ice, and you are right, it is amazing! Nilas sea ice is very, very rarely photographed (I could not find any image on Flikr). The side of icebreaker was added to the image in order to compare the ice to the people and a ship. Other angle was all, but impossible. May I please ask you, if you'd rather prefer an image with only ice and no ship like for example this one  ? Thanks.--Mbz1 00:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose composition -- Gorgo 02:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose composition --Leafnode 07:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Rare doesn't mean everything. bad composition --βαςεLXIV 12:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

  

result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => Withdrawn by nominator Mbz1. Not featured. Richard Bartz 16:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:22 degrees halo 03-29-08.jpgEdit

 

  •   Info22 degrees halo display in San Francisco.
  •   Info created, uploaded and nominated by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 20:27, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Mbz1 20:27, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Neutral - very scenic, yes, but there is something about the quality of the image that prevents me from supporting. The cleanliness is tainted in some way. --- Anonymous DissidentTalk 23:20, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice and good composition, better than the previous one. Freedom to share 08:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

  

result: 2 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral => Withdrawn by nominator Mbz1. Not featured. Richard Bartz 16:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:22 degrees halo 3-29-08 2.jpg - not featuredEdit

 

  •   Support--Mbz1 01:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose too similar to one above, and noisy in the background. --- Anonymous DissidentTalk 21:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
1 support, 1 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 5th day) -- Alvesgaspar 08:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

  

Image:Pim Island Arctica.jpgEdit

 

  •   Info created, uploaded and nominated by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 01:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Mbz1 01:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose It is interesting to read the image page, but for me, the image should be more self-explanatory if it were to catch my attention. The landscape is interesting, but not stunning. The lightning does not help either. Sorry. -- Slaunger 21:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Question Are you sure about the location. In Google Earth and on Google maps the location is right between Svalbard and the North-Eastern coast of Greenland far, far away from any land... - Slaunger 21:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  • No I am not. It is the location I found, when I did a search at Google. It is hard to get locations for such remote places. Maybe somebody could help me with the location? Thank you.--Mbz1 21:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I made the correction focusing on Pim island. If you manage to recognize the exact place on the island, you may change the location data. --B.navez 18:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support It is hard to get pictures of so remote places and of so old stones --B.navez 18:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose No WOW factor, nothing extra special. --Karelj 21:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Factually interesting and a useful addition to Commons, but I feel it misses the strength of composition needed for FP. --MichaelMaggs 08:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose ack Slaunger --Leafnode 07:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Serious Chromatic aberration in the bottom right, Red/Cyan Fringe. --βαςεLXIV 12:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Red is natural color of stones (no fringe on the snow) due to age of stones and lack of lichens and blue is the natural color of shadows on ice (if you look closely at the orientation you can see it can't be CA)--B.navez 16:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

  

result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => Withdrawn by nominator Mbz1. Not featured. Richard Bartz 16:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:Ice crystals.jpgEdit

 

  •   Info w:Ice w:crystals at a w:refrigitator window created, uploaded and nominated by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 20:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Mbz1 20:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Aqwis 20:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Much of the image is not in focus. --MichaelMaggs 08:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Terrible noise and sharpness, sorry. Otherwise looks nice. --Beyond silence 12:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose not good photo --Pianist 03:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose terrible quality --Leafnode 06:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose please try QI first --βαςεLXIV 12:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

  

result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => Withdrawn by nominator Mbz1. Not featured. Richard Bartz 16:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:Mammatus clouds 2008-04-01.jpgEdit

 

  •   Info A very rare well developed w:Mammatus w:clouds created , uploaded and nominated by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 00:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Mbz1 00:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 07:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Definitely valuable to Commons, not badly done from a technical side either. Geocoding would also help. --Freedom to share 08:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
    Thank you, Freedom to share. I added geocoding, but not the exact one. The image was taken from my back yard and I would not dare to put coordinates of my back yard to Wikipedia. I am afraid that somebody could hurt me for uploading such bad, "no wow factor" images to Commons.   --Mbz1 13:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
    I disagree on the "no wow factor', I feel that this image, illustrating a rare phenomenon that is rarely seen and only lasts for a short time, does pack in quite a bit of wow. Freedom to share 21:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - No doubt a Valued image but technically not good enough for FP: there are visible artifacts and pixelation. The composition is not the best either -- Alvesgaspar 09:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Don't like the foreground --norro 10:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
    Cannot agree with you more. I also wish foreground of my backyard was w:Golden Gate Bridge ot at least w:Coit Tower--Mbz1 14:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Comment the colors you might see at the image are not camera artifacts, but natural iridescence of the clouds lit by the sun.--Mbz1 13:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not impressing --Pianist 03:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I truly believe that it's a rare phenomenon, but this picture looks like a black smoke late in the evening. --Leafnode 06:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Pianist, and there are many "RARE" images in Mammatus cloud --βαςεLXIV 12:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • have you ever seen them yourself?

  

result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => Withdrawn by nominator Mbz1. Not featured. Richard Bartz 16:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Mammatus clouds 2008-04-01 2.jpgEdit

 

  •   Comment The clouds lasted a minute. I hardly had a time to grab my camera and take two fast shots. Of course the composition and foreground could have been metter, but anyway here's is the second image. Thank you.--Mbz1 13:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support--Mbz1 13:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose as with previous image --Leafnode 06:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose as with previous, and the lower left corner looks distracting --βαςεLXIV 12:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

  

result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => Withdrawn by nominator Mbz1. Not featured. Richard Bartz 16:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:Artist's Palette in Death Valley NP.jpgEdit

 

  •   Info created , uploaded and nominated by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 16:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Mbz1 16:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Low level of composition. --Karelj 18:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Question I'd like to support as it's an interesting subject, but the image appears soft. Was this taken from far away, were you on a boat that was shaking? Any mitigating circumstances? --Dori - Talk 19:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose boring composition --Leafnode 06:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose not sharp --βαςεLXIV 12:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

  

result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => Withdrawn by nominator Mbz1. Not featured. Richard Bartz 16:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:Reflection in a soap bubble.jpgEdit

 

  •   Info w:soap bubble created , uploaded and nominated by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 20:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Mbz1 20:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

  in a favor of a much better edit by User:Alvesgaspar

Nomination withdrawn >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 09:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


Image:Reflection_in_a_soap_bubble_edit.jpg - featuredEdit

 

  •   Info The edit was made by User:Alvesgaspar
  •   Support--Mbz1 20:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support - Not perfect, especially the slightly distracting background and some unsharpness in the reflected image. Still it's not an easy shot and might be the best soap bubble we have got. Mbz1 is becoming a specialist in light phenomena! -- Alvesgaspar 23:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Wonderful. --norro 00:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Chrumps 00:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support--Umnik 06:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Aqwis 07:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support FRZ 18:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Thamusemeantfan 02:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support as per Alvesgaspar --Berru 07:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Böhringer 23:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Jon Harald Søby 12:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support plopp ! --Richard Bartz 20:33, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Background -- Laitche 12:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --MichaelMaggs 08:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support how did you focus it :-) --βαςεLXIV 12:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Comment ??? --Richard Bartz 16:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
14 support, 1 neutral >> featured (before something else happens...) -- Alvesgaspar 22:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:Pano Manhattan2007 amk.jpg - not featuredEdit

 

  •   Info created, uploaded, nominated by AngMoKio -- AngMoKio 22:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Info Manhattan on an early morning. I give it a try... I especially like the light and colours
  •   Support -- AngMoKio 22:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose way too small. FRZ 18:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
too snall for what? --AngMoKio 18:35, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - The composition could result with more light and colour but those extensive shadows spoil the effect -- Alvesgaspar 23:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Heptagon 10:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Detail. Sorry --Beyond silence 20:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Shadow --D kuba 10:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Harsh lighting and poor verticals Mfield 15:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
2 support, 5 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 08:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:Felix2 (by Peter Klashorst).jpg - not featuredEdit

 

  •   Info created by Peter Klashorst - uploaded by TwoWings - nominated by me --84.190.192.182 14:45, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --84.190.192.182 21:51, 14:45, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Please sign with username -- Alvesgaspar 21:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
0 support, 0 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 5th day) -- Alvesgaspar 08:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:Skull with a Burning Cigarette.jpg - not featuredEdit

 

  •   Info created, uploaded and nominated by Peter Isotalo 19:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Peter Isotalo 19:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Look like the contrast is too low. --Beyond silence 13:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 1 support, 0 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 5th day) -- Alvesgaspar 08:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:Gull 5141.jpg - not featuredEdit

 

  •   Info created, uploaded, nominated by --Dori - Talk 20:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Dori - Talk 20:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Neutral DOF a bit bad. --Beyond silence 13:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
1 support, 1 neutral >> not featured (rule of the 5th day) -- Alvesgaspar 08:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:Narcissus pseudonarcissus flower – side.jpg - not featuredEdit

 

  •   Info created, uploaded and nominated by -- Agadez 08:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Agadez 08:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nice flower but poor composition. --Dereckson 09:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose the composition also doesn't convince me. But it is a good QI candidate... --AngMoKio 11:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  Comment It is already a QI candidate. The composition was intended to be like that for the reason that it shouldn´t just show the flower (as most other pictures here do) rather than the profile of the plant. --Agadez 17:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Background needs to be softer and more uniform if this is to be an FP imo. Ask Richard Bartz if you need help, he is the master at uniform backgrounds. Freedom to share 19:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
1 support, 3 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 5th day)-- Alvesgaspar 08:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:Caucasus-ethnic en.svg - not featuredEdit

 

  •   Info created by the CIA - vectorized and uploaded by Pmx - nominated by Jon Harald Søby -- Jon Harald Søby 12:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Excellent SVG maps with lots of info. Jon Harald Søby 12:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Aqwis 15:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support--Mbz1 16:04, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Comment Location indicator would be nice. --QWerk 17:31, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Comment - I don't like the position of the legend box. Maybe it can be made smaller or be put outside the map. -- Alvesgaspar 18:39, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Perspective is too bad. --Dsmurat 19:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Alvesgaspar. Also, the colours are not very attractive. --MichaelMaggs 08:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Comment Some weird font changes--also, needs source for verifiability... gren 02:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
3 support, 2 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 21:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:Pigeon portrait 4861.jpg - featuredEdit

 

  •   Info created, uploaded, nominated by --Dori - Talk 05:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Dori - Talk 05:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Aqwis 09:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support nice :) --Leafnode 07:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support It's looking right at me, aaagh... Cirt 05:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Valuable and of good photographic quality. Freedom to share 21:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support I like it, especially the feathers, although I find resolution (details/size) is on borderline. Benh 21:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
6 support, 0 oppose >> featured -- Alvesgaspar 22:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:Erdfunkstelle Raisting 2.jpg - featuredEdit

 

  •   Info created, uploaded & nominated by --Richard Bartz 09:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Info ERDFUNKSTELLE RAISTING is the biggest facility for satellite communication in the world. Based at Raisting, Bavaria, Germany, very close to the Alps.
  •   Support I like 60s design :-)-- Richard Bartz 09:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support the (nearly) quadratic aspect ratio fits very well. --AngMoKio 13:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support As always the quality and the value come together in your pictures, Richard.--Mbz1 14:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support as AngMokio. Besides, please look on the image page where there are some categories linked that have been deleted or do not exist. — [[Manecke]] 14:33, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
fixed --Richard Bartz 15:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Superior quality, as usual. Digitaldreamer 18:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice composition, very high technical quality (I envy your camera), and valuable. -- Slaunger 21:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Laziale93 16:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Comment I think it's tilted CW about 0.4 degrees. --Dori - Talk 19:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support -- MJJR 20:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Leafnode 07:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support it's hard to capture the subject without overexposure--βαςεLXIV 12:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support - In QIC I supported the technical quality, here I support the artsy one. I like minimalist aesthetics -- Alvesgaspar 22:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support High-quality image. Cirt 05:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 12 support, 0 oppose >> featured -- Alvesgaspar 22:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Noise is small, quality of image is high. --Pauk 02:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC) Voting already closed. --MichaelMaggs 06:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:Lafleur Homestead.JPG - Alvesgaspar 14:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)Edit

 

  •   Info Historic guest house in w:Bonnechere River Provincial Park, created by Padraic - uploaded by Padraic - nominated by Padraic -- --Padraic 13:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support -- --Padraic 13:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose seems to be tilted left and the image suffers from smeary artifacts Mfield 15:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not bad image, but not for FP. Wow factor missing. --Karelj 18:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose due to vehicle in background. It doesn't fit into the composition for me. --Relic38 15:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
1 support, 3 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 5th day) -- Alvesgaspar 14:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:Sultana Disaster.jpg - not featuredEdit

 

  •   Info created by TeVe - uploaded by TeVe - nominated by Mrprada911 -- Mrprada911 22:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Free license (produced in 1865), excellent contrast for B&W, balanced, historically accurate, unique image, good resolution for a historic image, no digital manipulation. At full resolution, you can see the individuals on the deck. Timeless quality, under represented genre. -- Mrprada911 22:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Comment Where is the full resolution version? --IG-64 22:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because too small -- Alvesgaspar 22:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC) Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
1 support, 0 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 2nd day) -- Alvesgaspar 21:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:Beam and feet (close shot).jpg - not featuredEdit

 

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

βαςεLXIV 12:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

0 support, 0 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 2nd day) -- Alvesgaspar 21:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:The Bath.JPG - not featuredEdit

 

  •   Info Door to the gas chambers (and bath) in Majdanek. Created uploaded and nominated by VbCrLf. -- VbCrLf 09:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support The light fits the place it was photoed - Majdanek, a place where 1,500,000 people were murdered. VbCrLf 09:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Comment - This is certainly an historically relevant illustration of a gas chamber. But the photographic quality of the subject is far from adequate for a shot that can be repeated. -- Alvesgaspar 12:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because of poor phtographic quality Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
1 support, 0 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 2nd day) -- Alvesgaspar 21:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:Louis XVI et Marie-Antoinette.jpgEdit

 

 
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because too small --Richard Bartz 20:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC) Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
0 support, 0 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 2nd day) --Richard Bartz 23:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:Cargo loading, Operation Deep Freeze 2007 070208-N-4868G-323.JPEGEdit

 

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

-- Alvesgaspar 14:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

1 support, 0 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 2nd day) --Richard Bartz 23:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:Hoverfly March 2008-1.jpg - not featuredEdit

 

  •   Info A little and beautiful female hoverfly (Episyrphus balteatus) over a white Spiraea sp. flower. This time my motivation is only aesthetical. Created, uploaded and nominated by Alvesgaspar 23:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Alvesgaspar 23:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Bad dof, sorry. --Beyond silence 13:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   SupportThis image has a special atmosphere in it.--Mbz1 15:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I also think it's too soft. --Dori - Talk 19:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Very beautiful --B.navez 03:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Wow-factor is here! --Ikiwaner 18:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
4 support, 2 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 12:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:Formica cf lugubris 3.jpg - featuredEdit

 

  •   Info created, uploaded & nominated by -- Richard Bartz 01:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Info Fearless alpinist. This was the most funny shot from a series of mountain ants which reminds me on a cliffhanger :-) There are a handful of other good (maybe better) versions available (have a look in the image description), but i like this one the most.
  •   Info The ant is aprox 3mm in size.
  •   Support Sky is the limit -- Richard Bartz 01:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Technical merit => 8.6 points. Artistic merit => 8.2 points. :) -- Laitche 11:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support--Mbz1 15:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Excelent photo of Fearless alpinist --D kuba 15:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Simonizer 15:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Karelj 18:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Beautiful ! Benh 18:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Interesting non-traditional composition. Freedom to share 16:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support - Impressive shot. Cirt 05:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support ack Freedom to share --Ikiwaner 18:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
10 support, 0 oppose >> featured -- Alvesgaspar 20:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:Auchenorrhyncha Anaglyph.jpg - featuredEdit

                Just a comparison of sizes, not for vote :-)

  •   Info created, uploaded & nominated by -- Richard Bartz 15:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Info You need an   Anaglyph (3-D glasses) to view this image
  •   Info The result of a stack of 172 images to expand the dof (to bring out the tiniest details).
  •   Support Very hard work. Can it match with bad copyvio Nicole Kidman, which has faded away ? :-)) -- Richard Bartz 15:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support--Mbz1 15:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Question Am I the only one who does not own Anaglyphs? I think it could be of relevance to provide also a 2D version for us pour Anaglyph-depleted souls. As I understand the process you really combine two images (or selected colour layers thereof) (each of which must have been generated from 86(?) images to get a good DOF). Could we see one of the two DOF-deep images? (And if I have misunderstood everything, just ignore my question). I'd really like to see it as it seems you have pushed your equipment to the max here. -- Slaunger 21:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Anaglyph owners should have a entitlement to a reward, so you have to settle for the size comparision picture in 2d ;-) --Richard Bartz 21:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
    Dang. I will put it on my wishlist for my birthday. Only eight more months....can hardly wait. As a matter of fact I like the 2D comparison image a lot. Only a pity the resolution is not higher. It is really amusing to look at the interplay between the insect and the stitch. -- Slaunger 21:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Amazing! -- MJJR 20:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Question What software did you use to combine the images? --MichaelMaggs 08:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Photoshop for 3d. Helicon Focus for DoF --Richard Bartz 11:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll have a look at Helicon Focus. Anyway,   Support. --MichaelMaggs 15:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Some more solid performance. Freedom to share 15:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support--Moscvitch 17:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Yet another great work by Richard. One of the best things of your work is how colors are preserved; I only get b&w images working, I mean like this - Keta 17:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Thermos 03:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
8 support, 0 oppose >> featured -- Alvesgaspar 23:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:Iceberg with hole near sanderson hope 2007-07-28 2.jpg - featuredEdit

 

  •   Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Slaunger -- Slaunger 21:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Info When I saw mila nominating this nice image of a similar subject I could not resist feeling we should have some fun. Especially considering that we had an almost similar concurrent "iceberg with a hole" nominations on-going in here in October 2007. However, only at that time I nominated a slightly different view of a badly edited image. I think the view presented here is better and more striking, and this time, I have not tried to "improve" the image in any postprocessing except for a crop and a slight downsamling to remove some noise. This image is actually part of a (for me) interesting series dealing with the wheathering of an iceberg during a 1 month period. The sequence can be seen here. -- Slaunger 21:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Slaunger 21:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Great quality and high value.--Mbz1 23:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice photo --Dereckson 12:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not a nice expose. Sorry --Beyond silence 13:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support - very, very nice - Pudelek 13:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Neutral plus for subject, minus for expose --D kuba 15:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Question Two reviewers have objections concerning "expose" (exposure?). I am curious to hear more details what this is about? The histogram is near perfect, there are objectively no over-exposed areas. Is it something about the direction of the light? As I see it the lightning is pretty good as it emphasizes details of the freshly exposed surfaces where ice has calved off the iceberg. Am I overlooking something? Or are some monitors not calibrated? -- Slaunger 17:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
No over-exposed areas? Perfect? I think where there is light the photo is too bright, where is shadow (much on iceberg) is too dark. --Beyond silence 20:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support On my screen, the balance between light and dark is perfect: the whites are bright but not overexposed, and the shadows are certainly not too dark. I suppose people see images in a different way, because their screens are not calibrated in the same way. I support this nice picture, although the sharpness of the lower right part is not really excellent. -- MJJR 20:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I don't quite understand this one. At f6.3 and at that distance the whole image should be sharp, but in fact only the left-hand edge is. As you move across to the right the details get more and more blurred. --MichaelMaggs 08:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
    I think it is because in reality the two sides of the iceberg are at quite different distances (although it appears to be taken from the side). I guess the auto-focus has caugth the left hand side of the iceberg leading to the observation you have. I had to photograph it quickly as a "target of oppertunity", and I had no control of the ship as it was on an official assignment (not a tourist trip). Thus, the nominated image and this image differ by one minut (the resolution) in their EXIFs, meaning I had no second chances to check the sharpess of the shots. In addition, I do not have a DSLR. Although I am really amazed by the capability of my small compact camera, the technical quality will not be on par with most FPCs. I am not trying to excuse sub-optimal technical quality. I would just like to explain the circumstances. It is up to the individual reviewer to consider if the rarity of the subject and the circumstances mitigates these observations, and I respect your stance. -- Slaunger 09:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
    To me it looks as if you have a bit of dirt or maybe a water drop on the right side of your lense. With the small lenses of a compact camera this can have a big effect on the photo. You should check your lense. The coastline behind the iceberg should have the same sharpness but it hasn't. I also had that problem with my compact Canon...and a lense cleaning resulted in an impressive improvement of the photo quality :) --AngMoKio 08:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
    Thank you for this advice AngMoKio. That may be another root cause. I know this is really off-topic, but how did you clean the lens? -- Slaunger 11:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
    well a difficult topic. Depends a bit what kind of dirt you have. I had a part of a finger print on the lense and removed it with a little bit of warm water and a paper towel. Important is that you dont press and rub hard...otherwise you can scratch the lense. There should be special cleaning kits available. The way i did it was for sure not the best. Cleaning my lenses and the sensor is sth i postpone all the time, because i am scared of it :) --AngMoKio 20:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
    Thank you for the explanation. It seems simpler than I had feared. -- Slaunger 21:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
    Still be very careful! --AngMoKio 21:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
    I always get a UV filter for all my lenses. They're much easier to clean, and you don't care if you scratch one of those. Also, I have a rubber air-blower that works pretty well. --Dori - Talk 21:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Mfield 15:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Low quality, not sharp enough. --Karelj 18:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Neutral - I'm torn. --- Anonymous DissidentTalk 20:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I would have supported without issue raised by Michael Maggs and AngMoKio. The right part is very soft, even after downsampling. :( Benh 18:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support I do agree with Benh that the right part is unsharp, which I put down to a camera issue (it happened to me as well, guess why I had my camera repaired). Personally for me the wow overcompensates this. -- Klaus with K 21:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support A nice ice berg. Some reviewers seem to have problems with their screens. Have a look at the histogram: This image is perfectly exposed. However the right side is a bit unsharp but this doesn't surprise me on a compact camera. --Ikiwaner 22:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
8 support, 2 neutral, 4 oppose >> featured -- Alvesgaspar 08:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:Formica cf lugubris 3.jpg - featuredEdit

 

  •   Info created, uploaded & nominated by -- Richard Bartz 01:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Info Fearless alpinist. This was the most funny shot from a series of mountain ants which reminds me on a cliffhanger :-) There are a handful of other good (maybe better) versions available (have a look in the image description), but i like this one the most.
  •   Info The ant is aprox 3mm in size.
  •   Support Sky is the limit -- Richard Bartz 01:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Technical merit => 8.6 points. Artistic merit => 8.2 points. :) -- Laitche 11:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support--Mbz1 15:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Excelent photo of Fearless alpinist --D kuba 15:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Simonizer 15:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Karelj 18:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Beautiful ! Benh 18:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Interesting non-traditional composition. Freedom to share 16:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support - Impressive shot. Cirt 05:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support ack Freedom to share --Ikiwaner 18:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
10 support, 0 oppose >> featured -- Alvesgaspar 20:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:Auchenorrhyncha Anaglyph.jpg - featuredEdit

                Just a comparison of sizes, not for vote :-)

  •   Info created, uploaded & nominated by -- Richard Bartz 15:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Info You need an   Anaglyph (3-D glasses) to view this image
  •   Info The result of a stack of 172 images to expand the dof (to bring out the tiniest details).
  •   Support Very hard work. Can it match with bad copyvio Nicole Kidman, which has faded away ? :-)) -- Richard Bartz 15:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support--Mbz1 15:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Question Am I the only one who does not own Anaglyphs? I think it could be of relevance to provide also a 2D version for us pour Anaglyph-depleted souls. As I understand the process you really combine two images (or selected colour layers thereof) (each of which must have been generated from 86(?) images to get a good DOF). Could we see one of the two DOF-deep images? (And if I have misunderstood everything, just ignore my question). I'd really like to see it as it seems you have pushed your equipment to the max here. -- Slaunger 21:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Anaglyph owners should have a entitlement to a reward, so you have to settle for the size comparision picture in 2d ;-) --Richard Bartz 21:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
    Dang. I will put it on my wishlist for my birthday. Only eight more months....can hardly wait. As a matter of fact I like the 2D comparison image a lot. Only a pity the resolution is not higher. It is really amusing to look at the interplay between the insect and the stitch. -- Slaunger 21:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Amazing! -- MJJR 20:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Question What software did you use to combine the images? --MichaelMaggs 08:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Photoshop for 3d. Helicon Focus for DoF --Richard Bartz 11:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll have a look at Helicon Focus. Anyway,   Support. --MichaelMaggs 15:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Some more solid performance. Freedom to share 15:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support--Moscvitch 17:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Yet another great work by Richard. One of the best things of your work is how colors are preserved; I only get b&w images working, I mean like this - Keta 17:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Thermos 03:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
8 support, 0 oppose >> featured -- Alvesgaspar 23:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:Iceberg with hole near sanderson hope 2007-07-28 2.jpg - featuredEdit

 

  •   Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Slaunger -- Slaunger 21:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Info When I saw mila nominating this nice image of a similar subject I could not resist feeling we should have some fun. Especially considering that we had an almost similar concurrent "iceberg with a hole" nominations on-going in here in October 2007. However, only at that time I nominated a slightly different view of a badly edited image. I think the view presented here is better and more striking, and this time, I have not tried to "improve" the image in any postprocessing except for a crop and a slight downsamling to remove some noise. This image is actually part of a (for me) interesting series dealing with the wheathering of an iceberg during a 1 month period. The sequence can be seen here. -- Slaunger 21:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Slaunger 21:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Great quality and high value.--Mbz1 23:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice photo --Dereckson 12:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not a nice expose. Sorry --Beyond silence 13:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support - very, very nice - Pudelek 13:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Neutral plus for subject, minus for expose --D kuba 15:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Question Two reviewers have objections concerning "expose" (exposure?). I am curious to hear more details what this is about? The histogram is near perfect, there are objectively no over-exposed areas. Is it something about the direction of the light? As I see it the lightning is pretty good as it emphasizes details of the freshly exposed surfaces where ice has calved off the iceberg. Am I overlooking something? Or are some monitors not calibrated? -- Slaunger 17:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
No over-exposed areas? Perfect? I think where there is light the photo is too bright, where is shadow (much on iceberg) is too dark. --Beyond silence 20:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support On my screen, the balance between light and dark is perfect: the whites are bright but not overexposed, and the shadows are certainly not too dark. I suppose people see images in a different way, because their screens are not calibrated in the same way. I support this nice picture, although the sharpness of the lower right part is not really excellent. -- MJJR 20:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I don't quite understand this one. At f6.3 and at that distance the whole image should be sharp, but in fact only the left-hand edge is. As you move across to the right the details get more and more blurred. --MichaelMaggs 08:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
    I think it is because in reality the two sides of the iceberg are at quite different distances (although it appears to be taken from the side). I guess the auto-focus has caugth the left hand side of the iceberg leading to the observation you have. I had to photograph it quickly as a "target of oppertunity", and I had no control of the ship as it was on an official assignment (not a tourist trip). Thus, the nominated image and this image differ by one minut (the resolution) in their EXIFs, meaning I had no second chances to check the sharpess of the shots. In addition, I do not have a DSLR. Although I am really amazed by the capability of my small compact camera, the technical quality will not be on par with most FPCs. I am not trying to excuse sub-optimal technical quality. I would just like to explain the circumstances. It is up to the individual reviewer to consider if the rarity of the subject and the circumstances mitigates these observations, and I respect your stance. -- Slaunger 09:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
    To me it looks as if you have a bit of dirt or maybe a water drop on the right side of your lense. With the small lenses of a compact camera this can have a big effect on the photo. You should check your lense. The coastline behind the iceberg should have the same sharpness but it hasn't. I also had that problem with my compact Canon...and a lense cleaning resulted in an impressive improvement of the photo quality :) --AngMoKio 08:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
    Thank you for this advice AngMoKio. That may be another root cause. I know this is really off-topic, but how did you clean the lens? -- Slaunger 11:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
    well a difficult topic. Depends a bit what kind of dirt you have. I had a part of a finger print on the lense and removed it with a little bit of warm water and a paper towel. Important is that you dont press and rub hard...otherwise you can scratch the lense. There should be special cleaning kits available. The way i did it was for sure not the best. Cleaning my lenses and the sensor is sth i postpone all the time, because i am scared of it :) --AngMoKio 20:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
    Thank you for the explanation. It seems simpler than I had feared. -- Slaunger 21:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
    Still be very careful! --AngMoKio 21:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
    I always get a UV filter for all my lenses. They're much easier to clean, and you don't care if you scratch one of those. Also, I have a rubber air-blower that works pretty well. --Dori - Talk 21:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Mfield 15:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Low quality, not sharp enough. --Karelj 18:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Neutral - I'm torn. --- Anonymous DissidentTalk 20:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I would have supported without issue raised by Michael Maggs and AngMoKio. The right part is very soft, even after downsampling. :( Benh 18:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support I do agree with Benh that the right part is unsharp, which I put down to a camera issue (it happened to me as well, guess why I had my camera repaired). Personally for me the wow overcompensates this. -- Klaus with K 21:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support A nice ice berg. Some reviewers seem to have problems with their screens. Have a look at the histogram: This image is perfectly exposed. However the right side is a bit unsharp but this doesn't surprise me on a compact camera. --Ikiwaner 22:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
8 support, 2 neutral, 4 oppose >> featured -- Alvesgaspar 08:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:Humboldt penguin 5080 edit.jpg - not featuredEdit

 

  •   Info created by Dori - uploaded, nominated & edited by -- Richard Bartz 08:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Info The Humboldt Penguin (Spheniscus humboldti) (aka Peruvian Penguin, or Patranca) is a South American penguin, breeding in coastal Peru and Chile.
  •   Support -- Richard Bartz 08:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Doesn't appeal me, we don't have really a zoom nor a great composition with a natural wildlife background ; this green looks rather strange. --Dereckson 09:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Neutral It has a great quality (a QI for sure) but I also think that the composition is a bit too straightforward. --AngMoKio 10:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Thanks for the edit Richard. The green is actually water, which would be mostly natural for them. --Dori - Talk 13:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support This one is great. Especially colours and composition. And the edit of Richard is even better --Simonizer 15:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Bad light, sorry. --Beyond silence 20:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support - Not the best composition, I would prefer to see more of the bird. But the detail and colour are excellent -- Alvesgaspar 20:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose As Dereckson. --Karelj 21:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --norro 10:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose As Dereckson. --Mbdortmund 13:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support - but could be better --Leafnode 07:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose High resolution quality but that is just an identity picture, needs more to be featurable --B.navez 02:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Fair enough, but many past images were promoted on such a reason. --Dori - Talk 03:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Humboldt penguin is a very nice bird. --Pauk 02:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, not centred, the background too indefinite and it's quite flat. --sNappy 19:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
7 support, 1 neutral, 6 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 20:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:SantaBarbaraSunrise 4823.jpg - featuredEdit

 

  •   Info created, uploaded, nominated by --Dori - Talk 02:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support I like the colors and silhouette effect, hopefully others agree. --Dori - Talk 02:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support I agree. I like the silhouette and how you can see the two guys enjoying the sunrise. --norro 10:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support - I like it too, though one could use some more crispness in the silhouette -- Alvesgaspar 16:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Karelj 19:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support - at first I thought this photo is very slightly tilted, but ruler proved me wrong :) --Leafnode 07:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Hehe, I used a ruler to straighten it :) --Dori - Talk 13:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose So near, but I still can support photos with only a nice effect and the "beautiful does not always mean valuable". The composition so isn't very good, a common sunset fog is too less to be featured for me. --Beyond silence 17:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
    • It probably doesn't matter, but as fyi, it's a sunrise and there is no fog (just lighting). --Dori - Talk 17:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Neutral I like the composition and the light, but sharpness is too soft IMO. -- MJJR 21:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Ack Beyond Silence. Freedom to share 16:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
5 support, 1 neutral, 2 oppose >> featured Alvesgaspar 20:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:Bee March 2008-10.jpg featuredEdit

 

  •   Info A solitary bee (Eucera cf. longicornis) collecting nectar from a Lantana flower. Created, uploaded and nominated by Alvesgaspar 11:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Alvesgaspar 11:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Richard Bartz 15:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Mbz1 19:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Prefer this one. --Dori - Talk 19:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Prefer this one. --Beyond silence 20:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Laitche 20:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support -- MJJR 21:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --MichaelMaggs 08:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Leafnode 07:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support I don't think it's the best pov of the serie, but I'm still impressed -- Benh 18:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Would have liked to see a bit more of the flower, but it is certainly of a very high quality. Cirt 05:02, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --D kuba 10:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice image, I like the composition and the pov. Freedom to share 16:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
13 support, 0 oppose >> featured -- Alvesgaspar 20:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:Bee March 2008-11.jpg - not featuredEdit

 

  •   Info A solitary bee (Eucera cf. longicornis) collecting nectar from a Lantana flower. Created, uploaded and nominated by Alvesgaspar 11:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Alvesgaspar 11:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Pudelek 13:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support--Mbz1 19:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Very nice and fun picture. --Dereckson 19:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too soft in the head (no disrespect to the bee intended). --Dori - Talk 19:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too soft--Beyond silence 20:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Laitche 20:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Focus. --Karelj 21:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose ack above --Leafnode 07:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support A very rare occasio of a macro with well done motion bulur. --Ikiwaner 22:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
6 support, 4 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 20:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:Dogviolet6.jpg - not featuredEdit

 

  •   Info Self nom -- Thegreenj 01:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Viola adunca -- Thegreenj 01:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Pretty picture, but not enough IMO to call it featurable.--B.navez 03:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Close, but not there yet. I could recommend one of two things: a) Just frame the flower or b)Increase the aperture or make a composite so that the whole stem is in focus. Otherwise you have either composition or DOF issues, but other than that it's a nice image. Freedom to share 14:21, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
1 support, 2 oppose > not featured (rule of the 5th day) -- Alvesgaspar 08:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:Sunrise @ Nueva Ecija.JPG - not featuredEdit

 

  •   Info created, uploaded and nominated by Astrowick
  •   Support -- Astrowick 19:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Unnatural artefacts (pixels) on clouds and other dark elements. Masur 19:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because of very poor quality (noise and artifacts) -- Alvesgaspar 21:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC) Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
1 support, 1 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 2nd day) -- Alvesgaspar 21:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:Kiowa Blackberry Edit.jpg - not featuredEdit

   

  •   Info Created, uploaded, and nominated by IG-64. Same as the above submission, only digitally composited with another image with a different focus. To the right is the other image (not up for featured picture vote) used to create the composite. As you can see, several things, including the perspective, have been altered to match the original. --IG-64 20:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support -- IG-64 19:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Nice attempt, but I have higher expectations for a composite. I would recommend doing one out of 4 images as 2 are not enough. Freedom to share 16:49, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
1 support, 1 neutral >> not featured (rule of the 5th day) -- Alvesgaspar 22:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:Kiowa Blackberry.jpg - not featuredEdit

 

  •   Info created, uploaded, and nominated by IG-64 -- IG-64 04:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support -- IG-64 04:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose So nice, but much out of focus.

Sorry, you should try Commons:Quality images candidates first! --Beyond silence 12:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

  •   Comment Thank you for your critique, please tell me what you think of the attempt at a digital composite below. --IG-64 19:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Karelj 19:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support, a nice photo.--Pauk 01:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
3 support, 1 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 21:53, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:Plato + Giovanardi Snetterton 2007.jpg - not featuredEdit

 

  •   Info created by Karl Wright - uploaded by Diniz - nominated by mattbuck -- -mattbuck (Talk) 15:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support -- -mattbuck (Talk) 15:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I know such shots are difficult. But still I expect a bit more panning to get the cars sharper. In this photo also the focus point is not set correct. But again...I know it is not easy :) --AngMoKio 15:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose poor composition and also qaulity of image is nothing extra special. --Karelj 19:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Composition. --MichaelMaggs 05:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Ack other opposers. --Freedom to share 15:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
1 support, 4 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 5th day) -- Alvesgaspar 21:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:Ataturk-1930-amongpublic.jpg - not featuredEdit

 

  •   Info published by Ministry of National Education (Turkey) - uploaded by Dsmurat - nominated by Dsmurat -- Dsmurat 14:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Dsmurat 14:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because too small Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

Lycaon 15:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

1 support, 0 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 2nd day) -- Alvesgaspar 11:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:Anolis carolinensis brown.jpg - not featuredEdit

 

  •   Info Green anole (Anolis carolinensis) in brown phase. Created, uploaded, and nominated by Ianaré Sévi
  •   Support -- Ianare 07:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support really good --Mbdortmund 00:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Depth of field and composition do not exploit the quality of the subject --Alipho 17:59, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
    •   Question How is the DOF not appropriate? The entire subject is in focus, and the background is blurred to be less distracting. -- Ianare 21:44, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not bad, but it would benefit from a tighter framing and less distracting background. Freedom to share 14:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Well done. I like the "personality"; agree with Freedom to share, though: it would benefit from a bit more crop (not too much) --Matl 20:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
3 support, 2 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 17:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:Zunderschwamm Fomes fomentarius.jpg - not featuredEdit

 

  •   Info created, uploaded & nominated by -- Richard Bartz 16:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Info Fomes fomentarius (formerly Ungulina fomentaria or Polyporus fomentarius) is a bracket fungus often named horse's hoof fungus or tinder fungus. It can be found in North America and Europe, typically on birch, but also on beech. A single tree may bear many fruiting bodies and can reach a age of 30 years
  •   Support -- Richard Bartz 16:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support--Mbz1 18:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Careful with the copy and paste voting :) --Dori - Talk 20:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Maybe a VI of the species but definitely not a FP (the bells aren't ringing) -- Alvesgaspar 18:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
There is no difference between flowers, mushrooms or even insects 4 me. --Richard Bartz 18:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree, but my comment was referring to the aesthetical side of it. That's why I used that expression of the bells ringing -- Alvesgaspar 20:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
This one has subtly beauty and tech subtlety. It's a mood picture .. shurely not flamboyant but if you drink a glass of wine or maybe two (hicks) the mushroom will come ... and take you 2 a higher place :-) MUSHROOM IS EARTH --Richard Bartz 23:08, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support I think it looks great myself. --IG-64 03:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Personally I find the image too dull, well done technically though. --Dori - Talk 02:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --norro 08:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose As Alvesgaspar. --MichaelMaggs 19:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
4 support, 3 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 17:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:Pelican 4944.jpg - featuredEdit

 

  •   Info created, uploaded, nominated by --Dori - Talk 16:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Info A young brown pelican in flight. -- --Dori - Talk 16:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Dori - Talk 17:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Moscvitch 17:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support--Mbz1 18:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support wow. I guess this is a hard to get shot (?). Benh 18:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Not super difficult, but for me it had to get close enough to where I was, in a good enough body/wing position (for me it is, Alves disagrees :), and well enough in focus for the entire body. I took about 50 shots of these birds, and this is the best one in-flight. --Dori - Talk 18:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
      • I actually agree a bit with Alvesgaspar for the low profile thing (not for the details point, if taking into account the size of the image). But in my view, this is good enough, given the subject taken. Benh 07:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Little detail and not the best angle. Not much of the bird is seen. -- Alvesgaspar 18:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Karelj 21:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose ack Alvesgaspar and unfortunate haloes around the whole bird. Lycaon 18:38, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --norro 08:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support good angle, bird is shown in front, not from below--D kuba 10:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Dezidor 22:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Hard shot, but not high detail and noisy. --Beyond silence 11:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Thermos 03:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support--Nevit Dilmen 19:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
10 support, 3 oppose >> featured -- Alvesgaspar 17:50, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:Grand Anse-La Digue-Seychellen.jpg - featuredEdit

 

  •   Info created, uploaded and nominated by -- Tobi 87 17:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Tobi 87 17:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support a well composed landscape shot..especially the framing is nice. The others show for sure a nice scenery in a high quality but composition-wise they don't convince me. --AngMoKio 21:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support - I was just about to say that the picture is framed very nicely but I see someone already said that. Great work. Cirt 05:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support I think this is my favorite of the serie (I prefer the one above, but because of the people thing...). Benh 07:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Comment I'd like to see the exposure on the clouds brought down a bit, and possibly a 0.3 degree rotation clockwise. --Dori - Talk 13:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support nice --Pianist 14:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support This one is the best --Simonizer 08:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --D kuba 10:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support, Seychelly is a good place. --Pauk 02:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose. It's noticeably titled. The horizon is not straight so it's difficult to be exact, but it needs to be rotated by about 0.4 degrees clockwise. --MichaelMaggs 06:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Neutral - It is a very beautiful picture, with a correct composition and good quality. But too much "postcard type" in my opinion, lacking the surprise and wow element. -- Alvesgaspar 12:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Overexposed sky. Lycaon 09:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
8 support, 1 neutral, 2 oppose >> featured -- Alvesgaspar 17:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Like Benh Popperipopp 12:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:Anse Source d'Argent-La Digue-Seychellen.jpg - not featuredEdit

 

  •   Info created, uploaded and nominated by -- Tobi 87 17:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Tobi 87 17:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support--Mbz1 18:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose IMO people in the picture breaks harmony of the nature. --QWerk 18:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
    IMO nothing could break the harmony of such remote, unique and beautiful island as Ladigue is, even "oppose" votes.--Mbz1 21:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Agree with Qwerk. Would have supported otherwise. Benh 19:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Info I took another panorama of the same place without people. Hopefully it looks fine! You will see. - Tobi 87 21:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Maybe image should be little bit more darker, but is nice. --Karelj 21:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support with people who give the scale (the way to realise hugeness of the granit stones) and the realistic genuine vision of this place (a famous touristic place close to an inhabited village : what is extraordinary in Seychelles is that this kind of wonderful landscape is not in remote, unspoiled and inaccessible locations or in reserved and private areas, it is an ordinary and public sight. So, removing people would be a lie. Attitude of tourists on the picture is also very typical : they have just left the boat and they can't figure out this is just real, they are still dressed, not with bathing clothes.) --B.navez 01:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose composition doesn't convince me. But it has a good quality. --AngMoKio 15:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - I'm with AngMokio, don't like the foreground -- Alvesgaspar 18:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Picture has not a good composition. What is the subject? The beach or the rocks? If the subject is the beach the the rocks are too dominant. If the rocks are the motif a picture with more detail of them would be nicer --Simonizer 08:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
    • upsetting comment and so conformist : we could also choose between the sea and the beach, the sea and the sky and why not just a white picture ?--B.navez 17:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
      • I don't see anything upseting about that comment. I think Simonizer is right. The composition is confusing. The eye doesn't really know where to rest. The rocks might look better in a vertical shot. The beach might look nicer if there would be more of the beach and water visible and only a bit of the rocks as a frame on the right side. --AngMoKio 17:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
        • So please tell me where shall I put the image border? Or would it be sufficient to displace my point of view to the left so that more beach and sea is visible. Then, the rocks would form a frame on the right. --Tobi 87 17:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
          • Well this depends a bit on the surroundings there. But you see your picture is split in half. One half is beach and water, the other half is rocks. A classical composition would be to have 2/3 beach&water and 1/3 rocks. The horizon of your picture is already placed quite well because it also divides the picture in 1/3 sky and 2/3 rest. Of course those "rules" can also get broken...it is not a must...but it is often helpful.--AngMoKio 20:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
4 support, 5 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 17:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:Anse Source d'Argent 2-La Digue.jpg - featuredEdit

 

  •   Info created, uploaded and nominated by -- Tobi 87 17:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Tobi 87 17:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Wow! --Moscvitch 17:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support--Mbz1 18:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support - Nice colors, shadows. Cirt 04:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice place. --Dori - Talk 13:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Good photo, but a bit noisy and old man in a shadow. --Pianist 14:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support -- MJJR 21:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support. Very nice. --Pauk 02:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Neutral per Pianist and a bit blurry as this size photo. -- Laitche 05:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I would vote for it as a quality image, but I can't figure out why I should support it here. Seems like a snapshot of a nice beach but it seems somehow to common and easy to get this photo and the rock in the bottom left corner disturbs me slightly. sorry. /Daniel78 23:05, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I agree with Daniel78. Sorry. --D kuba 11:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
7 support, 2 neutral, 2 oppose >> featured -- Alvesgaspar 17:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:Galerie Colbert.jpg - featuredEdit

 

  •   Info created, uploaded and nominated by -- Benh 18:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support I give a try to another indoor panorama. I'm not equipped properly, but think I did a clean job here (thanks Gimp !!). Will this be to your tastes ? ;) -- Benh 18:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Light on the sculpture could be better, but as always very good work on the stitching. --Dori - Talk 18:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Yup, I have a day lighting version of it with much better lighting of the sculpture, but wanted the blue twilight sky... it's a tradeoff. Benh 18:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support - Wonderfull picture, I couldn't do better myself! ;-). Just a tiny remark: why break the symmetry of the room? -- Alvesgaspar 18:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • My friend who was with me when I took this picture, asked me the same :). I wanted something not too boring, so I tried to break the symmetry. Maybe I shouldn't have... We'll see what people over here think. :) Benh 18:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Very good work, was that friend Sanchezn again? :) How does it feel to be in Meet Our Photographers btw? (told you so [3], I should get some credit for my prediction, maybe a 'finding new talents' barnstar or something like that :-)) ) Freedom to share 20:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes I remember now :). I feel proud (just a bit ashamed to have added myself to the gallery !) and showed the page to some of my friends and colleagues at work :D. I wonder if it's really justified (since I see no mdf, no diliff etc. in there). This time, my friend wasn't sanchezn. Benh 07:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I feel the same way, Benh! Its something to be proud of but at the same time, I'm not the kind of person who likes to show off.. I think my gallery on the English wikipedia is already enough! ;-) But maybe so I don't appear rude, I'll have to add myself to it too. Diliff 17:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Very nice, and breaking the symmetry was a good idea --Alipho 17:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Richard Bartz 22:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support - Great work, but just a small note - there is a redlink-category on this image. Cirt 04:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Good stitch, especially outside the window--βαςεLXIV 11:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Laitche 16:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Romary 07:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --D kuba 10:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Simonizer 20:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Really excellent picture! -- MJJR 21:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Thermos 03:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support. --MichaelMaggs 05:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Excellent work! --Dsmurat 14:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
16 support, 0 oppose >> featured -- Alvesgaspar 17:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:Ephemeroptera on Equisetum arvense.jpg - featuredEdit

 

  •   Info created , uploaded & nominated by -- Richard Bartz 19:36, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Info A female subimago Mayfly (Rhithrogena germanica), Eaton, family Heptageniidae and in Germany called "Märzbräune / en:March Brown". In her short life she took her precious time to rest for a while on a Field Horsetail (Equisetum arvense), which is a very poisenous plant (can kill a horse without the slightest effort!). It was amazing to watch her closely.
Sorry, but it is not a very poisonous plant ... --B.navez 03:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Richard Bartz 19:36, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support, simply terrific. --Aqwis 20:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Excellent control of dof. --Freedom to share 20:49, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support composition, quality great... --AngMoKio 21:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support High quality natural composition --B.navez 03:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice quality, amount of detail. Cirt 04:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support When I have a child, the second thing I'll do is sticking a digital camera into his hands, but I'll call him Richard first to secure his talent ;). I find this picture and its lighting wonderful. -- Benh 07:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Awesome, --Hsuepfle 13:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Info In the course of identifying this remarkable animal by Dr. Arne Haybach at www.ephemeroptera.de (thanks!) it exposes that this species is a faunistic rarity and on the red list for endangered species. --Richard Bartz 14:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Laitche 16:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support - Inspiring composition, one of Richard's best -- Alvesgaspar 18:02, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Perfect DOF, intense colours --Ikiwaner 21:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Phenomenal. Calibas 05:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support clear case --Simonizer 08:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Böhringer 10:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --D kuba 10:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --MichaelMaggs 16:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   SupportLycaon 12:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Stands out well, and very crisp focus. CarrotMan 12:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Perfect... --Dsmurat 14:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Luc Viatour 05:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support - but lighting could be better ;) --Leafnode 12:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support great --Cybershot800i 17:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
22 support, 0 oppose >> featured -- Alvesgaspar 07:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:Asian-small-clawed-otter.jpg - not featuredEdit

 

  •   Info created by Patrick Gijsbers - uploaded by Patrick Gijsbers - nominated by RTG -- RTG 00:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support This is low resolution but it is an absolutely perfect picture. -- RTG 00:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because too small --Richard Bartz 23:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC) Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
  •   Comment A very nice picture. Do you have a 2MP version available ? --Richard Bartz 23:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
    • I have posted this to the pictures maker User:Patrick Gijsbers, but it is a perfect textbook picture. RTG 11:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
1 support, 0 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 2nd day) -- Alvesgaspar 07:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC) 

Image:Zwei Papageien.JPG - not featuredEdit

 

  •   Info created by RoFra - uploaded by RoFra - nominated by RoFra -- RoFra 11:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support -- RoFra 11:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose 1600 x 1200 pixels is below the 2Mpx minimum size guideline. Occasionally that may be disregarded by voters, but here the subjects are very small in the frame anyway, aren't positioned optimally and are not very sharp. Sorry. --MichaelMaggs 15:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose like Michael; central object cut at a sensible place. --Mbdortmund 19:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because too small Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

--Freedom to share 20:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:Seattle Bainbridge ferry1 2008-02-24.jpg - not featuredEdit

 

  •   Info created, uploaded and nominated by Klaus with K -- Klaus with K 21:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support as nominator -- Klaus with K 21:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Comment I think there is a little too much water. I'd crop between 1/3 to 1/2 of it off. --Dori - Talk 23:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose noise, composition, detail. --Beyond silence 20:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Ack Dori and Beyond Silence. --Freedom to share 07:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
1 spport, 2 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 5th day) -- Alvesgaspar 07:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:Museum of the Riverina-WCC.jpg - not featuredEdit

 

  •   Info created by Bidgee - uploaded by Bidgee - nominated by Bidgee -- Bidgee 17:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Bidgee 17:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nice building, but why for FP? --Karelj 20:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  • It's an historic building which has lasted floods, the great depression as well as redevelopment of the area which many buildings have since been replaced. Bidgee 07:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Tilted Mfield 02:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Tilted, insufficient wow and not a good enough composition (why the car, for example?). Sorry, this is just not FP material. --MichaelMaggs 06:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  • How is it tilted (just a question)? It's located on a hill but I can't help trying not getting a car in the shot as it's a main road. Any ideas on how it could become something with wow? Bidgee 07:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Every vertical in the image is a degree or so to the left - see the flagpole and roadsigns. Also the right side of the building is tilted in even more so, suffering from perspective distortion. Mfield 17:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
      • [4] You might find this interesting (hugin.sourceforge.net) if you are thinking about improving the perspective distortion. --Freedom to share 20:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

FPX|too tilted, too obstructed --- Anonymous DissidentTalk 23:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

  •   Comment I don't think those are sufficient reasons for FPX. It's only very slightly tilted (probably more perspective than tilt), and I don't see the obstruction. --Dori - Talk 02:00, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
1 support, 3 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 5th day) -- Alvesgaspar 20:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:Painted Stork.jpg - not featuredEdit

 

  •   Info High quality picture of a Painted Stork, taken at the Ranganthittu Bird Sanctuary, Karnataka, India. Created, uploaded and nominated by Emeldil
  •   Support -- The slightly unusual fully-erect posture of the bird must be noted, most other photographs taken of the painted stork show a more bent figure. Serene and natural background, does not distract the viewer from the subject. Emeldil 09:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Comment It is a pity that the feet are cut off. --AngMoKio 14:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nice but the ammount of overexposure is a tad 2 much for my taste. Would prefer more detailed markings on the feathers --Richard Bartz 15:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Poor composition, part missing. --Karelj 19:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
1 support, 2 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 5th day) -- Alvesgaspar 20:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:Butterfly April 2008-2.jpgEdit

     

Original - not featuredEdit

  •   Info A Speckled Wood butterfly (Pararge aegeria) of the Satyridae family, in the style of Richard Bartz (but maybe not the quality). Created, uploaded and nominated by Alvesgaspar 17:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Alvesgaspar 17:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, but the branch in the back is too distracting and detracts from important body parts, such as the head imo. With the arthropod bar so high I'll have to oppose. Freedom to share 18:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Distracting background --norro 08:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

  I withdraw my nomination

Alternative - not featuredEdit

  •   Support - Alvesgaspar 23:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Narrow composition --norro 08:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

  I withdraw my nomination

Retouched version (right) - featuredEdit

  •   Info - You are right, here is a new retouched version.
  •   Support -- Alvesgaspar 08:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Good image, nice cloning work. Freedom to share 14:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support I agree --norro 20:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Much better. Cirt 09:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is also a tad too dull on the colors for me. --Dori - Talk 15:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
    •   Neutral Changed my mind. --Dori - Talk 21:14, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Lycaon 05:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
5 support, 1 neutral >> featured -- Alvesgaspar 13:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:Pseudobiceros hancockanus.jpg - featuredEdit

 

  •   Info created, uploaded and nominated by Jnpet -- Jnpet 06:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Image of a Marine flatworm Pseudobiceros hancockanus also known as a Spanish Dancer, taken at Lembeh straits, Indonesia. --Jnpet 06:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Comment Wow. Not a single vote for or against. Have I been that bad? Feels like I'm being boycotted. I know this image has some flaws, I'm putting it here for the wow factor. Believe me, I wish I had another opportunity with this fellow, but right after I took this picture, he attacked my camera flash guard. I guess, he thought it was a tasty tunicate. Anyway, I guess it's getting pointless. Why even bother. --Jnpet 01:26, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support I was thinking about supporting that one for some time, but my opinion has finally been swayed after you wrote about the difficulty of taking multiple shots of this one. You need to say what (if anything) was hard to do on the shot, so we can see how it is special. Freedom to share 06:14, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Ack Freedom, quality not that great, mitigated by circumstances. --Dori - Talk 21:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice contrast w/ the colors. Cirt 05:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Leafnode 12:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Sorry but quality is terrible -- Alvesgaspar 20:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Have to agree with Alvesgaspar. Lycaon 05:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
5 support, 2 oppose >> featured -- Alvesgaspar 08:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

  Info -- These votes after the voting period of 9 complete days -- Alvesgaspar 08:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

  •   Oppose Sorry, technical quality is not high enough. --MichaelMaggs 07:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose as above --Chrumps 16:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:Pararge aegeria on Fomes fomentarius.jpg - not featuredEdit

     
Taking a nice background Taking a nice butterfly The result. A nice composition,
full of the joys of life

 

  •   Info created by Alvesgaspar & Richard Bartz - uploaded by Richard Bartz - nominated by -- Richard Bartz 12:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Info Richard Bartz meets Alvesgaspar :-)) A good example of Photomontage. Photomontage is the process (and result) of making a composite photograph by cutting and joining a number of other photographs.
  •   Support Pixel hustle one, two ... -- Richard Bartz 12:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Comment - A pity there isn't any more available background to acommodate a larger butterfly... -- Alvesgaspar 15:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Question Is this scenery possible (regarding proportions and natural habitat of butterfly and fungus)? --norro 15:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I've read that this fungi is holarctic and can be found in India, Pakistan, too. The dimensions are quite real as the diameter of this fungi is average 15-30cm, and the butterfly is 30-40mm tall - plus i found out that this butterfly lives in german forrests, too thats why his name is Waldbrettspiel. So i would say: No worry :-)) --Richard Bartz 16:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support - WTH, if we don't support our own superb creations, who will? -- Alvesgaspar 19:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Haha, good idea ;-)) --Richard Bartz 19:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support If nothing else, good creativity and execution. --Dori - Talk 00:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Good idea but unnatural ( or too natural ). I think this time you went too far. :) -- Laitche 19:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Yes, it illustrates the concept, but for me that's not enough for FP. --MichaelMaggs 05:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Comment Richard - is it possible in nature? I think about place and behaviour. Maybe this butterfly don't like this fungus. What will we do, if it is hoax? :) Przykuta 16:02, 10 April 2008

(UTC)

  •   Support Ah, so :) Przykuta 19:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, but I'll have to agree with MichaelMaggs here. You put up great examples of photomontage and imo you need something more surreal to illustrate the concept and its implications. --Freedom to share 21:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
4 support, 3 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 08:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:Anse Source d'Argent 3-La Digue.jpg - not featuredEdit

 

  •   Info created, uploaded and nominated by -- Tobi 87 20:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Tobi 87 20:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Question Why do you nominate four times a similar photograph? Lycaon 21:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   OpposeToo conformist, seems empty --B.navez 02:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Comment These four pictures are my selection of the photographs I took on La Digue. By nominating them as FP I want to find out which of them is most attractive to others. So please judge them! Thanks a lot;)
  •   Support --Karelj 20:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Poor composition --D kuba 16:44, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

  Support Wow. Makes me see how alien the world can be without looking like Mars or showing some sort of alien looking creature. Have not seen rocks quite like that. RTG 10:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

  •   Oppose messy --Leafnode 12:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
3 support, 3 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 08:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:Icecreamlicker.jpg - not featuredEdit

*  Support great composition lighting focus, and everything. -- 86.164.88.134 01:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC) Please log in to vote --Richard Bartz 01:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

  •   Oppose I removed the template out of focus added by Lycaon because it might be offending to the photographer. He is a pro with a pro camera. It was shure his decision to make this image that soft. This is a 16 Megapixel image, consider this when talking about sharpness. Personnaly I don't like this nude picture. --Ikiwaner 18:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Out of focus and poorly cropped (how can honest critiques be offending???). Lycaon 22:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Comment I just wish someone would just find a good nude image (besides the Himba women :) so we could get it over with. But people just go and find stuff that's not up to standard. Whether they're trolling or just think they there should be more FPs of nudes, either way it's not going to succeed with such images. --Dori - Talk 03:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Comment - This is an irrelevant picture for the Commons project, in my opinion: little value and not good enough image quality. I have nothing against nominating nudes in FPC but I doubt this is a serious nomination. Why is the nominator anonymous? And why is he/she not giving a rationale for his proposal? Please remember it is agreed among reviewers that the only way to remove an FPX tag is to insert a support vote -- Alvesgaspar 12:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  • {{FPX|of little relevance (value) and poor photographic quality}} -- [[User:Alvesgaspar|Alvesgaspar]] 12:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
      Comment Sorry, I have to strike out this template once again. I don't know such thing as little relevance in commons, since commons serves media for every kind of wikimedia projects (for example book about pornography or ice-licking girls). And I can't see poor photographic quality. Alvesgaspar and Lycaon, please just oppose if you think that this is not a featured picture. But this page is for letting the community decide and the template is only to be used for clear guideline violations. --norro 13:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  Comment Guidelines state that the topic should be in proper focus, which it it isn't, hence my use of the template. Lycaon 13:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --norro 13:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Per above -- Alvesgaspar 13:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Unfortune crop of Vertex, Arthropodium & Receptaculum semenis --Richard Bartz 18:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Arthropodium candidum, of course -- Alvesgaspar 20:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nice girl, I like she very much, but quality of image is not enough. --Karelj 20:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Agree with Richard & Alvesgaspar. -- MJJR 21:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose ack Lycaon - crop is very strange. --Leafnode 12:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
1 support, 7 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 08:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:Innsbruck Flusspromenade.jpg - not featuredEdit

 

  •   Info by Ikiwaner -- Ikiwaner 18:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Comment I tell you this was a nice scenery! The houses all painted in different, intense colours, the sky so blue in the clear mountain air. -- Ikiwaner 18:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support I like the composition. --Dori - Talk 18:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Very interesting scenery indeed and a nice picture of it. --Mbimmler 20:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support and imagine the headache caused by this weather ;) --ThurnerRupert 21:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
    •   Comment Suspect voter. (this is as yet just a warning, not a cancellation of your vote) Lycaon 09:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I find the composition rather uninteresting, with the subject cutting across the centre of the frame. --MichaelMaggs 05:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
    • I disagree, the road is right at the lower third, and the mountains are cutting diagonally. Both are desirable features. --Dori - Talk 19:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose, I agree with MichealMaggs. --Aqwis 06:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I know it's hard to fix, but the snow is overexposed. What about taking the image later in the evening when the light is not as harsh or using a polariser to reduce reflections? Freedom to share 06:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose disturb, overexpose, detail --Beyond silence 12:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose As above. --Karelj 20:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support The snow is not overexposed; I particularly like the reflections in the turbulent water. -- Klaus with K 21:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)