Open main menu

Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/August 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:HerengrachtAmsterdamBrug.jpg, not featuredEdit

 

  •   Info created by Massimo Catarinella - uploaded by Massimo Catarinella - nominated by Massimo Catarinella -- Massimo Catarinella (talk) 13:32, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Massimo Catarinella (talk) 13:32, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose regretfully because I like the place and the mood. I think it was taken a taaaad too soon ; buildings are too dark compared to the sky. Buildings are leaning outward as well. Benh (talk) 13:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
    •   Info The buildings are leaning outward, because they were built in this manner. In Dutch we call it 'op vlucht staan'. The picture was taken with a Manfrotto tripod, which has a integrated leveling bubble, so there is no tilt present. I have taken pictures later on, but on those pictures the buildings were even darker. Canals in Amsterdam are not well lit. This is why its so hard to take a picture here at night.. Massimo Catarinella (talk)
  •   Comment I've seen that an Autoequalisation in Corel Photo Paint gives a better result. --Alex:D (talk) 14:49, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral, fifth-day rule => not featured. Lycaon (talk) 13:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Flower Impatiens.JPGEdit

 

  •   Info created, uploaded and nominated by silfiriel -- Silfiriel (talk) 15:44, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Silfiriel (talk) 15:44, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nearly nowhere in focus, bad technical quality, bad composition. —αἰτίας discussion 16:42, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because it has insufficient DOF and a poor composition. 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 (talk) 16:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

  Silfiriel (talk) 16:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Khp.jpgEdit

 

 
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because lack of wow. 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.

Dilaudid 08:52, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Libellule sur roseau.JPGEdit

 

 
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because it is not identified and not sharp enough. 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 (talk) 09:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

  •   Oppose Subject is not in focus. Too much going on in this photo to bring the subject to immediate attention. - TheWB (talk) 12:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Chincoteague Pony Swim 2.jpgEdit

 

 
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because poor overall 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.

Dilaudid 22:55, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Hovering Gulls.JPGEdit

 

 
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because the topic is too small and not properly identified. 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 (talk) 11:58, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

  •   QuestionWhat exactly do you mean by "the topic is too small"? I didn't identified the bird firmly because, it's not my field of expertise, although I am sure it's Mediterranean Seagull. How to fix this? But if the photo doesn't have what it takes to be a quality image, just say so, I like negative critics. Should I rename the photo to "A pair of hovering Mediterranean Seagulls" Am I boring you?-- Silfiriel (talk) 15:03, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
    The image is 95% blue sky, so the topic (gulls) is too small. Furthermore, though I'm no ornithologist neither, I'm not convinced by the id. It could as well be Larus ridibundus as L. melanocephalus. Lycaon (talk) 17:53, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I was considering the option that the seagulls are "Larus ridibundus", but their habitat even with migrations spans from Westernmost Europe to North America, while the photo is taken on the Balkan Peninsula, which is surrounded by the Mediterranean Sea, Eastern Europe.The City of Ohrid, about 150km far from the Adriatic Sea.
    • Thanks for this contribution! Not gaining the Featured Picture status doesn't necessarily mean it's not a fine photograph and as such, a valuable contribution. If the photo is cropped so that the birds take up most of the space, the size would drop below the recommended limit of 2 megapixels (see our image guidelines). We need to be sure (not only guess) what our Featured Pictures portray. Furthermore the images need to be categorized appropriately and accurately to reflect the sematics of the photograph. I now categorized this as Category:Unidentified subjects so that others can help identify the birds. It's not always up to just one person to construct everything that consists a featured level picture – that's why we're a community :) –Dilaudid 18:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Bk parrot-2, Kristiansand Zoo, Norway.jpgEdit

 

 
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because there is heavy CA fringing on the beak and the bird is not identified. 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 (talk) 12:30, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Bamberg Altes Rathaus BW 1.JPG, not featuredEdit

   

Original, not featuredEdit

  • I am not sure how that part of the bridge is called, its purpose is to break ice, so I guess it may be called icebreaker. I have never seen a house built on top of it. Maybe there are parts of the world where it is a common sight, and you have been there. Just my 2c. Barabas (talk) 18:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose No wow--Sensl (talk) 19:08, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose due to poor technical quality: Not sharp at full resolution. —αἰτίας discussion 21:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 09:59, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Edit1, not featuredEdit

  •   Support -- Barabas (talk) 22:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support -- interesting subject, good composition Ianare (talk) 05:04, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Certainly a "wow" from me, but the sky is quite grainy and it's not very sharp. Naerii (talk) 10:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Noise very low to my opinion, nice light, good exposition. J-Luc (talk) 13:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose no wow--Sensl (talk) 00:38, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Alvaro qc (talk) 02:29, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The subject is interesting, but I get no wow from this picture. Maybe you could try a night shot? Or at a different time of the day in order to use shadows to give a little more volume to the building? --S23678 (talk) 13:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support I like it. --Estrilda (talk) 20:42, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Not much wow, but good quality... Can't decide. Leo Johannes (talk) 14:14, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 18:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Orange flower with water.jpg, not featuredEdit

 

  •   Info created by Rootology - uploaded by Rootology - nominated by Rootology -- rootology (T) 17:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support -- rootology (T) 17:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Zero wow--Sensl (talk) 19:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose distracting background, nothing special. —αἰτίας discussion 21:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Very colorful.--RekishiEJ (talk) 01:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Confusing composition + lacking crispness and detail --Richard Bartz (talk) 03:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Great! --Micha L. Rieser (talk) 12:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support I like it. Alvaro qc (talk) 18:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Cannot be promoted as nothing is identified, and as such not properly categorized. Lycaon (talk) 05:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
    •   Comment White flowers look like some type of Chrysanthemum and the Orange flower could be a Chrysanthemum but reminds me of another bulb or daisy type flower but can't think of it's name. Bidgee (talk) 12:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sadly, i have to agree with Lyacon. Apart from that, this is IMO definietly a great picture which should be featured - it 'sparkles of life'; the colors is amazing, and it is good quality too.

Leo Johannes (talk) 13:17, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

result: 4 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 18:11, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Morelia-viridis.jpg, not featuredEdit

 

  •   Info created by Micha L. Rieser - uploaded by Micha L. Rieser - nominated by Micha L. Rieser -- Micha L. Rieser (talk) 23:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Micha L. Rieser (talk) 23:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Looks good in thumb and the tight crop plus the sober centrical composition is surely a matter of taste -but- the large washed out (slight OE caused by a harsh neon lamp light, I assume) area on the upper left part of the snakes back and the missing brilliance in quality and crispness is KO criteria here 4 me. --Richard Bartz (talk) 02:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Richard is right: good but not excellent. --Mbdortmund (talk) 10:38, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Technically maybe not perfect, but great WOW 4 me. --Karelj (talk) 20:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose subject not rare enough to forgive technical issues as outlined above Ianare (talk) 05:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support. I like it. Thierry Caro (talk) 11:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Wash-out is borderline but doesn't seem blown. A little photoshopping could help with the graininess at full size, but encyclopedicness and wow make up for the technical problems. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 10:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Barabas (talk) 18:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Unfortunate lighting advertises this as a zoo pic. Lycaon (talk) 05:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Lycaon. --S23678 (talk) 02:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Wow and encyclopedic (although it does not care that much whether the image is encyklopedic or not; remember that Wikipedia is just one of our projects; if an image would be good in a news article, I think it would be same important as it would be good in aqn encyclopedic article). Leo Johannes (talk) 18:22, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support I agree with Leo Johannes. -- IvanTortuga (talk) 19:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
result: 7 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 18:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Gestreifte Quelljungfer01.JPG, not featuredEdit

 

  •   Info created, uploaded and nominated by -- Böhringer (talk) 20:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Böhringer (talk) 20:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support nice --Mbdortmund (talk) 23:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support -- would support but needs english description Ianare (talk) 04:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  • added basic english info
  •   Comment It needs a description, which in this case, is provided in 2 languages. The FPC page is available in 25 languages. English descriptions (even if practical for a lot of voters) are not mandatory, since it would restrict the use of FPC process to people fluent in English. Le multilinguisme de Commons est une richesse plutôt qu'un handicap! --S23678 (talk) 14:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm not asking for a full translation of the text, but at least some basic info. I'm sure there are plenty of users here that can do this. For this image I was able to do it, but it would be better if a speaker of the language were to do it. (maybe it's not really a dragonfly, but something that looks like one, for example). Je suis bien d'accord avec toi à propos du multilinguisme Ianare (talk) 17:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose not sharp enough--Sensl (talk) 00:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support not sharp ? J-Luc (talk) 07:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose the background distracts. Alvaro qc (talk) 17:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not sharp enough and yet somewhat oversharpened (pale haloes). Lycaon (talk) 05:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Really cool, and that is more important than quality, I think. Leo Johannes (talk) 13:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Neutral I wish the crop would be a little tighter it being an animal photo and all. But besides that I like it. --IvanTortuga (talk) 19:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 14:19, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Kobarid1.jpg, not featuredEdit

 

  •   Info created & uploaded & nominated by Miha (talk)
  •   Info Kobarid, Slovenia
  •   Info There is also a darker version with more visible light-shadows game...
  •   Support --Miha (talk) 08:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Neutral First of all the darker version is too dark. This one is the better version. The picture is well done. The composition is good. The trees in the foreground and the houses give a good feeling for the size of the mountain. But its is lacking wow. Maybe you should have done this picture later or earlier in the day when the light is not so harsh and the colours are little bit warmer. There are also a lot of dust spots visible --Simonizer (talk) 09:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose, I agree with Simonizer about the quality of the light. --Aqwis (talk) 12:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

  Support It is nice and has lots of encyclopedic value (but the light could be better.) This is only a weak support. --MacMad (talk) 17:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

  •   Neutral as per above. MacMad
  •   Oppose not enough wow and rather dark. Also needs geo-coding, of course. Lycaon (talk) 05:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I agree with Lycaon. Well geocoding isn't nescessary I think, but the image is really too gray. Perhaps with sun lower on the horizon it would be better. And less clouds of course. --Aktron (talk) 13:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 2 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer (talk) 14:21, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Fire in kiuas.jpgEdit

 

 
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because of over and underexposure, poor crop and unsharpness 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.

--S23678 (talk) 00:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Sea of phones.jpgEdit

 

 
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because it is 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 (talk) 17:58, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Dicepción Neonato.jpgEdit

 

  •   Info Photography very difficult to take. It is unknown origin and parentage of this newborn used for drug trafficking. created by User:The Photographer - uploaded by User:The Photographer - nominated by User:The Photographer -- libertad0 ॐ (talk) 18:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support -- libertad0 ॐ (talk) 18:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Question Can you please add a more detailed image description? And can you or someone else please translate it to en? I'm not really sure what is shown here (or better: If I see what I think I do). --norro 19:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
  Comment Thaks you. That's ready --libertad0 ॐ (talk) 13:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because it has a very low overall quality (details, color, TV capture artefacts) 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.
As well, I think that it has low value, by being more shocking (wide open abdomen and head, blood on the table and instruments, story about being stuffed for drug smuggling, etc) than educative/useful. --S23678 (talk) 13:58, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Anolis equestris - bright close 3-4.jpg, featuredEdit

 

  •   Info Anolis equestris - created, uploaded, and nominated by Ianare (talk) 05:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ianare (talk) 05:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support The animal is well defined, and the contrast is crisp. --Jtornado (talk) 19:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose crop--Sensl (talk) 00:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Question do you have a suggestion on cropping ? Ianare (talk) 14:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
No, I do not.--Sensl (talk) 20:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support same comment as on QIC page :) incredible details, but not very appealing background. This still deserve to be promoted (for better visibility by all wikipedias) in my opinion. -- Benh (talk) 13:49, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Border case for me. Good colours and sharpness, but unfortunate crop (would have liked to see all of the animal). Lycaon (talk) 05:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice colors and contrast, wow feeling. Leo Johannes (talk) 13:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Why do we always have to have a picture showing the entire animal? We don't, the crop is fine for such a nice picture. This will illustrate its tree-of-life article very well. -- Ram-Man 13:50, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I dont have anything about cropped animals either but in this case a vertical picture format would be better IMO --Simonizer (talk) 14:25, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Vertical would be better. --Daniel Baránek (talk) 19:01, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
result: 6 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer (talk) 08:54, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Crinum Lily.JPG, not featuredEdit

 

  •   Info created by IvanTortuga - uploaded by IvanTortuga - nominated by IvanTortuga -- IvanTortuga (talk) 19:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support -- IvanTortuga (talk) 19:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Focus is inconsistent. Also, the dark left 1/4 of the photo doesn't do anything for me. I think it would look better with that section cropped. - TheWB (talk) 20:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Also the brown/dying flowers in the background does not look so good. /Daniel78 (talk) 21:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Quite bad composition, very noisy, nowhere sharp. —αἰτίας discussion 15:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer (talk) 09:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Nagoya Castle(Larger).jpgEdit

 

Original, not featuredEdit

  •   Info This is a 3x3 segment stitched panoramic in Rectilinear Projection. Downsampled to Full HD size.
  •   Info created by base64 - uploaded by base64 - nominated by base64 -- Base64 (talk) 14:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Base64 (talk) 14:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Question Why such a drastic downsampling? You're jumping from 9X10 Mpx (less overlap and crop) to slightly over 2Mpx. From the guidelines: "it is important that nominated pictures have as high a resolution as possible" --S23678 (talk) 14:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Comment I agree with above. The result (size mainly) is not very worth the a 3x3 pictures stitch, and all the steps you went through to. I guess this could have been a one shot catch, and a downsampled version would have given the same quality. Still a very nice building (and probably even better if a twice as big version is given). -- Benh (talk) 15:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Vassil (talk) 16:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support well done. —αἰτίας discussion 19:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Comment The nomination speaks only about technique. Can you explain how the photograph we see is better as a result of the technique? Fg2 (talk) 21:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
      Comment The major reason for the stitch is for the perspective correction. --Base64 (talk) 01:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
  • There's no need for stitch to achieve perspective correction. Benh (talk) 21:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose No details in anything, bad lighting, very low quality of a common subject--Sensl (talk) 00:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

  I withdraw my nomination Size --Base64 (talk) 01:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

result: withdrawn => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 11:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Larger size, featuredEdit

  •   Info I'm such a fool. In this image, even the "golden fish" on the top can be seen. Please don't say "no details in anything". This is 8MP, bigger than the 2MP original--Base64 (talk) 01:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Info created by base64 - uploaded by base64 - nominated by base64 -- Base64 (talk) 14:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Base64 (talk) 14:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support -- I fully agree with you. J-Luc (talk) 07:49, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support -- I like the quality! --Specious (talk) 09:45, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support -- high resolution and good quality, almost no tourists in the shot Ianare (talk) 15:21, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose "golden fish" is it what they are? Details are not good even trees are not good. the lighting is bad (sky). low quality. I do not like composition with ropes. What is "perspective correction" anyway? Why not to do it more natural?--Sensl (talk) 20:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
      Comment I suggest you read all this in English Wikipedia(en:Nagoya_Castle) before posting such comment. "On top of the castle are two golden imaginary tiger-headed fish, called kinshachi (金鯱); this motif is used as a talisman for fire prevention. They are said to be a symbol of the feudal lord's authority. " Why are there ropes?, those are not ropes. During World War II, the upper part of the castle is destroyed. The rock on the bottom is not. Back in 1525, there wasn't effective en:Lightning protection system and drainage pipes penetrating the bottom rocks. There are not occasional but permanent, refer to the image in 2005 Image:Nagoya_Castle_01.jpg. As Wikipedia said, the castle is open for public exhibition, with air-conditioning and elevators. Finally, If you don't even know what is perspective correction, I suggest you take a look at COM:QIC which there are 5 images require perspective correction. --Base64 (talk) 01:27, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support This image is so clear, my instinct was to clone out the drainage tube that goes from the roof to the ground which is much much smaller than the fishes that are there. I suggest that Sensl needs to perhaps wipe their monitor off (the occasional cleaning of the viewing mechanism is helpful for seeing things in the display). -- carol (talk) 20:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support really good, sharp and clear, good composition. --Mbdortmund (talk) 21:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose First, praise for sharpness and clarity, and for getting good color in the shachi. Automatic exposure often overexposes them, and they become nearly white; you've done well to avoid that. But second, in my view, the photo is dull. It's dark and dreary, not in a moody or interesting way, but in a way that begs for lightening. I suggest adjusting levels and curves to add light to the building (which I see as the subject of the photo) and the foreground. Even Photoshop's Auto Levels should help, and with work you can make this picture sing. While still keeping great color and detail in the shachi. I'll gladly support it when the "wow" is there. This photo has the makings of a real winner. Fg2 (talk) 02:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
      Info Thank you for your greatly useful comment, I did a in-place upload to correct the over-blue colour balance and adjusted the shadows. --Base64 (talk) 03:04, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
      Support That makes the mood much more appropriate (in my opinion). Thanks! Fg2 (talk) 06:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Naerii (talk) 18:53, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Vassil (talk) 06:51, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Very impressive and outstanding quality. –Dilaudid 19:18, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support--libertad0 ॐ (talk) 20:03, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support A pity about the weather, but good quality. --Estrilda (talk) 20:56, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support-- Looks very nice. --Lošmi (talk) 14:29, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
result: 13 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer (talk) 11:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Azow Sea Sunset.JPGEdit

 

  •   Info created by Канопус Киля - uploaded by Канопус Киля - nominated by Канопус Киля -- Канопус Киля (talk) 15:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Канопус Киля (talk) 15:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
  • In this image the beatiful Azov Sea Sunset. Канопус Киля (talk) 15:18, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sunset is nice and the sea is nice also. But yet, there is no central part of the image where should the wiever focus on (such problem is having also one beatiful image of Norwegian lake). I have here also some similar images, also with such nice sky, but I haven't even uploaded them because of what I have written here. Sorry, but such image I can't support as FP. --Aktron (talk) 15:26, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sunsets pictures are always nice cause sunsets are nice. But i can't see anything what makes this picture more special than other sunset pictures --Simonizer (talk) 14:13, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not enough wow for a sunset. Lycaon (talk) 08:29, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because it has little value. From the guidelines: almost all sunsets are aesthetically pleasing, and most such pictures are not in essence different from others' 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.

--S23678 (talk) 15:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Unknown Berries.JPGEdit

 

 
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because the subjet is not identified. 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.

Dilaudid 06:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

  •   Info Sorry guys I figured but I just skipped out being kind of dumb about it. It's a Lonicera sp. then again is sp. to vague for featured pictures? --IvanTortuga (talk) 19:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:SEM Lymphocyte.jpgEdit

 

 
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because it is too noisy. 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 (talk) 08:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

  •   Comment This should be deleted anyway because it was nominated by an IP address, should it not? --MacMad (talk) 05:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
  • IPs are welcome to nominate images and comment on them. For voting however, you have to be logged in. Lycaon (talk) 06:07, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support - conditional on demonstrating that SEMs, by their nature, are that noisy. =) Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Pork packing in Cincinnati 1873.jpg, featuredEdit

 

Note: The image has 5.37 MB!

  •   Info Pork packing in Cincinnati. Print showing four scenes in a packing house: "Killing, Cutting, Rendering, [and] Salting." Chromo-lithograph of the cartoons exhibited by the Cincinnati Pork Packers' Association, at the International Exposition, at Vienna. Entered according to Act of Congress in the year 1873 by Ehrgott & Krebs in the Office of the Librarian of Congress at Washington, D.C. Created by Ehrgott & Krebs - uploaded by Alex:D - nominated by Alex:D -- Alex:D (talk) 13:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support These "telling pictures" are representative for that trade and time and, above that, the fine quality of this chromolitography, makes it a quality image. -- Alex:D (talk) 13:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support This picture is worth a thousand words --Romwriter (talk) 20:50, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support - J-Luc (talk) 08:13, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support I like to see results of all these manufactures on my table... --Karelj (talk) 14:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support yes ! Peter17 (talk) 18:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support nice and valuable! --Beyond silence 23:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support - Keta (talk) 14:56, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose tilted. Lycaon (talk) 16:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
    There's nothig I can do, it's a typographical error. Only the upper border and the top and bottom margin of the images are a little bit tilted. Side and bottom borders and left and right margins are straight. --Alex:D (talk) 21:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
    Pity, nice image otherwise. Lycaon (talk) 05:56, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Agree with Romwriter (talk · contribs) – a very valuable picture. --odder 22:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality and historical value, reminds me of The Jungle. Cirt (talk) 06:22, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support When this type of image it's important to respect the technical limitations of the era. A very slight tilt of tenths or hundredths of a degree often occurs. When restoring, I'll correct for errors that result when a brittle document cannot lie flat, but I'll leave this kind of slight misalignment. It's truer to the period to retain these little hints that the work was done by hand rather than automated. Durova (talk) 10:24, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

  Oppose titled. Канопус Киля (talk) 21:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

result: 10 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer (talk) 13:39, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Aeshna cyanea freshly slipped Q1.jpg, featuredEdit

 

  •   Info Aeshna cyanea freshly slipped on a Equisetum arvense
  •   Info created, uploaded and nominated by -- Böhringer (talk) 20:00, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Böhringer (talk) 20:00, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support wow wow wow wow !!!!! Benh (talk) 20:57, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Definitely. Too bad this version doesn't show the time needed for transformation. --Alex:D (talk) 22:06, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support J-Luc (talk) 08:13, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Wow, what a great series! I'm just wondering, did you keep the white-balance constant for all shots? --Chmehl (talk) 08:36, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
ja --Böhringer (talk) 20:09, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. Then it is the different lighting that changes during daytime that we can see in the pictures. --Chmehl (talk) 20:21, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Supergeil --Richard Bartz (talk) 10:45, 27 July 2008 (UTC) *** und das von dir :-) danke (Böhringer)
  •   Support Nominated the other version at en Wikipedia Muhammad 16:34, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Great work - Keta (talk) 17:48, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Very nice. :) -- Laitche (talk) 21:05, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support nice story --Simonizer (talk) 21:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Great job. --Karelj (talk) 14:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support well done. —αἰτίας discussion 16:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Strong support Craziest shit I've seen in a long time! Picture of The Year material. –Dilaudid 19:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support The scariest thing I've ever seen. Incredible. --Silfiriel (talk) Log in to vote! --Simonizer (talk) 00:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)Now I did! --Silfiriel
  •     Awesome!

Alvaro qc (talk) 04:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

  •   Support Very nice series! - TheWB (talk) 12:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support - great work. Jonathunder (talk) 03:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support--libertad0 ॐ (talk) 20:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support - great job! --Micha L. Rieser (talk) 00:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Great value and sharp. Cirt (talk) 06:21, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Excellent. The other version is more educational, but this one is easier to view. It's a toss-up. Both are FP material. -- Ram-Man 19:51, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Lycaon (talk) 08:52, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --S23678 (talk) 00:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support very clear and sharp photo, and wonderful encyclopaedic material as well!!! SriMesh | talk 04:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   SupportWow, great shots! ;-) - Giacomo1970 (talk) 17:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Brilliant. Plani (talk) 06:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
result: 26 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer (talk) 13:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Lock on the Cayuga-Seneca Canal.jpgEdit

 

  •   Info A lock on the Cayuga-Seneca Canal. Created by Kathleen Conklin - uploaded by Natl1 - nominated by Natl1 -- Natl1 (talk) 21:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Natl1 (talk) 21:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Quite good, but it could be better. --Aktron (talk) 22:25, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Over saturated. -- carol (talk) 23:06, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Carol --S23678 (talk) 19:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The subject of the picture is the lock. But this is actually not visible. I'd prefer a picture where you can see the closing doors of the lock for example. --AngMoKio (talk) 19:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Natl1 (talk) 21:45, 4 August 2008 (UTC).

Image:Anolis equestris - bright full.jpgEdit

 

  •   Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Ianaré Sévi
  •   Support some people wanted full body rather than cropped ... --Ianare (talk) 03:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose distracting background --Simonizer (talk) 11:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   I withdraw my nomination Sorry, thought the other one didn't make it ... this one isn't as good anyway. Ianare (talk) 13:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Wishie.jpgEdit

 

  •   Info created by SriMesh - uploaded by SriMesh - nominated by User:SriMesh -- SriMesh | talk 23:37, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support -- A large puff-ball wishie of the Western Salsify Tragopogon dubius showing the achenes with their feathery pappus. Cropped from
     
    Larger pic
    ‎ Feel it is as sharp, and as wonderful a picture as this previously featured image of a small wishie at Image:Dandelion clock.jpg (Wishie, clock or Blow-ball. The flower head matures into a spherical "clock" (also known as a "wishie") containing many single-seeded fruits (achenes). Each achene is attached to a pappus of fine hairs, which enable wind-aided dispersal over long distances. )SriMesh | talk 23:37, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because it is 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.

--S23678 (talk) 00:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Checked the page you referred to. Size should be 2 Mega pixels according to guidelines, my adobe photoshop program says this cropped version is 2.09 Megapixels in size.SriMesh | talk 02:09, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
  • The cropped version is 882x828 px = 0.73 Mpx and the uncropped is 3.78 Mpx... I don't know where you got that 2.09 Mpx. --S23678 (talk) 03:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
  Comment 882 × 828 pixels which should equal ~ .7 pixels. In my opinion, the camera manufacturers have done a dis-service to their customers selling cameras according to "mega-pixels" when it is just more honest and a less used lingo to say the largest pixel area that can be obtained from that camera. Photoshop is telling you how much disc space that image is taking and how much needs to be downloaded to display in internet connections. Also, I tried this before, claiming the disc spaced used definition of file size instead of the area measurement of the file size. (size hint: 1200 x 1600 pixels is too small for the nit-picker(s) here, whose personal camera makes larger photographs than that.) -- carol (talk) 03:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Ok Dokey. Now that I understand that ( I think ) a bit better, I believe this image fits the photo size requirements. I get 2240532 pixels, so I could crop it in a bit more yet. The image still is in focus, and shows the awesome detail of the achenes with their feathery pappus....
 
Wishie from next image on camera hard drive
.

  SriMesh .

Image:Geum triflorum.jpgEdit

   

Original

 
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because the main subject is obstructed and the composition is weak in its symmetry. 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.

––Dilaudid 07:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Cropped version

 
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because the main subject is obstructed and the composition is weak in its symmetry. 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.

––Dilaudid 07:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

  SriMesh .

Image:Warszawa-pod Blachą.jpg, not featuredEdit

 

  •   Info created,uploaded and nominated by Sfu (talk) 07:25, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Simonizer (talk) 21:22, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Question Was this nominated before? Maybe same subject but different user. I seem to remember this shot though. --Dori - Talk 03:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
    I think you do remember the QI nomination from april. --Sfu (talk) 05:24, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support I like the light. Ziga (talk) 08:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nice quality and lighting, unfortunately no wow enough for me, sorry. - Keta (talk) 10:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose As above. --Karelj (talk) 14:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per above, additionally technically not that good at full resolution. Altogether not good enough. —αἰτίας discussion 16:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Impressive and well depicted. –Dilaudid 19:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support any vote please --Sfu (talk) 13:37, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Tilt --S23678 (talk) 15:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Bad quality,light. Канопус Киля (talk) 21:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
result: 4 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 08:53, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Weinberg-Ipsheim-BurgHoheneck SK 0001.jpg, featuredEdit

 

  •   Info created, uploaded and nominated by Simonizer (talk) 12:21, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Simonizer (talk) 12:21, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Very nice composition, a bit dark on the foreground, but good enough for me. - Keta (talk) 10:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too dark. --Karelj (talk) 14:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support very good composition; nice picture. Well done. —αἰτίας discussion 16:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support -- TheWB (talk) 17:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Alvaro qc (talk) 20:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Very nice composition and weather conditions ; ) --S23678 (talk) 13:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too dark. An FP should already wow as a thumb, this one only does at full res. Lycaon (talk) 16:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Very nice and beautiful light. /Daniel78 (talk) 21:42, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support It is dark. But beautiful in its darkness. --Aktron (talk) 13:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Due mainly to the excellent composition. -- Ram-Man 19:52, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Neutral It is dark, but it composed very nicely. --MacMad (talk) 05:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
result: 9 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Simonizer (talk) 08:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Donostia Igeldotik.jpg, featuredEdit

 

  •   Info created, uploaded and nominated by Keta -- Keta (talk) 17:46, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Info Panoramic image of the city of Donostia from top of mount Igeldo. - Keta (talk) 17:46, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Keta (talk) 17:46, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Simonizer (talk) 08:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Grandísima la foto. Estoymuybueno 12:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support good picture, well done. —αἰτίας discussion 16:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support - TheWB (talk) 18:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Alvaro qc (talk) 04:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support, beautiful composition. --Aqwis (talk) 12:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice place, nice panorama! -Tobi 87 (talk) 13:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Not technically perfect, but great colors and composition. --S23678 (talk) 13:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Love the Panorama! Bidgee (talk) 13:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Picturesque and beautiful. Cirt (talk) 06:20, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support nice colors --Böhringer (talk) 21:23, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Wow mitigates minor technical issues. It looks the way I remember it, though the sea was quite a bit rougher last time ;-). Lycaon (talk) 08:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer (talk) 08:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Matterhorn (from Gornergrat train).jpgEdit

 

  •   InfoView on the Matterhorn from the Gornergratbahn, Switzerland. Created, uploaded and nominated by Lycaon (talk) 20:19, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Lycaon (talk) 20:19, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Not so bad, but I think it is quite dark. --Aktron (talk) 22:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Some colour correction could improve this picture --Simonizer (talk) 11:42, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Great subject, but a bit too dark. Here's a FP of the Matterhorn (Deletion Candidate IMO), but with better exposure. --S23678 (talk) 15:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   I withdraw my nomination ...this version ;-). Lycaon (talk) 16:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Well if you are fixing it, perhaps you can also straighten the photo. Matterhorn seems to be leaning to the left. Maybe it's the way it is, but it doesn't look leaned on chocolates :). Ok I am not joking, I just rotate it a little to the right and it looks much better. However, at full size, it looks really blurry, nothing is sharp enough. --Silfiriel (talk) 20:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Stamford Bridge stadium.jpg

Image:High-Resolution Iris Picture.jpgEdit

 

 
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because of the burnt out area. 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.

––Dilaudid 07:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:jolie-maison-morbihan.jpgEdit

 

 
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because of overexposed highlights and tilt. 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.

Dilaudid 07:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Vancouver dusk pano.jpg, featuredEdit

 

  •   Info created by Mfield - uploaded by Mfield - nominated by Mfield -- Mfield (talk) 01:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Mfield (talk) 01:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Amazing sharpness, good job! --Dori - Talk 03:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Very nice, great detail. - Keta (talk) 10:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support well done. —αἰτίας discussion 16:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support - TheWB (talk) 18:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support - wow ! Peter17 (talk) 18:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Exceptional quality. –Dilaudid 19:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Amazing –Jontts (talk) 20:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support toll --Böhringer (talk) 21:01, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Quite Amazing! Full of wow! --IvanTortuga (talk) 06:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support, wow! --Aqwis (talk) 12:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC
  •   Support Fantastic!! If you geocode your picture it will be perfect ;) -Tobi 87 (talk) 13:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Question If the original panorama was 50000X4000 px (200 Mpx), why not have a final result larger than 10 Mpx? A 40-50 Mpx panorama would give a still very sharp 4-to-1 downsampling from the original picture, and would incorporate way more details. As well, should be geocoded. --S23678 (talk) 14:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
If there was provision for a non commercial CC license variant in Wiki then I would gladly upload the full size original. I will add the geocoding though. Mfield (talk) 16:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Extraordinary! --Alex:D (talk) 16:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Wow! --Romeo Bravo (T | C) 16:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   SupportWow!Exceptional quality--libertad0 ॐ (talk) 20:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Lestat (talk) 21:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Fantastic resolution, good in details, excellent quality – makes me wow ;-) --odder 22:20, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Fantastic panorama! Bidgee (talk) 13:13, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support I have seen many panorama shots of cities on Commons but this one is quite well done. Cirt (talk) 06:20, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Downsampling. :-(. Lycaon (talk) 12:53, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Very sharp picture all the way across the panorama, very awesome picture to add for encyclopaedic puroposes. ( Should also be a puzzle... :-) SriMesh | talk 04:49, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support a very nice pictire.--Pauk (talk) 10:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC) voting period was over -- Benh (talk) 22:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose, too bright sky. Канопус Киля (talk) 17:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC) voting period was over -- Benh (talk) 22:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
result: 20 supports, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Benh (talk) 22:15, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

image: TransAmerica Pyramid.jpg, featuredEdit

 

  •   Info created by The WB - uploaded by The WB - nominated by The WB -- TheWB (talk) 17:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support -- TheWB (talk) 17:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support very abstract. Great! --Simonizer (talk) 00:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Very good. –Dilaudid 06:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support I like it, too -Tobi 87 (talk) 13:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Comment Great composition. I will support if geocoded. As well, is this a stitch or a single shot? --S23678 (talk) 13:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Info Thanks for the comments. This is a single shot. How do I go about geocoding an image? - TheWB (talk) 14:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Here's how. --S23678 (talk) 14:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Done. Thanks for the info. - TheWB (talk) 14:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --S23678 (talk) 17:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support   --Kjetil_r 15:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support--libertad0 ॐ (talk) 19:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Both "wow" and extra ordinary quality. Great editing, to. Leo Johannes (talk) 12:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Great quality, sorta feels funny to stare at for too long but agree it has a wow factor to it. Cirt (talk) 06:19, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support very abstract --Böhringer (talk) 13:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support very good picture, makes me crazy and i love it :-)--HouseGhostDiscussion 23:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
result: 11 supports, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Benh (talk) 22:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Dendrocygna bicolor - Nantes 2.jpg, not featuredEdit

 

  •   Info created by Peter17 - uploaded by Peter17 - nominated by Peter17 --Peter17 (talk) 18:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Peter17 (talk) 18:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Info Composition seems slightly unfortunate to me, and the dark triangle at the top right is distracting; did you consider cropping the image a little bit as to remove the triangle and de-center the subject? Rama (talk) 19:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support I am not sure that the picture will become better if the subject is de-centred. It's leaning a little, enough for me. I like its look... I'm sure he follows me... Sémhur 14:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nice duck and composition, but no wow. Crapload (talk) 16:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Good composition and sharpness, but the loss of "wow" makes I rather would say this is a QI. Leo Johannes (talk) 14:13, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose No WOW factor. Bidgee (talk) 13:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose No wow, and that little plastic thing on the leg is not very nice. --S23678 (talk) 15:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose that plastic thing on the leg ruins it. Alvaro qc (talk) 08:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC) voting period was closed -- Benh (talk) 22:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
    •   Info it is a bird ringing thing, I don't see why it is a problem. It has nothing to do with the good/bad quality of the picture. Peter17 (talk) 18:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
      • Quality is one out of many aspects we judge for FP. Subjective arguments about the color, shape, composition, volume, and about the subject itself are entirely valid, and are actually what separates QI from FP. In this case, IMO, the bird ringing, by it's color, size and location, becomes the "highlight" of the picture, which is not good (IMO, again). --S23678 (talk) 19:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
result: 2 supports, 4 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured. Benh (talk) 22:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC) 

Image:Brinkhallin kartano.jpg, featuredEdit

 

  •   Info created by Dilaudid • uploaded by Dilaudid • nominated by Dilaudid on 19:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Info Brinkhall Manor, built in the 1790s, in Kakskerta island, Turku, is the first neoclassical building in Finland. –Dilaudid 19:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   SupportDilaudid 19:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Amazing colours, this photo makes me smile –Jontts (talk) 20:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Simonizer (talk) 21:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support quite nice, well done. —αἰτίας discussion 17:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support - TheWB (talk) 19:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support--libertad0 ॐ (talk) 19:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Great photo of an Historic building! Bidgee (talk) 13:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Done well. --Aktron (talk) 13:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Böhringer (talk) 19:08, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support, Nice coloring, interesting symmetry, also has value. Cirt (talk) 06:18, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   SupportLycaon (talk) 08:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Good quality, but no wow. --S23678 (talk) 15:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
result: 11 supports, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Benh (talk) 22:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Mlčechvosty, vlak na trati prvního koridoru.jpg, not featuredEdit

 

  •   Info created by Aktron - uploaded by Aktron - nominated by Aktron -- Aktron (talk) 13:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Aktron (talk) 13:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose, get closer! --Aqwis (talk) 11:21, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Comment I tried to, but the train was so fast, that I was even unable to switch to continous shooting. But after all I think the train is here depicted quite well. --Aktron (talk) 18:31, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Neutral This picture would have been perfect with a good motion blur. The train looks static, sadly. --S23678 (talk) 15:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer (talk) 08:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Shanghai scycrapers.jpg, not featuredEdit

 

  •   Info This is the picture of Shanghai scyscrapers — Jin Mao Tower and Shanghai World Financial Center which disappears in the clouds. It was really impressive sight for me... created by Lošmi - uploaded by Lošmi - nominated by Lošmi -- Lošmi (talk) 02:25, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Lošmi (talk) 02:25, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Neutral, not wery bad but noisy. Канопус Киля (talk) 12:18, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I don't like the placement of both skyscrapers here (too close) and colors of the edges of the image is also not very good. --Aktron (talk) 18:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   OpposeNoisy and composition. --Kolossos (talk) 20:41, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The Sun glares too much in this photo, making the skyscrapers unclear. --MacMad (talk) 05:32, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I don't view the disappearing building as an added value for this image. Composition at the bottom as well. --S23678 (talk) 15:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer (talk) 14:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Old Colonial Building.svg, not featuredEdit

 

  •   Info created by User:The Photographer - uploaded by User:The Photographer - nominated by User:The Photographer -- libertad0 ॐ (talk) 22:32, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support -- libertad0 ॐ (talk) 22:32, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Does not say anything to me and quite simple work... (seems to me) --Aktron (talk) 23:39, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose If you had a more detailed schematic of a specific building--particularly an orginal architectural sketch--that might help. I think I recall seeing some old plantation plans from Antigua that date from the eighteenth century. Tug on my sleeve and I'll see about digging them up--they need restoration, so offsite via Skype would be a good way to transfer .tif files if you're interested. Best wishes, Durova (talk) 02:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Thax Durova. Maybe by email? :) --libertad0 ॐ (talk) 14:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Simple cut-'n-paste work. Lycaon (talk) 08:25, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
His comment was an insult and misplaced --libertad0 ॐ (talk) 14:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Not meant as an insult, sorry if you took it that way, but all the elements repeat several times, so in vector work that is called cut and paste. Lycaon (talk) 15:09, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
I understand that sometimes it is annoying to note mediocre work, perhaps this is not the case. But you must remember to be assertive, this is a job and the perpetrators must be respected. I do not speak for this, but in general --libertad0 ॐ (talk) 16:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Background overexposition As per Aktron. --S23678 (talk) 15:44, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer (talk) 14:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Pittsburgh dawn city pano.jpgEdit

 

  •   Info created by Mfield - uploaded by Mfield - nominated by Mfield -- Mfield (talk) 04:53, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Mfield (talk) 04:53, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Bit windy up there? Parts of the image are blurred... Diliff (talk) 06:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose, parts of the picture are very blurred. --Aqwis (talk) 11:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose, I was about to support, until I opened it at full res... View, composition, lighting are beautiful. But right part of the picture is very blurry... Wind ? forgot to turn off any stabiliser ? -- Benh (talk) 11:46, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   I withdraw my nomination woah, hold on, I must have inadvertently uploaded the wrong version as I surely didn't mean to nominate this one. I withdraw this nom while I figure it out. Mfield (talk) 14:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Fultondesign7.jpg, featuredEdit

 

May can be sharpened... --Beyond silence 00:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
result: 8 supports, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Benh (talk) 09:23, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Li na 2007 sydney medibank international.jpg, not featuredEdit

 

  •   Info created by Windsok - uploaded by Windsok - nominated by MacMad -- MacMad (talk) 05:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support -- MacMad (talk) 05:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Econt (talk) 00:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support nice sports photo --AngMoKio (talk) 21:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Well done, but not outstanding capture. Crapload (talk) 02:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Neutral This image doesn't really give me any WOW factor but is a nice photo. Bidgee (talk) 13:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support, JukoFF (talk) 18:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Poor framing. Lycaon (talk) 08:36, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support--Natl1 (talk) 21:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nice, but no wow. --S23678 (talk) 00:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose, no wow. Канопус Киля (talk) 17:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
result: 5 supports, 4 opposes, 1 neutral => not featured. Benh (talk) 09:23, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Anse Takamaka-Mahé-Seychelles.jpg, featuredEdit

 

  •   Info created, uploaded and nominated by Tobi 87 -- Tobi 87 (talk) 13:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Tobi 87 (talk) 13:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Due to weak technical quality: Very noisy at full resolution. —αἰτίας discussion 17:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice composition. Barabas (talk) 18:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support - TheWB (talk) 19:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support At the first sight, the horizon seems to be tilted, but it is in fact not (or only very, very sligtly) tilted. Nice subject and composition, no major quality problems IMO. -- MJJR (talk) 20:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per αἰτίας. Noise and white haloes spoil the image. Lycaon (talk) 05:55, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

  Support cool --norro 07:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

  •   Support, nice composition. --Kjetil_r 15:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Romeo Bravo (T | C) 16:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support -- It's the clear water with visible coral beneath that pushes this over the top for me. Durova (talk) 19:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support--libertad0 ॐ (talk) 19:56, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose, nothing special. Канопус Киля (talk) 09:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Quite noisy, but my opinion is that the great composition (a kind of "wow") outweigh that. Leo Johannes (talk) 12:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support WOW Love it -- IvanTortuga (talk) 19:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Image has a WOW factor and also makes it feel Tropical location just looking at it. Bidgee (talk) 13:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support - I like the shadowing and crispness of the tree. Cirt (talk) 06:16, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Vassil (talk) 09:48, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Original composition. --S23678 (talk) 15:07, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support, Seychelles are forever. --Pauk (talk) 10:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, that's just what people fancy Seychelles are, but that's not what Mahé is, which is much more profusing. This picture is a poor reduction to an expected vision for holidays market. --B.navez (talk) 18:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
result: 16 supports, 4 opposes, 0 neutral => featured. Benh (talk) 09:26, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Lake Near Søvassli Norway.JPG, not featuredEdit

 

  •   Info Created, uploaded and nominated by Julioromano (talk) 15:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Julioromano (talk) 15:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too common scenery IMO. The picture is good, but the subject has no wow to me. --S23678 (talk) 17:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Comment It may be common to some (cultures, locations and nationalities) while others will travel thousands and thousands of miles to catch even a glimpse of something like this. –Dilaudid 08:07, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
  • A lake with small mountains covered by forest on the opposite shore may attract people comming from places where this is uncommon... but it's still a very, very common sight! Snow is uncommon for a great number of people, but a snow covered scenery is still a very common sight. --S23678 (talk) 14:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support -- This pic gives a feeling of inner peace. The exposure is well made, such all the areas result to have a natural tone. -- Ilfranzo (talk) 22:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose, I agree with user:S23678. --Kjetil_r 15:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The quality is not very good. The surface of the water contains artififacts and has lost a lot of detail. /Daniel78 (talk) 21:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose, I agree with Daniel78 and it also lacks a "point of interest" you can "focus" on. Right now it's just a horizon with mountains. --Aqwis (talk) 09:11, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice composition. --Specious (talk) 15:16, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support. It's a nice northern Lake. --Pauk (talk) 10:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
result: 4 supports, 4 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured. Benh (talk) 09:27, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Iowa and Nebraska lands10.jpg, featuredEdit

 

  •   Info created by Burlington and Missouri River Railroad - uploaded by Durova - nominated by Durova. Restoration of Image:Iowa and Nebraska lands.jpg. -- Durova (talk) 19:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Durova (talk) 19:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support - TheWB (talk) 19:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose no wow. Lycaon (talk) 21:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Yes wow – the typography, printing technique and paper quality used really are something to look at. Beautifully restored to near original form from the initial scan. –Dilaudid 23:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose No wow. -- Crapload (talk) 04:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Connection to historical event makes wow for me. Per my knowledge, Americans sold lands for low price to get Europeans to move in USA. --QWerk (talk) 12:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Aqwis (talk) 09:11, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Yes wow. Jon Harald Søby (talk) 23:24, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Comment Perhaps a valued image. /Daniel78 (talk) 09:14, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support From a historian's point of view, this is an exciting document. It's also a nice example of 19th century color printing. And the quality of the scan is very good. So for me it's FP worthy. -- MJJR (talk) 20:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
result: 7 supports, 2 opposes, 0 neutral => featured. Benh (talk) 09:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Chincoteague Pony Swim 1.jpg, not featuredEdit

 

  •   Info created by FieldMarine - uploaded by FieldMarine - nominated by FieldMarine -- FieldMarine (talk) 20:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support -- FieldMarine (talk) 20:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, the composition is poor Lycaon (talk) 20:40, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Question - What I'm doing wrong during the upload of my images? I added this one & the one above recently & the images look like good quality on my desktop. Am I doing something wrong upon upload? I agree, the pic looks bad as shown here. FieldMarine (talk) 22:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
    • It's hard to tell without having access to the file on your desktop. Not to let you down, but these two suffer from at least the following: lack of clear subject, tilt, motion blur, unsharpness, lack of contrast, poor composition and unbalanced colours. If the colour space of the image on your desktop is not set right (for viewing on screen, eg. sRGB), the colours may seem different on a web browser as opposed to an imaging software, though fixing that alone unfortunately won't make these Featured Picture level. That said I believe to be speaking on behalf of the whole community when I say that these are nevertheless a valuable contribution to Commons, thank you for that, and I wish for your continued effort! –Dilaudid 23:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Poor composition is a matter of taste and not a FPX reason. --norro 19:04, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
    Poor composition is a technical issue and as such a perfect FPX reason. Supporting just as an anti-oppose at the other hand may be less valid!! Lycaon (talk) 19:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
    "Poor composition" is certainly not a technical issue, it's an aesthetic issue. Technical issues are things like unsharpness, noise, and so on. --Aqwis (talk) 17:21, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
    Composition is not solely an aesthetic issue. It is governed by sets of rules, making it technical too. Lycaon (talk) 12:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
    The so-called composition "rules" are not rules, they are merely guidelines. Many, if not most, of the finest photographs the world has seen are not guided by your "composition rules". --Aqwis (talk) 18:26, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I don't know what this image is about. And I think the compostion could be better. --Aktron (talk) 13:48, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   OpposeDilaudid 21:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Comment please state reason for opposition as a courtesy to the author/uploader. Lycaon (talk) 22:18, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I believe I stated reason enough in my comment above. –Dilaudid 07:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Right, sure. I have a reflex posting this message when seeing an unsupported oppose. Sorry, wasn't necessary here of course. Lycaon (talk) 08:02, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
  • First of all   Oppose. The picture is just really nothing special. Second of all, there are pictures here FPXed due to "lack of wow". "The wow" effect a matter of taste. Scroll down and you'll find what I am talking about. There's something just wrong with the possibility that everybody can FPX, just hours after the photo has been posted. Maybe this should be done at least 2 or three days after the nomination and some votes have been casted. I am not saying this because my photos got FPX, I am an amateur photographer, I was pretty much expecting it, I am still learning -- Silfiriel (talk) 17:34, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose, poor composition. --Aqwis (talk) 17:21, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Quite obvious composition problem, FPX should have been left there. --S23678 (talk) 15:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
result: 2 supports, 6 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured. Benh (talk) 09:49, 9 August 2008 (UTC) 

Image:Basilica of the Sacred Heart.jpg, featuredEdit

 

  •   Info created by Dilaudid • uploaded by Dilaudid • nominated by Dilaudid on 22:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Info Basilica of the Sacred Heart, Brussels. –Dilaudid 22:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   SupportDilaudid 22:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Indeed good quality, but not that much wow... I can't descide whether it is enough wow... Leo Johannes (talk) 12:42, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Sharp, good colors and subject is looking really good. --Aktron (talk) 13:47, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Definitely! Jon Harald Søby (talk) 23:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support, great colors, lighting/shadow contrast, very nice. Cirt (talk) 06:15, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support--Luc Viatour (talk) 13:38, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support incredible photography. I also agree with the points made by Cirt Anonymous101 talk 17:59, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support, JukoFF (talk) 18:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:19, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support -- MJJR (talk) 21:29, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose, too unsharp for a picture of an object as easy to photograph as this basilica. --Aqwis (talk) 17:19, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Neutral The perspective is really nice, but I don't like the semi washed-out advertising about "Expo Da Vinci" --S23678 (talk) 15:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Good composition. I like the way up to the hill in the foreground --Simonizer (talk) 09:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
result: 10 supports, 1 oppose, 2 neutral =>  featured. Benh (talk) 09:52, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Environmental sculpture by Yigal Tumarkin at the city of Arad.JPG, not featuredEdit

 

  •   Info created by Michael Jacobson - uploaded by Gridge - nominated by Aviad2001 -- Aviad2001 (talk) 09:49, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Aviad2001 (talk) 09:49, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I think different angle would be much more suitable for statues or similar objects. This does not show the statue as primal object. Compostion like this would be much better and image I could support. --Aktron (talk) 17:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support, I completely disagree with Aktron. The angle in the picture he links to is common and way too boring. The people in this picture give context, which adds to the picture. --Aqwis (talk) 17:18, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose not sharp enough Ianare (talk) 05:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Boring sculpture (IMO) and featureless landscape. No wow. --S23678 (talk) 15:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 15:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Portrait of Jupiter from Cassini.jpg

Image:SF Fleet Week air show.jpg, not featuredEdit

 

  •   Info created by The WB - uploaded by The WB - nominated by The WB -- TheWB (talk) 14:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support -- TheWB (talk) 14:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, it is noisy and unfocussed Lycaon (talk) 14:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support I like it. Lots of wow and is technically very good. --MacMad (talk) 04:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Color noise, vignetting, chromatic aberration. /Daniel78 (talk) 07:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose And no wow. --Aktron (talk) 13:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Composition and technical problems mentionned above --S23678 (talk) 15:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 15:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Mount Everest as seen from Drukair.jpg, not featuredEdit

 

  •   Info created by shrimpo1967 - uploaded by Russavia - nominated by Russavia -- Russavia (talk) 18:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Russavia (talk) 18:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support My first reaction when I saw this image was "wow". Leo Johannes (talk) 18:23, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Noisy, lack of contrast and above all tilted. Lycaon (talk) 19:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Tilted, boring composition (50% of the picture consists of unspectuclar blue sky), lack of contrast, vignetting --Simonizer (talk) 19:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I consider the contrast as the biggest problem here. --Aktron (talk) 14:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Same reaction as Johannes --Gonzalo Rivero ><> (talk) 16:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Contrast, vignetting and horizon tilt (at the cost of a slightly smaller crop) could be fixed, I presume. -- Klaus with K (talk) 11:34, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I've tried my hand at editing the thing and provided our existing Everest FP as comparison. The shot was in here; the camera settings just weren't very skilled at handling a snow capped peak against a blue sky. Durova (talk) 22:56, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Comment An improvement certainly, but I feel the contrast is now on the harsh side. I know it is difficult through a plane window. -- Klaus with K (talk) 11:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Agreed about the contrast. I tried about ten different approaches with the histogram including different crops and automatic settings. This is where it wanted to go, but I wound up manually adjusting the foreground clouds and the background. Noticed the two existing FPs along the way. This has the advantage of a wider crop, but I'm uncertain whether the shortcomings make up for it. I'll abstain from the voting; mainly wanted to see the potential inside that original nom. Durova (talk) 16:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I like the composition, but has too much technical problems. Maybe a polarized filter would have helped for the contrast (I don't know). --S23678 (talk) 15:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Neutral The quality is actually quite remarkable for the conditions under which it was taken. I created version that falls between the original and Durova's, but in the end if the information is not in the photo you can't bring it out with Photoshop. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 09:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 2 neutral => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 15:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Poet's Daffodil.jpgEdit

 

 
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because too shallow depth of field. 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.

Dilaudid 12:44, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:WishieSized.jpg, not featuredEdit

 

  •   Info created by SriMesh - uploaded by SriMesh - nominated by SriMesh -- SriMesh | talk 04:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support A large puff-ball wishie of the Western Salsify Tragopogon dubius showing the achenes with their feathery pappus. ‎ Feel it is as sharp, and as wonderful a picture as this previously featured image of a small wishie at Image:Dandelion clock.jpg The flower head matures into a spherical "clock" (also known as a "wishie" or Blow-ball containing many single-seeded fruits (achenes). Each achene is attached to a pappus of fine hairs, which enable wind-aided dispersal over long distances.-- SriMesh | talk 04:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose sharpness is not enough for such a delicate subject - filling the frame would have brought out more detail. Mfield (talk) 18:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer (talk) 15:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Beaufort regiment de sambre et 1909 cd 1001.oggEdit

  •   Info created by Robert Planquette, and Paul Cézano, and Pierre d'Assy - uploaded by Rama- nominated by Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC) -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Comment I hope this isn't disruptive, but we have so many high-quality sound files here that I thought that it might be worth testing the waters to see if there's any interest in creating some sort of Featured Media category beyond simple pictures. We have Media of the Day, but that's no real substitute for such a project. I chose this one as the test case as it's A. Very high-quality for 1909, well-documented, and, to avoid Anglocentric bias, not in English. Anyway, thanks for your time. - Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because this is featured pictures not sounds. Sorry. 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 (talk) 16:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Which is my point: We don't have any sort of featured sound program, so I went for the nearest possibility. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Which is my point: Nothing stops you (and maybe quite a few would help you) setting up a featured sound program. E.g., recently Valued Images was construed and is now running smoothly. And BTW, I didn't think of your nom as disruptive. It's good to bring it to the attention of more contributors anyway. ;-). Lycaon (talk) 18:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. I just wanted to test the waters for such a project =) Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:A viev in the entry of Basil's Cathedral.JPGEdit

 

 
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because of technical reasons mentioned above. 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.

Dilaudid 12:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Emblems of USA 1876.jpg, featuredEdit

  Info Moving this back to top of the stack to give more visibility to the edit. Benh (talk) 10:09, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Original, featuredEdit

   

  •   Info created by A.J. Connell Litho. - uploaded by Alex:D (talk) - nominated by Alex:D (talk) -- Alex:D (talk) 21:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support It's a fine heraldic composition -- Alex:D (talk) 21:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Lestat (talk) 21:23, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Jon Harald Søby (talk) 23:22, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality and could prove to be pretty useful as well. Cirt (talk) 06:15, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Could be valuable on the original background. Lycaon (talk) 12:49, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Which is? --Alex:D (talk) 22:20, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose the federal seals at top appear to float in the air. I'm not sure why the uploader chose to eliminate the background; removal left a few pixels behind. Retaining the orignal paper grain gives a more authentic feel. Might support a redo of the document. Durova (talk) 10:14, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
The pixels have gone now. --Alex:D (talk) 10:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Changing to   Support. Durova (talk) 13:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
result: 5 supports, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Waiting for other nomination to end. Benh (talk) 09:51, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Edit 1, not featuredEdit

  •   Info Same image, this time with the original background. Very impressive... --Alex:D (talk) 19:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
result: 0 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer (talk) 15:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Church of Bad Oberdorf.jpgEdit

 

 
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because of unoptimal lighting, distortion and overexposed clouds. 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.

Dilaudid 12:36, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Pszczew kosciol wisnia6522.jpg, not featuredEdit

 

  •   Info created, uploaded and nominated by Wisnia6522 -- Wisnia6522 (talk) 09:18, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Wisnia6522 (talk) 09:18, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Aktron (talk) 13:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC) Good pic, man.
  •   Support -- MJJR (talk) 21:25, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support clear, sharp and crisp. Cirt (talk) 22:41, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Good composition, but technically insufficient. Needs a bit of noise reduction in the sky, is not sharp and has a lot of CA fringing. Lycaon (talk) 08:31, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Comment Should be goecoded --S23678 (talk) 15:26, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Not bad, but missing that little something... Quite subjective, I agree. --S23678 (talk) 19:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Shadows, and general image quality. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:16, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nice work, but not enough wow for a featured picture. Barabas (talk) 19:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 09:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:2008-07-23 VW Golf crossing railroad in Durham.jpg, not featuredEdit

 

  •   Comment please state reason for opposition as a courtesy to the author/uploader. Lycaon (talk) 19:28, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose A skilled example of panning, but put to a confusing use. Not enough motion blur to diminish the unpleasant background. Durova (talk) 10:00, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Concur with Durova - the background is blurred enough to be disorienting and not enough to seem smooth. Nice work, though - were you actually standing on the tracks? Shimgray (talk) 18:40, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
  Comment I was standing on the tracks. Is there an easier way to do this? I actually meant the background to be recognisable, as it is historic downtown Durham (North Carolina). I suppose the setting may not mean much if you're not local. Here's a shot from when I finally figured out how to hold the camera still. By the way, thanks for all the wonderful feedback, guys! --Specious (talk) 03:59, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Alvaro qc (talk) 05:26, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Good technically (motion blur, sharpness), but no wow from the subject. --S23678 (talk) 15:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose As above. --Karelj (talk) 16:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others. –Dilaudid 12:50, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
result: 3 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 09:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:The East Moscow in Night.JPG, not featuredEdit

 

This is a view on The East Part Of Moscow - at the night. The beatiful view on streets and districts of large city in Europe. Канопус Киля (talk) 18:42, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

  •   Oppose. ISO 1600 ruins the image, as well as the 1,3 s shutter speed. ISO 100 and 2-6 s shutter would make this image much better (like this example). --Aktron (talk) 18:58, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support, JukoFF (talk) 18:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Insufficient technical qualities and basically, just a picture of a car park at night... Lycaon (talk) 08:28, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose agree with Lycaon. Alvaro qc (talk) 05:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The parking lot is the main subject here... Not FP --S23678 (talk) 15:37, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose just a night snapshot --Simonizer (talk) 09:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose as per others. –Dilaudid 12:49, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 6 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 09:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:MC Drei-Finger-Faultier.jpgEdit

     

Original, featuredEdit

  •   Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Chmehl -- Chmehl (talk) 15:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support A Three-toed-sloth in the rather dark jungle of Costa Rica. -- Chmehl (talk) 15:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support I feel lighting could have helped you a little bit more (background is a bit bright compared to main subject), but it still looks good. -- Benh (talk) 21:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Econt (talk) 19:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice sharpness on the hand. Cirt (talk) 19:36, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Ack Benh - Keta (talk) 10:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Karelj (talk) 14:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support--libertad0 ॐ (talk) 20:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose, out of focus. Канопус Киля (talk) 09:56, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Lycaon (talk) 10:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose dont like the background --Simonizer (talk) 18:15, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
result: 8 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer (talk) 08:56, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

edited version, not featuredEdit

  •   Info I have now ligthed the image a little. Leo Johannes (talk) 13:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Question are you withdrawing the original version or what? -- carol (talk) 22:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I think the edited version has a bit better details in the shadows but less contrast, so I am not withdrawing the original version. I still prefer the original. Thanks for your effort Leo. -- Chmehl (talk) 05:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
No problem :-). I am not used to Commons, I didn't really know how to present the edited version (what I should do). Leo Johannes (talk) 08:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
result: 0 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer (talk) 13:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

edit 2, not featuredEdit

  •   Info by Lycaon (talk) 10:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Lycaon (talk) 10:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support I think this edit is superior to my original. Let's see if it gets more support votes than the original. Thanks for the editing by the way! Chmehl (talk) 20:43, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Agree with Chmehl --S23678 (talk) 00:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose same as above --Simonizer (talk) 08:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support It is better. Barabas (talk) 00:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Comment I took the liberty to move this candidate to the top to get more opinions on the edit. Crapload (talk) 16:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support prefer this edit -- Klaus with K (talk) 19:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Aqwis (talk) 11:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Surprisingly better ! some strange artifacts on dark areas, but minor issues -- Benh (talk) 19:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (other version has more support votes) Simonizer (talk) 09:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Eastern Tiger Swallowtail Papilio glaucus Female 2838px.jpg, featuredEdit

 

  •   Info Created, uploaded, and nominated by Ram-Man. 01:54, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support It's more artistic than my typical butterfly photos. Of course it is naturally valuable for our projects. -- Ram-Man 01:54, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Beautiful. /Daniel78 (talk) 09:05, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Gorgeous. Vassil (talk) 09:43, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice --mardetanha (talk) 11:24, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose, nothitg WOW. Канопус Киля (talk) 12:19, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Wow! --Luc Viatour (talk) 13:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Looks great. No problems with noise and the butterfly is sharp. --Aktron (talk) 18:36, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice --Böhringer (talk) 21:17, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support great framing and colors. Cirt (talk) 22:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support, wow! --Aqwis (talk) 17:16, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Neutral. Not bad, but doesn't wow me: Better resolutuion. --Dschwen (talk) 03:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Alvaro qc (talk) 05:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support That's a wow from me. --S23678 (talk) 00:16, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Truly wonderful. SriMesh | talk 04:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Neutral great picture but the head of the butterfly should be in focus too! IMO --Simonizer (talk) 09:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support. Yes, Original ButterFly. --Pauk (talk) 10:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Incredible details on the wings ! It's a pity head isn't in focus. Why f/5.6 ? -- Benh (talk) 21:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
    • It just happened that way. The lighting was variable and the butterfly didn't stay still for long. I took some with smaller apertures, but this had the best lighting and sharpness. The lens I use maximizes sharpness at ~f/5.6. For me this is about the wings, not the head. -- Ram-Man 00:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support. Wow, man. Jonathunder (talk) 04:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Really wow picture of butterfly --Sfu (talk) 20:56, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
result: 17 supports, 1 oppose, 2 neutrals => featured. Benh (talk) 15:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Passo di Giau.jpg, featuredEdit

 

  •   Info created by Frisia Orientalis - uploaded by Frisia Orientalis - nominated by Frisia Orientalis -- Frisia Orientalis (talk) 12:20, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Frisia Orientalis (talk) 12:20, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Great composition, no noise, the rocks and clouds are great here. And the colours... I like them. --Aktron (talk) 18:34, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support good --Böhringer (talk) 21:15, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Quite striking, great detail and shadows. Cirt (talk) 22:39, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Good technical quality, impressive landscape. Lycaon (talk) 08:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support A good picture displaying several elements of the displayed landscape. --- Anonymous DissidentTalk 09:00, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Simonizer (talk) 10:09, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Neutral, the sky kind of ruins it. --Aqwis (talk) 17:16, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support That's the typical sky in the Dolomites. Chmehl (talk) 20:42, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support stunning picture, well done. —αἰτίας discussion 01:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support I said it in German, and i have to say it in english: nice work. --Pixelfehler (talk) 14:33, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Impressive view. --S23678 (talk) 15:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not enough wow. Barabas (talk) 19:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support impressive and wow --Sfu (talk) 09:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support I love the way the road swirls around. --Laveol (talk) 14:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Excellent job with them clouds – both mother nature and the photographer. –Dilaudid 02:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Anzee (talk) 18:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Sweet. Daniel Case (talk) 06:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Beautiful -- Jontts (talk) 05:45, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
result: 17 supports, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Benh (talk) 15:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Chelidonichthys lucernus 1 Luc viatour.jpg, not featuredEdit

 

  •   Info created by Luc Viatour (talk) - uploaded by Luc Viatour (talk) - nominated by -- Luc Viatour (talk) 13:32, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Luc Viatour (talk) 13:32, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Delightful composition, subject and colours but sadly very noisy. Lycaon (talk) 13:42, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
    • It is very difficult to photograph in water or in an aquarium because the light is low or water creates defects! It is an image of 3600 x 2000 it is possible to reduce and still have a beautiful image --Luc Viatour (talk) 14:19, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support -- FieldMarine (talk) 16:43, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose That is great picture of a fish. I'd like to support it, but the noise ruins it totally. --Aktron (talk) 18:33, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Le bruit est minime si l'on considère la taille de l'image. Très impressionnant. --S23678 (talk) 15:42, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Wow is definitely there. Barabas (talk) 19:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Neutral A great aquarium shot. Love the colors and detail on the fish. But the image is too noisy, as others have said. -- TheWB (talk) 01:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support this Fish! :) --Pauk (talk) 10:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Should not be hard to remove some of the noise, but until then I oppose. /Daniel78 (talk) 18:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support 2200 ISO... and it shows ! I'm surprised you had to go this high (but don't really know how lit was the aquarium). Fortunately you had a D300. Still a super catch to me ! Benh (talk) 21:42, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Heavy noise, CA, motion blur. –Dilaudid 12:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Karelj (talk) 13:32, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Great picture, but it's a bit too blurry. --RoFra (talk) 17:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
result: 7 supports, 4 opposes, 2 neutrals => not featured. Benh (talk) 15:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Napoleon's exile to Elba3.jpg, not featuredEdit

 

  •   Info created by J. Phillips (publisher) - uploaded by Durova - nominated by Durova. Restored version of Image:Napoleon's exile to Elba.jpg. -- Durova (talk) 01:59, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Durova (talk) 01:59, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Just another old etch. Do you plan to nominate The World History in Pictures? Lycaon (talk) 08:11, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Ouch. Is there an objection to etching as a medium? Durova (talk) 08:58, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
    • I think that would be cool. The World History in One Picture. Could we open a contest? -- Silfiriel (talk) 17:19, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Aqwis (talk) 17:15, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose No wow. --S23678 (talk) 15:45, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support - These sorts of things are very useful for showing the popular attitude of Country X to subject Y, in this case, the English view on Napoleon near the end of the Napoleonic wars. The art is pretty typical of that time, though not, perhaps, reaching the humour and insight of the acknowledged master of political cartooning from that period, James Gillray. However, Gillray was not that active by this point.
I realise that there's going to be more photographers here than historians, but do think through what would be lost by ignoring insight into popular views provided by this kind of work. Also consider this: The 18th and 19th centuries started with the flourishing of cartooning, then illustrated newspapers which provided engravings. If we accept that illustrating subjects relating to the 18th and 19th century is important - well, we aren't going to be able to do it with paintings alone, and we sure as hell aren't going to be able to do much more than the very end of the 19th century with photography. Political cartoons and engravings are all we have to choose from. Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support As a historian, I can agree with Adam Cuerden. Moreover, the scan is pretty well done. On the other hand, there are several hundreds (!) of that kind of Napoleonic cartoons; should we promote all of them as FP?? -- MJJR (talk) 20:32, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose, nothing wow. Канопус Киля (talk) 14:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose As above. --Karelj (talk) 13:34, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 19:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Alongtheriver QingMing.jpg, not featuredEdit

 

  •   Info created by Zhang Zeduan, 12th century Song Dynasty artist - uploaded by Daniel Chiswick - nominated by Daniel Chiswick -- Daniel Chiswick (talk) 01:33, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Daniel Chiswick (talk) 01:33, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose A much better image of this series is already FP here. Lycaon (talk) 08:17, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   CommentThe Picture that is already featured is the 18th century Qing Dynasty remake, which is much different than the 12th century Song Dynaty original that I uploaded. Also keep in mind that this painting is nearly 1000 years old and pictures of it of this size are very rare. Daniel Chiswick (talk) 09:43, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose reluctantly, although I supported on en:wiki. Different featured standards here: encyclopedic merit put this over the top on that project, but the technical shortcomings are a stronger consideration over here. If you locate a better scan of this original, I would support it. It wouldn't be an issue to me that a later dynasty's imitation is already featured. Durova (talk) 10:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support I personally think it's good and with the information given above it makes it that much better. --IvanTortuga (talk) 04:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support , WOW! Канопус Киля (talk) 21:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The current scan gives 62 ppi resolution. I think the value of this painting resides in the details. A better (higher resolution) scan is necessary IMO, even if it's necessary to split the image in 2 in order to achieve it. --S23678 (talk) 00:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Question Why is there a speedy deletion template on the nominated picture? --S23678 (talk) 00:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry but I think only a scan with 30,000px width would do this justice. The photo already exists, so it only needs to be scanned at higher resolution. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 19:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose This format of image cannot be seen well on screen. --Karelj (talk) 13:41, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Econt (talk) 00:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Good work, but I don't like these stripes. --RoFra (talk) 17:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
result: 4 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 19:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Displaying the Song chef-d'oeuvre in such poor quality seems to be discreditable for Wikipedia. Even unambiguously decorative black and white photos of this handscroll which one can find in the book by Bingjian Feng specifically entitled "A Genetic Epidemiological Study of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma", http://publishing.eur.nl/ir/repub/asset/10700/071129_Feng,%20Bingjian.pdf (in their turn borrowed from the Netherlands Optima Grafische Communicatie, Rotterdam, ISBN: 978-90-8559-329-4) produce much better impression due to more or less clearly visible details. It may seem worth asking for help from China with their numerous copies of Zhang ZeDuan being sold in each arts&crafts store. In fact, a resolution allowing you fo feel the original size would do only, so split into a dozen of 1-Mb parts, minimum is inevitable. Please start. Dr. Prof. D.Kivasipapu

Image:Ranunculus glacialis (habitus).jpg, not featuredEdit

 

  •   InfoRanunculus glacialis L. (1753), Glacier crowfoot at the Swiss/Italian border at the Grand Saint Bernard Pass. Created, uploaded and nominated by Lycaon (talk) 14:39, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Lycaon (talk) 14:39, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Looking good. --Aktron (talk) 15:06, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Composition - not cropped close enough considering how far out of focus the background is. I mean if its a flower portrait then they should be cropped tighter, and if it's putting the flowers in habitat then more of the background should be sharp. Or crop about 1/5 from top and right. Mfield (talk) 15:11, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Neutral I like it, but there are too much distractions in the background, which isn't particularly interesting.Perhaps you can crop it and still keep it above 1600x1200. -- Silfiriel (talk) 17:11, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Comment The background is actually part of the picture. This is a scientific illustration of an in situ specimen, that grows from 2400 m up to 4000 m altitude, often in the vicinity of glaciers (here a few meters from a melting snow field). 2600 m (where the picture was taken) is above the tree line, so a rocky background is very typical for this species. Cropping and/or resampling are non-issues for me: Commons policy is to always try to post the largest version available. This picture is very valuable uncropped (it is in situ), but as per the license, if someone wants to make a derivative for some specific purpose, he/she is very welcome. Lycaon (talk) 18:16, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Comment if that's the case, that it's intended an in situ shot, then more DOF would have been appropriate though. Mfield (talk) 23:26, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Hi, perfect like this. --B.navez (talk) 19:20, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support background is fine (shows habitat w/o being distracting), flowers show lots of detail Ianare (talk) 05:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose agree with Mfield. Background is fine to show habitat but then it should be throughout sharp --Simonizer (talk) 11:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Comment I can't help but discern a yellowish tint. –Dilaudid 15:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Common good quality image, no reason for nomination into FP IHMO. --Karelj (talk) 13:44, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose No wow.--Sensl (talk) 20:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 19:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Californian Condor 50 MC.jpg, featuredEdit

 

  •   Info California Condor in flight. Created & uploaded by Chmehl • nominated by Dilaudid on 19:26, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   SupportDilaudid 19:26, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Wow, thanks for nominating :) --Chmehl (talk) 20:40, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Well I think this deserves to at least be nominated :) –Dilaudid 07:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Great picture. --Aktron (talk) 22:29, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support didn't know there were condor races ;-) Ianare (talk) 05:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support sure, as per above. --Sfu (talk) 13:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Wisnia6522 (talk) 17:42, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support in flight! very good --Böhringer (talk) 20:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose, bad fone. Канопус Киля (talk) 21:32, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Lošmi (talk) 00:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Very beautiful picture, huge bird tagging on that poor bird. SriMesh | talk 04:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - I think the background confuses the shot, but that;s my personal opinion. --- Anonymous DissidentTalk 09:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Background distracting. The head merges with the ground. Nichalp (talk) 17:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Is it a racing condor???? so bad the numbers on the wings... --Sanchezn (talk) 21:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
    •   Info According to an ornithologist I met there, all the free living Californian Condors (I think about 150 at the moment) are numbered. --Chmehl (talk) 06:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I don like the composition with the head near the border. Give them room to make them fly! ;-) --Simonizer (talk) 09:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Not only an image of one of the rarest birds on the planet, but also an excellent quality image of one in flight. --Calibas (talk) 21:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Karelj (talk) 13:45, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support High quality, educational, fine composition. What more do you need? -- Ram-Man 00:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Anonymous Dissident and Simonizer. -- Lycaon (talk) 07:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support for wow alone. Gotta be there, flying higher than eagles. NVO (talk) 12:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Thermos (talk) 16:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Do not like the composition--Sensl (talk) 21:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
result: 15 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer (talk) 20:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:The Anatomy Lesson.jpg, not featuredEdit

 

  •   Info created by Rembrandt van Rijn - uploaded by Durova - nominated by Durova -- Durova (talk) 03:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Durova (talk) 03:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Question any way to remove the little white spots ? Ianare (talk) 05:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Yes. With historic paintings, though, I tend to leave that in because it accurately represents the way the paint has behaved over time. Durova (talk) 18:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Reflections. Lycaon (talk) 10:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose This picture is copyrighted (see the copyright page on the site Geheugen van Nederland [1]) and protected by the Dutch laws: Auteurswet 1912 and Databankwet 1999. -- MJJR (talk) 20:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Could you link to the laws themselves? I checked with three Dutch Wikimedians in advance of uploading to see whether Dutch law had any exception to the standard practice on derivative works of two dimensional artwork. This is a digitization of a two dimensional painting over three centuries old. It isn't uncommon for museums to assert spurious copyright claims that have no basis in law. If you say Dutch law supports this, we ought to know where and update our summary of Dutch copyrights. Durova (talk) 06:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
      • Whatever Dutch law says on the matter will quite soon be irrelevant, since consensus seems to be to follow the 'position' taken by the WMF and to allow such images on Commons even if local law forbids it. See Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag/Straw Poll. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
        • I'd certainly delete the image if local law places it under copyright. The relevant law in this instance has been researched extensively in advance. If you know of a law this violates, please provide specifics. Durova (talk) 18:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Wow! Barabas (talk) 19:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Alvaro qc (talk) 08:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Reflections. Канопус Киля (talk) 17:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support I can't see any reflections. /Daniel78 (talk) 18:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Ditto to Daniel. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Reflections and problematic copyright. --Karelj (talk) 13:27, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Thermos (talk) 16:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Lifeless colors, reflections. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 23:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
result: 6 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 17:52, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Emdenratsdelft.jpg, not featuredEdit

 

  •   Info created by Pixelfehler - uploaded by Pixelfehler - nominated by Pixelfehler -- Pixelfehler (talk) 14:10, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Pixelfehler
  •   Oppose Not a bad view, but tilt and not very sharp (given the downsampling) --S23678 (talk) 19:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support, a nice viewing. --Pauk (talk) 10:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Everything is out of focus except for the "Feuerschiff". For a deep scenery like this, maybe try F8 instead of F3.5? --JDrewes (talk) 10:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose While the colours are very nice, it seems too fuzzy for an FP for me. Also some parts such as the right hand side are heavily blurred, and it could use perspective correction. –Dilaudid 12:42, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose a day shot would have given less noise and better DOF, and i see no advantage to a night shot Ianare (talk) 05:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 17:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Lilium martagon Kakskerta.jpg, not featuredEdit

 

  •   Info Lilium martagon • created and uploaded by Dilaudid • nominated by Dilaudid on 15:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   SupportDilaudid 15:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, highlights are overexposed. Barabas (talk) 18:57, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Technically not bad, composition good and a not so common species in the wild. Lycaon (talk) 19:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support I like the look, and the image is of high quality and resolution! Good job! jakemaheu (talk) 20:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose technically very weak. DOF is much too narrow. —αἰτίας discussion 00:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose as per αἰτίας Ianare (talk) 05:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose A bad image of a common flower.--Sensl (talk) 20:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 17:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Blässhuhn Family6.JPG, not featuredEdit

 

  •   Info created, uploaded and nominated by -- Böhringer (talk) 19:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Böhringer (talk) 19:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Luc Viatour (talk) 20:33, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, but at full resolution, I find the image too blurry. jakemaheu (talk) 20:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, but the part of image is out of focus. Канопус Киля (talk) 21:45, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I really like, and I have no issues with the sharpness since it's a 6mpx picture (better have an unsharp large picture than a downsampled sharp one). However, the big bird's head is too dark. I don't know if this can be corrected. --S23678 (talk) 01:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC) ________ Forget my last, I failed to notice the heavy CA at the black/white interface on the face of the bird. --S23678 (talk) 06:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
thank you, but I do not believe that it does brighten head denm --Böhringer (talk) 06:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 18:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Blueberry Macro 1.JPG, not featuredEdit

 

  •   Info created by Jakemaheu - uploaded by Jakemaheu - nominated by Jakemaheu -- jakemaheu (talk) 20:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support -- jakemaheu (talk) 20:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Natl1 (talk) 21:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Looks like a 10 pounds blueberry at thumb size! but I have to oppose because of too small DOF. --S23678 (talk) 00:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose DoF too small. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The background could be far better, especially colour-wise. –Dilaudid 07:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose due to technical weakness. —αἰτίας discussion 00:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too dark, bad background, no wow. Leo Johannes (talk) 20:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 18:02, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Constantinovka Factory.JPG, not featuredEdit

 

This is ruines the factory in Constantinovka, Donetsk Region. Look at this ruines! This is a Donbass, very-very poor region in Ukraine. Канопус Киля (talk) 21:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

  •   Oppose Nothing Original. No wow.--Natl1 (talk) 21:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose, very interesting, but too unsharp and poor composition for me to support. --Aqwis (talk) 23:42, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose As per above. No geolocation as well. --S23678 (talk) 01:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose (formerly {{FPX}}) Lack of wow. –Dilaudid 07:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
  Support Ridiculous. --Aqwis (talk) 09:16, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support perhaps not wow but oow for sure ! --B.navez (talk) 14:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The type of topic that needs technical excellence to make it to FP, and that is unfortunately lacking (too soft, CA fringes). Lycaon (talk) 19:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Could be cropped closer. Try shooting closer with a wider angle lens. -- TheWB (talk) 01:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose low details, grass and trees are washed out --Simonizer (talk) 09:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support. It's interesting. It's a truth of Life. --Pauk (talk) 10:33, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support I love the composition, though the sharpness could be better, I think. There is definitely a wow for me, but I like this kind of stuff! --Specious (talk) 07:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Random industrial blight. I can't even tell that they're ruins, much less do I get the impression of economic collapse I'm expecting from the explanation. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 19:38, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose It's a too normal factory... --RoFra (talk) 17:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
result: 5 support, 8 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 18:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Impulse Turbine.jpg, not featuredEdit

 

  •   Info created by Wuzur - uploaded by Wuzur - nominated by Wuzur -- Wuzur (talk) 09:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too dark. ---donald- (talk) 10:46, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too tight crop. –Dilaudid 12:37, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose good for QI, but not enough wow for FP Ianare (talk) 05:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
result: 0 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer (talk) 18:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Sciurus vulgaris Turku cemetery.jpg, featuredEdit

 

  •   Info Red squirrel (Sciurus vulgaris) • created & uploaded by Dilaudid • nominated by Dilaudid on 15:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   SupportDilaudid 15:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Neutral very good, but not as good as the similar Image:Eichhörnchen Düsseldorf Hofgarten edit.jpg. Neither full profile nor full front view. --Romwriter (talk) 18:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Aqwis (talk) 21:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support nice. Alvaro qc (talk) 08:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support! A nice Squirell. --Pauk (talk) 10:36, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support. Very cute! — Kalan ? 20:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Cute, sure, but not as good as the other FP. Barabas (talk) 00:33, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Very unique photograph! --Specious (talk) 06:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Karelj (talk) 13:49, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose good, but not great; very common and easily approached subject Ianare (talk) 05:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support good picture --Böhringer (talk) 22:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose cute but not excellent. Not very sharp, unfortunate light and distracting background --Simonizer (talk) 20:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Oonagh (talk) 06:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nothing special.--Sensl (talk) 20:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
result: 9 supports, 4 opposes, 1 neutral => featured. Benh (talk) 09:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Water fountain 6178.jpg, featuredEdit

 

  •   Info created by Dori - uploaded by Dori - nominated by Brianga -- Brianga (talk) 16:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Brianga (talk) 16:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support-Nice -- Silfiriel (talk) 20:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Simonizer (talk) 20:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Atamari (talk) 20:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Sanchezn (talk) 21:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Thank you for the nomination Brianga. --Dori - Talk 22:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support stunning, great. —αἰτίας discussion 00:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Great capture! -- TheWB (talk) 01:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Vassil (talk) 06:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support, very well! Канопус Киля (talk) 14:53, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Refreshing. Lycaon (talk) 05:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Laitche (talk) 20:46, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Neutral could use a bit of de-noising, otherwise great Ianare (talk) 05:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Thermos (talk) 16:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Böhringer (talk) 22:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
result: 14 supports, 0 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Benh (talk) 09:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)