Open main menu

Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/February 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:Sausage making-H-5.JPGEdit

 

  •   Info created by Beyond silence - uploaded by Beyond silence - nominated by CarolSpears --carol 23:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support For the emotional feelings the image evokes; it is as much about the FPC experience was for me as any I can think of. --carol 23:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nothing interesting. Канопус Киля 16:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Interesting enough, but lighting is not so good. May be a good candidate for VI after tweaking levels and colour balance. Lycaon 16:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Comment Tasty :) Seriously, better quality, especially compositionally would be nice. Interesting catch, however. Freedom to share 20:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support I only noticed the lighting issue after it was pointed out. I like the composition and the catch, and the quality is adequate for an FP, even for a Kodak (which I normally abhor). -- Ram-Man 21:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose No wow for me, don't like the composition, and motion blur detracts. --Dori - Talk 02:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Motion blurs effets the sense of motion...--Beyond silence 08:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

  --Beyond silence 17:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:Sausage making-H-5-edited.jpg, not featuredEdit

 

  •   Info Edited: Colur balance, tilt, noise reduction. Created, uploaded, nominated by Beyond silence
  •   Support I don't have problem with it, but I fix a bit on the colour balace, only a bit because my taste think it adds a good warm for the photo. --Beyond silence 18:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support After trying to get the spices out of the filling; I reconsidered and remembered that I like the things that make the sausages so brightly colored. -- carol 20:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support As before. -- Ram-Man 22:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Question Did you realy adjust the color balance? I see only a small rotation. --Niabot 00:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose No wow for me, don't like the composition, and motion blur detracts. --Dori - Talk 02:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Awful. What a terrible bloodthirsty image. Канопус Киля 16:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
    •   Comment Thats not awful, it is probably more like offal and if I understand my food history correctly, it is one of the three or four non-French foods of Europe -- the French taught them how to make tiny pretty piles of stuff, put it on a plate and call it fine. -- carol 21:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 15:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:Sausage making-H-5-edited2.jpg, featuredEdit

 

  •   Info Edited2: colour balance (more green and red). Created, uploaded, nominated by Beyond silence
  •   Support Sorry for an 2. edit, I am a beginer in colour balancing :). --Beyond silence 23:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Ram-Man 01:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose No wow for me, don't like the composition, and motion blur detracts. --Dori - Talk 02:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose. Horrow image. Канопус Киля 16:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support just. Lycaon 15:30, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support in fact. -- carol 21:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support The colour balance just tips over the scale for an FP but composition could be better imho. Nice catch, Freedom to share 17:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
result: 5 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 15:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:Capitol1846.jpg, not featuredEdit

 

  •   Info The United States Capitol building in 1846. A rare daguerrotype of an important structure as the architect originally designed it, prior to multiple expansions. Clear, large file painstakingly restored from Image:Capitol.jpg. Created by John Plumbe - uploaded by Durova - restored and nominated by Durova. --Durova 02:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Durova 02:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice, though I think it needs some CW rotation. --Dori - Talk 02:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
    • I checked that about eight times and reloaded the original daguerrotype: the horizontal lines on the structure appear to be true horizontals (I was fixing this down to a tenth of a degree). Two elements seem to be giving it that off-balance illusion: the domes aren't perfectly symmetrical (the one at right has windows) the trees at right are more mature than the ones at left. Durova 02:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Based on some feedback at en:Wikipedia FPC it appears that we're dealing with wide angle distortion. It wasn't until the 1860s that lenses became available to correct this problem, and by that time this building was already being modified (the current dome was being built). So this is probably the best photo of the original structure we'll ever have. Durova 05:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Amazing. The question is: could I have done that today with my 350D? Freedom to share 21:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Yes, with a very large chisel to remove the new dome and the wings, and large amounts of armaments to fend off the security personnel who might not understand that your goal is historical research. ;) Durova 21:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Old picture in good quality. --Niabot 10:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
result: 3 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 16:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC) (Last vote after voting period)

Image:MonroeStreetBridge.jpg, featuredEdit

 

 
Version 2: slightly edited.
  •   Info created by W.O. Reed - uploaded by Durova - nominated by Giggy 05:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC) and Durova 05:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Giggy 05:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Durova 05:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --AngMoKio 19:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose compossition good, historical value perfect, but the light conditions are not good.--Juan de Vojníkov 08:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Johney (talk) 11:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support value --Beyond silence 15:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose quality, size (vertical is only 735!!). Lycaon 06:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
result: 5 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Mywood 16:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:chardo.jpg, not featuredEdit

 

  •   Info created, uploaded and nominated by Monster1000 08:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support. Thierry Caro 09:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support. GeeAlice 12:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose An aperture of f/6.3 is too small imo. This image needs a shallower depth of field. Freedom to share 10:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The quality is good, but I don't like the composition, I see it kind of messy - Keta 17:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support I think it's great! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 22:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The background is not good and it could be a little bit zoomed out.--Juan de Vojníkov 08:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose compositional flaws. Lycaon 13:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 16:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:Expirimental.jpg, featuredEdit

  •   Info created by Peter Klashorst - uploaded by TwoWings - nominated by TwoWings --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 10:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Isn't this picture useless? Noy 13:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
    ??? Well it may not be a featured picture but it's certainly not useless!!! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 14:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Neutral - The picture surely deserves a comment as the composition and colouring are fine (besides it shows a baby and I can't resist babies). But the other elements concuring to photographic quality (sharpness, for instance) are not good enough -- Alvesgaspar 00:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Surely a very featurable picture, touching, human and very artistically composed. Its technical qualities fit to it. Too much (for example sharpness) would spoil. And yes, this picture could even be usable for some articles ! For example about childhood or child creativity or the yellow colour. --B.navez 19:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support B.navez puts it well. I had been on the fence about this one, mainly because I wasn't sure whether or not I liked the lighting. It works. Durova 18:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support The image has all the esthetic quality of a featured picture! --Rampensau 15:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support--Plenumchamber 15:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support - excellent portrait. Anrie 22:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support - Lucipictor 22:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Mywood 16:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:Three chiefs Piegan p.39 horizontal.jpg, not featuredEdit

 

  •   Info Blackfeet Indians, Photograph created by Edward S. Curtis - cropped, cleaned and uploaded by Jaakobou - nominated by Jaakobou --Jaakobou 10:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Jaakobou 10:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yahel Guhan 14:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Dtarazona 14:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Valuable historical image, not because of its subject but because of the photographer and his role in the history of photography. It is pretty high quality for such an early photo. Freedom to share 16:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Dori - Talk 19:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support low res, but valuable, Ziga 22:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose low res, but valuable -- Lycaon 06:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Much as I would love to support this subject, this particular scan is grainy/artefacted and possibly oversharpened? Removing some of the noise is going to be the least of our problems. Better scan? Samsara 14:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support RedCoat 17:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Yeah, nice theme and situation of three chiefs, but there is kinda low quality.--Juan de Vojníkov 08:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Like Juan. Noy 13:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose An interesting picture, but the quality of the scan is not very high. --MichaelMaggs 08:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Terrible quality, sorry. --Beyond silence 15:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
result: 7 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 21:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:Consolation-Lake-Szmurlo.jpg, featuredEdit

 

  •   Info created by Chuck Szmurlo - uploaded by Chuck Szmurlo - nominated by Simonizer 16:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Lovely and high-quality landscape picture. I like the mood and the symetric form of the mountain and its mirror image on the right hand. The symetric form is disrupted by the stone in the water and the mountain in the background. That makes the picture more dynamic. The stones and branches under water give the picture a sense of scale --Simonizer 16:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose A polariser seems to have been used when water was in the image... Bad idea, imo. Simonizer, I disagree with you. The stones and branches do not add but detract. I would much rather see total reflections. Freedom to share 16:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
    • If a polariser was used to get rid of reflections, then there would be no mirror image of the two mountains either. You can see no reflections on the left side of the picture because there is only cloudless sky as a refelection. --Simonizer 18:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support agree with Simonizer analysis --B.navez 17:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Although I don't really like how the underwater woods and stones look, overall I find the composition very nice. - Keta 17:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Thanks to the stones and brances, this is not dull beauty. Samulili 17:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support very well composed! --AngMoKio 18:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose with regret, but ack Freedom, the eye gets drawn to the branches underwater and once there you don't find anything worth looking at. --Dori - Talk 19:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Very, very good! --Karelj 19:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Excellent - view full size Gordo 20:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support N.I.C.E --Richard Bartz 20:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support A nice scene. However, though it does add to the atmospherics of the image, the heavy dodging (or is it a feathered HDR?) of the rocks at the shore is a little too conspicuous - I'd suggest toning it down a little. --Fir0002 www 21:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose with regret. There is no single subject that draws the eye, and the centrally-placed rock tends to divide the image into two separate sections which fight for attention. --MichaelMaggs 21:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC).
  •   Support -- MJJR 22:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Pol filter could have been stronger imho, but a mindblowing image nonetheless. Samsara 23:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Wow, great.-- Acarpentier 00:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support. I disagree with the oppose-voters above. I like the transparency of the water and the “displaced” rock. --TM 08:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support great picture, i love the contrast between the surface and the bottom of the lagoon --Dtarazona 14:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Böhringer 15:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Great shot! RedCoat 17:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Dont know, if I can see into two dimenssions its strange for me.--Juan de Vojníkov 08:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support I just love this picture!--Lamilli 02:27, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support great composition, high quality; thanks for this photo. --Überraschungsbilder 05:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support My absolute favorite of all nominations. --Johann Jaritz 09:27, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Wow Rastrojo   (D|ES) 15:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose, the (almost?) burned-out part of the water is too distracting. --Aqwis 20:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support, lovely one and well composed. I think only colours could be better (more realistic). --Mihael Simonic 09:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Technically fine, but composition is confusing. Lycaon 11:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Johney (talk) 11:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Info I appreciate all the thoughtful comments. I can confirm that no polariser was used but I did use a graduated neutral density filter at a 45 degree angle along the skyline to deal with the enormous dynamic range in the scene. Compositionally, I was really trying to go beyond the traditional symetrical reflection shot by emphasizing the rock island and the submerged elements which I thought contributed a unique quality to the scene.--Chuck Szmurlo 00:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Gut. Gut. Nochmals gut. -- Tian.chris 14:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Bergwolf 20:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support - wow. --- Anonymous DissidentTalk 01:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Brilliant! --junafani 18:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
result: 26 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Mywood 21:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:Neuenstein Schloss01 crop1edit2 2007-09-22.jpg, not featuredEdit

 

  •   Info created, uploaded and nominated by Klaus with K --Klaus with K 17:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support as nominator --Klaus with K 17:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Gordo 18:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Please give reasons when opposing. --MichaelMaggs 21:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support -- MJJR 22:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Would prefer a slightly tighter crop that takes about 10% off the bottom. Durova 01:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Neutral for now. Quite good quality, except for the posterization of the sky. Maybe it can be corrected. - Alvesgaspar 16:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Stitching error on the castle's top right side. ----Dori - Talk 20:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Do you mean that S-bent in the roof line? That is real architecture. --Klaus with K 20:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Yes, that's what I meant. It's weird, I'll go neutral. --Dori - Talk 20:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
        • I have double-checked it on a stitch ingredient photo. It is the building indeed. --Klaus with K 12:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose weak sharpness. --Beyond silence 22:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Question is it used in any article? Could you link it? --Juan de Vojníkov 07:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Neutral thx. Its nice but there are several small errors. See the sky, see whats reflected in the water on the right bottom side, etc.--Juan de Vojníkov 15:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
    • I have to agree. It is a stitched image, with photos taken at different moments, and the clouds have been moving in between. No photo misalignment, but nature on the move. --Klaus with K 10:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 3 neutral => not featured. Mywood 21:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:Arcoiris en el Palmeral de Elche.jpg, not featuredEdit

 

  •   Info Rainbow over the Palmeral of Elche, plantation of palm trees in Spain. Created, uploaded and nominated by Josecarlosdiez
  •   Support--Jocadio 17:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Comment Almost identical to a user-submitted image on BBC News today... Freedom to share 21:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because too small. It is worth reading the guidelines before posting. They explicitly say that 1600x1200 is normally 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.

. --MichaelMaggs 22:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Galatasaray fire writing system.jpg, not featuredEdit

  •   Info Galatasaray, was wrote with fire in Antalya in Turkey. Created, uploaded and nominated by Striker buz matrix --  SBM talk 17:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --  SBM talk 17:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The image itself is very nice, but the resolution is far too low. --Katzenmeier 17:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because much too small. Images here should normally be at least 2Mpx in size 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.

. --MichaelMaggs 19:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Prussian P8.jpg, not featuredEdit

 

  •   Info created uploaded nominated by --Rabensteiner 15:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Rabensteiner 15:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Overexposed, poor composition, no "wow factor". Sorry, RedCoat 20:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Bad qaulity. --Karelj 18:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because overexposed 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.

--MichaelMaggs 18:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:Adm2.jpg, featuredEdit

 

 
For comparison, the unrestored file from a colloidon glass negative, 1855-1865.
  •   InfoAdmiral Farragut was the top Naval officer of the United States Civil War. This was the man who said, Damn the torpedoes! Full speed ahead. Another resotration job, and perhaps my most ambitious. The eyes fascinate me - calm and fierce at the same time. Created by unknown - uploaded by Durova - nominated by Durova --Durova 02:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Durova 02:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Could be. --Juan de Vojníkov 07:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Joonasl 08:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Great historical picture and good job with the cleanup. It would be great if we could have European historical pictures as well, if it would be possible for you could you upload some? (Churchill, Clemenceau, Lloyd George, Stresemann, Piłsudski etc.)Freedom to share 08:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
    • I'd love to. Copyright and quality files are often easier for U.S. material. If you know good sources for other parts of the world, please drop me a link. Durova 09:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support good. Noy 13:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support RedCoat 11:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support nice, even though it's a little bit unsharp (especially the face) -- Gorgo 14:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support very good restoration job! --F l a n k e r 22:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Mywood 10:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:Padrão dos Descobrimentos.jpg, not featuredEdit

 

 
Version2: Cropped from left for removing th half figure and washed -out colors removed.
 
Version3 by wau
  •   Comment I do not really like the way the row is cut off at the left. How long does it go for and would it be possible to retake it with the whole structure in the photo? Freedom to share 18:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Update: Now that Che showed me the whole structure, I think that it would be wise to only do a part of the statues, but I feel that you need to be a bit more careful and considerate with your framing. Freedom to share 23:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
    • you can see it at Padrão dos Descobrimentos --che 23:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Thanks. Freedom to share 23:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
        • I have tried to correct the washed-out colors and cropped from the left side a little bit in order to give answers to your positive comments. --Plenumchamber 13:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
          • Still too washed out for me, I'm afraid. --MichaelMaggs 22:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Dori - Talk 03:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - I don't like the framing and the washed out colours -- Alvesgaspar 11:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Sebastian Wallroth 13:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Needs some work with Levels adjustment to get rid of the washed-out look and to bring some depth into the figures. Also suggest cropping out the partial figure on the left. --MichaelMaggs 16:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Quality of image - too light, not enough contrast... --Karelj 23:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Beyond silence 08:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Comment Who is the sculptor ? (architect Cottinelli Telmo and sculptor Leopoldo de Almeida) Are you sure that according to the laws of Portugal, picture of this very monument is completely free and sculptor's rights are preserved ? Besides that, I find the picture of good quality but not really featurable, though the sculpture is.--B.navez 17:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
    •   Info - Yes, I'm sure. There is the "right of panorama" in Portugal -- Alvesgaspar 08:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
      • So Portuguese are smarter than French or Belgians ! For example, it is not allowed to freely publish pictures of Pyramide du Louvres (Paris) or Atomium sculpture (Brussels) ! If these are private works (though paid with public money), why do they stay on public places ? Citizens should ask for their removal.--B.navez 14:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Because there are interests related to the selling of photos and souvenirs... -- Alvesgaspar 21:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry but I have to agree with some of the other opposers here. Framing could be better. Freedom to share 17:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
result: 6 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 10:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:Michael J. Dillon courthouse powder.jpg, not featuredEdit

 

  •   Info created by DragonFire1024 - uploaded by Adambro - nominated by DragonFire1024 --DragonFire1024 23:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Because its the in the moment photo. It tells the story, has a good shot of the courthouse sign and the yellow tape is timeless. --DragonFire1024 23:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Note that it's not out of focus. It was a cold and misty/foggy day :) To remove it, I thought would take away the total effect of the situation that day. DragonFire1024 23:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Poor general photographic quality. Freedom to share 11:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose it is not so uncommon and selfdescriptive as author wanted. Next time it would be better to take the situation, dont try to prepare the situation. I mean to take a picture of reallity and not to arrange a reality.--Juan de Vojníkov 15:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Very out of focus. The courthouse sign not being readable has nothing to do with fog but only with poor focussing. Lycaon 15:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 10:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:Solenostomus paradoxus black.jpg, featuredEdit

 

  •   InfoImage of an Ornate ghost pipefish, Solenostomus paradoxus taken at Lembeh straits, Indonesia created by User:Jnpet - uploaded by User:Jnpet - nominated by User:Jnpet --Jnpet 03:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Jnpet 03:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Question Is it bioflourescent? If no, why did you take the image in the dark? Freedom to share 11:24, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
It's not actually taken in the dark. It was taken during the day under water. It was the first time I used my new camera under water and I found that for close up macro shots, using flash, the background became black where there was only water. I was quite pleased with this image as the natural black color of the fish made it blend in and only its fluorescent colors came through. I think it shows why it's called a "Ghost" pipefish. --Jnpet 16:16, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Sebastian Wallroth 13:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Thermos 16:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Bergwolf 20:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose -- Featuring a failed flash picture where you can't recognize the main topic??? It's beyond me. Ok, but still don't like a picture where you can't recognize the main topic. Lycaon 18:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC) It is a nice effect, but the best Commons can offer? Lycaon 22:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)?
I'm actually getting this one framed. I did a little check on the black background effect and it seems it's a common phenomenon when taking close up macro shots with flash for digital cameras. It seems too, that amongst professional photographers, there is some disagreement if this should be considered good or bad, where some are liking the effect and creating like images (mainly macro shots of insects and flowers), while others are completely discouraging this kind of photography. The fact that some professionals are embracing this as an acceptable technic, and pursuing the effect, it seems to me that it has some value and shouldn't be considered to be a "failed flash" picture. If fault is to be found, it would be that the subject itself is black and therefore blends in with the background leaving only the wonderful ghostly fluorescent colors. If the subject was more colorful, it would also have been a great shot. I guess in this case it comes down to taste. This one certainly had the "wow" factor for me. --Jnpet 06:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Interesting catch. Freedom to share 17:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Comment Fins and body are not visible. This normally is a very beautiful fish. It is sad that most is missing. It can't be used on a species page, there are better ones for that on wikipedia, like: here and here. Off wiki there are plenty more examples on how it could've been: [1], [2], [3], [4] and many more. Lycaon 18:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi Lycaon. You made it clear with your initial vote and reason why you didn’t agree to this being featured. And I agreed with some of what you had to say, but with the, (required for promotion), fifth support vote, you now seem to be actively campaigning for “oppose” votes to ensure this doesn’t get promoted. I don’t see you attacking anyone else’s images with such vigor, and I have been told it’s not personal, but I’m not sure how else to take it. Anyway, I’ll give you the benefit of doubt and assume you sincerely just hate this one picture. So, let me now point out once again that the image itself has no technical flaws. It was done with close up flash macro shot, a technique which some professional photographers use. It has already been pointed out that the flaw if any is that it blends in to the background which is what creates the ghostly image. This in my opinion is the “wow” factor. Now looking at some of your examples you provided, I agree that they have better defined outlines, but none of them would ever pass FP. Or are you saying you consider them to be FP material? Well, what ever your opinion might be on that subject, you have already made your thoughts known once on the image in question. I appreciate and accept that, but I do not appreciate you campaigning against it just because there seems to be a majority who also like the image and voted for it. If, in the allotted time people voted against the image, I would happily accept and move on, but I would prefer that people decide this matter for themselves which is how FP is supposed to work. I don’t think it would be fair if it get’s opposed because you actively campaign against it. So, thanks for providing alternate proposals, I personally don’t think they would pass FP. For the proposal at hand, I would encourage people to view the image and understand the issues as pointed out by Lycaon, but ultimately decide for themselves. Like it or not, it's a matter of taste. Cheers --Jnpet 07:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Interesting, but too abstract for me. --Dori - Talk 18:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
result: 5 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Mywood 09:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:4-14 Marines in Fallujah.jpg, featuredEdit

 

  •   Info M-198 155mm Howitzer gun crew of 4th Battalion, 14th Marines
  •   Info created by LCPL SAMANTHA L. JONES, USMC - uploaded by Kallerna - nominated by Mywood --Mywood 16:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Mywood 16:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I don't like featuring war pictures. Moreover it is noisy. Lycaon 17:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Neutral I think it could use a denoise and maybe a slight CCW rotation (if the horizon is a good indication). --Dori - Talk 18:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I dont like ugly projectiles and monster machines especially if they are embedded in noise --Richard Bartz 21:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Neutral A bit too noisy but I have nothing against featuring war pictures Booksworm 10:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support A good image, I feel that the noise is mitigating considering the temperatures there (a warm sensor is a noisy sensor) and the speed at which the shell is fired. I have nothing against war pics. Freedom to share 13:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --WarX 16:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC) Great :)
  •   SupportManecke 18:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Karelj 23:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support I saw this a few months ago. Ipankonin 04:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Neutral A bit too noisy --Beyond silence 08:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Great picture with great timing. Frederik81 10:29, 28 January 2008 (CET) Anonymous votes are not allowed. Lycaon 12:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I am against featuring war pictures! Furthermore the quality is not really convincing as far as noise is concerned! --Rampensau 15:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Anrie 21:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --junafani 18:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose noisy sky (In both meaning) --Plenumchamber 22:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
result: 8 support, 4 oppose, 3 neutral => featured. Mywood 09:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:Reed 3398.jpg, not featuredEdit

 

 
close up
  •   Info created by Dori - uploaded by Dori - nominated by Digon3 --Digon3 talk 19:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Good composition. --Digon3 talk 19:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Well, I was going to wait and see how it did in QI, but if someone else likes it, I certainly do :) Thanks Digon. --Dori - Talk 19:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Sublime. Calibas 22:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • conditional   Oppose It like the picture a lot but it needs a more definite id. I don't think it is Phragmites australis. Lycaon 23:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
    • I don't really know what it is, but here are some pics I hunted down of the main suspect: [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] --Dori - Talk 02:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
      • I can't see what it could be else than Phragmites australis. Species is the only one of its genus but phenotypes are various and natural range is very large. In temperate countries, like in northern France or Belgium, plant remains sterile so it might seem unusual to see fertile ears.--B.navez 06:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
        • I am not yet 100% convinced. (Though more so because of B.navez' comments). Could you a post detailed picture of the spikelets? I'll drop the oppose for now. Lycaon 11:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
          • I've uploaded a close up picture --Dori - Talk 17:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Excellent control of depth of field. Freedom to share 09:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Comment Do you think a picture depicting somethin we dont know could be FP? Whats its usage and benefit to the project than.--Juan de Vojníkov 15:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Contrast, detail. Colse up may better. --Beyond silence 08:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Bad quality of image, sharpness and another. --Karelj 19:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
result: 4 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 10:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC) 

Image:Nieuwe Roversbrug Katwijk.jpg, not featuredEdit

 

  •   Info uploaded by PPP - nominated by me --84.190.192.182 21:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

*  Support --84.190.192.182 21:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC) /s> Please log in to vote. --MichaelMaggs 22:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

  •   Oppose Nice lizardman, but this is not the best mural in my eyes and the picture Q is not the best, too --Richard Bartz 21:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Comment TROGDORRRR!!! Calibas 22:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
    • .. / .-.. .. -.- . / - .... . / --- ...- . .-. .--. .- .. -. - . -.. / - .- --. --. / -- --- .-. . / - .... .- -. / - .... . / .--. .. . -.-. . --Richard Bartz 00:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - nice, but there is no backgrount info and the idea is not juicy.--Juan de Vojníkov 15:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Very strange artefacts, visible at the bottom of the wall. --MichaelMaggs 18:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose bad composition, though the mural itself is interesting. agree with MichaelMaggs --Rampensau 15:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I don´t see anything special on this image. --Rabensteiner 16:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
result: 0 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 10:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:Grinding the sparks.jpg, not featuredEdit

 

  •   Info created by US Government - uploaded by Saperaud - nominated by me --84.190.192.182 21:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

*  Support --84.190.192.182 21:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC) Please log in to vote. --MichaelMaggs 22:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

result: 0 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 10:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:Lighten.jpg, not featuredEdit

  •   Info created by Peter Klashorst - uploaded by Lamilli - nominated by me --84.190.192.182 21:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --84.190.192.182 21:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Not logged in -- Alvesgaspar 22:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • {{FPX|not sharp}} Lycaon 23:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support I'm removing the above template. Although I don't consider this to actually be one of the best picture on Commons, I don't think that not sharp quite fits a 16 megapixel picture where individual pubic hairs are recognizable. If you want to shoot it down I suggest finding a better reason. --che 03:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Neither well composed nor well lit. Durova 06:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not sharp enough and ack Durova. Lycaon 11:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support I cannot see a lack of sharpness (neither in image quality nor in content ;) ). The strange lighting is part of the composition (see the image name!), it's art. Aesthetic art, not porn. One can see pubic hair but not genital details. --Katzenmeier 12:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose not a good composition.--Juan de Vojníkov 15:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I see no one reason for nomination of this image. --Karelj 23:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I like low-key pictures. It's a pity that the harmonic line of the Chiaroscuro efx on the mons veneris is discontinued on the right side ... and the background is a bit distracting. --Richard Bartz 01:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Beautiful! --84.190.244.253 05:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC) -- No anonymous votes, please -- Alvesgaspar 08:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nice, but not excellent. --Mattes 19:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose --Rabensteiner 16:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Comment please state reason for opposition as a courtesy to the author/uploader. Lycaon 06:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 10:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:RogerFentonvalley1.jpg, not featuredEdit

 

 
Orignal unrestored version.
  •   Info This is Roger Fenton's "Valley of the Shadow of Death" from the Crimean War and the Charge of the Light Brigade immortalized in Alfred Lord Tennyson's poem. See this New York Times article for more about the photograph. Out of respect for editors who might object to any alteration to this famous image, I'm submitting two versions for consideration. The original is marked. My restoration addresses the scratches in the lower left corner, artifacts along the bottom and left sides, clears dirt and dust from the sky, and adjusts the levels. Created by Roger Fenton - uploaded by Durova - nominated by Durova. --Durova 06:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Durova 06:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support--Juan de Vojníkov 15:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support The canonballs still lie where they fell.--MichaelMaggs 19:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)  Neutral now, for reasons given below.--MichaelMaggs 22:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Um...maybe not entirely...there's been a controversy regarding that and it's part of this photograph's fame. Durova 19:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Interesting. See here where the writer concludes that the cannon balls in the road have definitely been placed there for the photograph. Also, this is not the valley down which the famous charge was made. --MichaelMaggs 20:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
        • Given the size of his photography van and the ongoing danger, it's unlikely that he would have been able to get much closer than this. Durova 22:53, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Question Why is the file size so big? I feel that it would be much better if we simply downscaled the image a bit as it looks 'upscanned'. Freedom to share 21:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
    • The Library of Congress hosts a lot of beautifully scanned images with monstrous file sizes. Normally I bring them down to 3000 pixels on whichever side is longer for FPC nomination. This wasn't too much larger than that so I left it be. If that's a real problem for you then I'd be glad to downsample. Durova 21:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I don´t see anything special on this image. --Karelj 23:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I don´t see anything special on this image. --Beyond silence 08:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I don´t see anything special on this image. --Daniel78 00:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose why? It's a dirt road, there are a couple of canon balls that seem to be placed there, it's crappy low quality .. so why should this be featured? -- Gorgo 14:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
    • It's from the Crimean War - probably the first war ever documented on film. In the earliest days of wartime photography, bodies weren't shown. And a couple of wars after this when they did show casualties, it was always the enemy rather than one's own dead. And it's among the most famous photographs from that war. In order to record this photograph, Fenton had to bring along an entire wagon of equipment the size of a U-Haul and had to develop his prints right out in the field. That was state of the art technology, 1855. Considering how his equipment made him a target and the enemy position hadn't been taken and the cannonballs did reach this far, there was some bravery involved in this. It's the danger implied by this photograph that people reacted to, because they'd read Tennyson's poem and the news reports and they understood what those cannonballs implied. Durova 18:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
      • This might be the case, but I can't see any of this in this picture, after all it could have been taken months or even years later. I think a truly excellent picture doesn't need a huge explanation for someone to appreciate it's value and it's beauty. Don't get me wrong, it's a good picture and I really appreciate that you cleaned it up, but I don't think this is one of the finest images on commons/ever taken. -- Gorgo 03:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
        • There's extensive documentation of his travels while the war was ongoing, including over 200 photographs of the camps and his journal entries for his activities on this day. Durova 04:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Gorgo and MichaelMaggs. Lycaon 06:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose --Rabensteiner 16:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Comment please state reason for opposition as a courtesy to the author/uploader. Lycaon 06:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 09:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:Candles in Love 07406.jpg, not featuredEdit

 

  •   Info created by Nevit - uploaded by Nevit - nominated by Nevit --Nevit 10:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

  Comment ( Valentines day candidate)--Nevit 10:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

  •   Support Durova 11:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Interesting concept, but I'm not convinced by the lighting, and it could also use some denoising. --Dori - Talk 18:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Neutral - I'm torn. --- Anonymous DissidentTalk 10:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Mywood 09:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:GrouseMountain.jpg, not featuredEdit

 

  •   Info created by Ice-Babe - uploaded by Ice-Babe - nominated by me --Affemitwaffe 18:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Affemitwaffe 18:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Comment Needs to be categorized. --MichaelMaggs 18:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Categorising done. Great image, with nice sharpness, good composition and fantastic lighting. Freedom to share 21:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Nice lights, bit composition so confusing...

Sorry, you should try Commons:Quality images candidates first! --Beyond silence 08:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

  •   Oppose, oversharpened, bad composition. --Aqwis 09:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too many cropped/distracting elements for my taste. Nice light and technical condition, but only low readings on my wow-o-meter. -- Slaunger 21:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support I like it /Daniel78 00:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Huge wow factor.. i looked at it and was stunned for a few secs. Yzmo 22:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Bad composition, oversharpened and colortoned. --Herrick 07:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Mywood 09:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:Caligo eurilochus 3 Richard Bartz.jpg, featuredEdit

 

  •   Info created, uploaded & nominated by --Richard Bartz 21:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Info Owl butterflies, of which there are around 20 different species, are members of the genus Caligo, in the brush-footed butterfly family Nymphalidae.
  •   Support --Richard Bartz 21:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support How do you find butterflies now? Is this in Germany? Freedom to share 21:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support A good question :-)) --Böhringer 22:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Durova 22:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support A beauty, love the bokeh. Where do you take these that they look so surreal? Is it a park/wooded area? --Dori - Talk 03:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
The only trick is ... --Richard Bartz 09:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Lycaon 07:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --MichaelMaggs 07:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support, wonderful texture, colours. --Aqwis 09:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support - nice. - Anonymous DissidentTalk 11:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Plenumchamber 12:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Jaakobou 14:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Wow, as usual. ;) -- Acarpentier 14:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Klar wie Klosbrühe --Simonizer 19:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Bergwolf 20:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Wow indeed. --Digitaldreamer 20:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support I surrender. -- Slaunger 21:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice shot. RedCoat 17:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --junafani 18:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Thermos 06:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Of course,   Support. Канопус Киля 16:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Hugo.arg 14:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Away with words :-) --Spiritia 11:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Good picture! --Lamilli 18:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
result: 23 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Mywood 09:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:Musée Picardie Archéo 03.jpg, not featuredEdit

 

  •   Info Bronze statuette of the Roman fertility god Priapus, made in two parts (shown here in assembled and disassembled forms). This statuette has been dated to the late 1st century C.E. It was found in Rivery, in Picardy, France in 1771 and is the oldest Gallo-Roman object in the collection of the Museum of Picardy. the priapus found in Rivery, east of Amiens. It is the oldest Gallo-Roman object belonging to the Museum. This figurine represents the deity clothed in a "cuculus", a Gallic coat with hood. This upper section is detachable and conceals a phallus. Created by Vassil - uploaded by Vassil - nominated by Durova. --Durova 22:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Durova 22:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Museum pieces do not tend to move around and hence should be very crisp. The phallus isn't. Lycaon 22:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Indeed the phallus is not as sharp as it should be ... in the present controlled conditions -- Alvesgaspar 23:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
    A good candidate as Valued Image though! -- Slaunger 21:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 09:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose white balance. inisheer 09:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:Munich Olympiapark.jpg, not featuredEdit

 

  •   Info created by Lukáš Hron - uploaded by Lukáš Hron - nominated by Lukáš Hron --85.181.157.229 09:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Lukáš Hron 09:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC) No anonymous voting!! Lycaon 15:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Info Sorry, I am a newbie and do not feel to be anonymous though...
  •   Oppose, far too unsharp. --Aqwis 09:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Way too soft, even if it was taken with a kit lens. Freedom to share 16:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Comment I have the feeling that the pano is slight tilted/twisted --Richard Bartz 20:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I do not think the sharpness is that bad, but the horizon needs straightening and several parts of the subject is cropped. -- Slaunger 21:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
result: 0 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 14:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC) (Rule of the 5th day)

Image:Sandsteinwand..JPG, not featuredEdit

 

  •   Info created by Tian.chris - uploaded by Tian.chris - nominated by Tian.chris , 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Tian.chris 12:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose What's with all the fake signatures of this and next nomination?? Lycaon 15:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose not too extraordinary! --Rampensau 15:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Is that a tilt, barrel distortion or just me? I see little value or wow, too. The composition could also be more interesting. Freedom to share 16:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose This nomination seems to be not very successful joke. --Karelj 19:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Comment irregular nomination uploader/nominator is not who he/she pretends to be. Lycaon 00:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - not clear what it's trying to show, fuzzy and not so sharp. --typhoonchaser 04:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 14:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC) (Rule of the 5th day)

Image:Cirsium eriophorum05 sl.JPG, not featuredEdit

 

  •   Info created by Pinky sl - uploaded by Pinky sl - nominated by Pinky sl --Pinky sl 08:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Info Cirsium eriophorum (Woolly thistle) at 1300m, Slovenian Alps.
  •   Support --Pinky sl 08:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - composition issues, noisy. --- Anonymous DissidentTalk 12:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 14:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC) (Rule of the 5th day)

Image:Diedamskopf1.JPG, not featuredEdit

 

  •   Info created - uploaded + nominated by --Böhringer 11:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - the thing in the sky ruins it, and its not particularly exciting. There is also a bit of noise. --- Anonymous DissidentTalk 12:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose What is that in the sky? Unlikely to be noise at 200 ISO. Or is it? Freedom to share 17:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
    •   Comment Seems like jet contrails, unless you're talking about something else. --Dori - Talk 18:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
      • I'm talking about what seems like compression artefacts. Freedom to share 19:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
        • No it's just noise. I've gotten similar noise in the sky even at ISO 100. --Dori - Talk 19:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose It's noisy and also tilted. Sorry. --MichaelMaggs 19:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
result: 0 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 14:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC) (Rule of the 5th day)

Image:Theke 20071106.jpg, not featuredEdit

 

  •   Info created by Ralf Berger - uploaded by Ralf Berger - nominated by Ralf Berger --- Ralf 09:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Info This photograph was taken using the available light at the location.
  •   Support --- Ralf 09:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Very noisy and I would like it more if the bar wasn't crop at the left. Nice picture though. --norro 13:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose noise Template:Tyqi --Beyond silence 21:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 14:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC) (Rule of the 5th day)

Image:Swan - Roath Park Lake (Cardiff).JPG, not featuredEdit

 

  •   Info created, uploaded & nominated by Melliug 23:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nice atmosphere of the sunshine on the waves but bad composition with the horizon. --Herrick 07:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Composition could be better as could the lighting. RedCoat 20:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose. Bad light composition. Канопус Киля 14:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Comment. The duck on this photo looks as black hole. :-( Канопус Киля 14:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
result: 0 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 14:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC) (Rule of the 5th day)

Image:Mistletoe in a tree.JPG, not featuredEdit

 

  • I think, beatiful image - i tried. The sun is moved to Horizon, and the ill trees looks beatiful. The sky is blue. Канопус Киля 16:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I   Support. Канопус Киля 19:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose not sharp in detail and also bad compostion - if you have a reflection of sun on the branches I am missing a source or rays. Next time would be better to take it without this reflection and show just two spheres - branches and sky, in good light conditions or sharpe - i would call this "overadjusted".--Juan de Vojníkov 11:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Thank for tips, next photo will be better, i Think. Канопус Киля 12:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 14:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC) (Rule of the 5th day)

Image:Hip horizon.jpgEdit

 

  •   Info created by Pedro Simões from FlickR - uploaded and nominated by Katzenmeier - --Katzenmeier 12:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Katzenmeier 12:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I don´t see anything special on this image. --Rabensteiner 16:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Rabensteiner. RedCoat 20:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because nothing special... not FP-worthy 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.

--- Anonymous DissidentTalk 11:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:Baumundnebel.JPG, not featuredEdit

 

  •   Info Das Bild 'Baumundnebel' wurde im oberfränkischen Sauerhof, Deutschland, aufgenommen. -- created by Tian.chris - uploaded by Tian.chris - nominated by Tian.chris , 1. Februar 2008
  •   Support --Tian.chris 16:20, 1. Februar 2008
  •   Oppose Not bad, but it was taken too early in the day and also lacks sharpness. I would recommend a tripod. If you have the original RAW file, I very much recommend playing with the colour temperature and maybe the results will then be more pleasing. Freedom to share 19:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose irregular nomination uploader/nominator is not who he/she pretends to be. Lycaon 00:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 14:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC) (Rule of the 5th day)

Image:ZugspitzeJubilaeumsgratHoellental.JPG, not featuredEdit

 

  •   Info created by Nawi112 - uploaded by Nawi112 - nominated by Nawi112 The picture shows the highest German mountain, the Zugspitze with its summit, the Höllentalferner (glacier) and the Höllental. Please give me feedback on this picture! --Nawi112 21:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support I like it. Wish it had more resolution and you should add its coordinates if you can, but it's good. --Dori - Talk 20:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Much as I'd like to but the composition is not to my taste and the blue tinted shadow on the left side of the summit looks strange --Richard Bartz 21:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 14:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC) (Rule of the 5th day)

Image:LincolnInauguration1861a.jpgEdit

 

  •   Info Inauguration of Abraham Lincoln, 1861. A significant photgraph both for the event and as a document of architectural history. Construction of the current United States Capitol dome is underway, with the original dome still visible between tiers of arched columns. Photograph on salted paper created by unknown - uploaded and restored from Image:LincolnInaugurationunmodified.jpg by Durova - nominated by Durova. --Durova 22:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Durova 22:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Gah, you're right...too small for Commons... withdrawing nom. Durova 00:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Sorry... Lycaon 00:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because too small Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

Lycaon 00:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:Tara (Buddhism).jpgEdit

 
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because badly lit and tilted. It's too easy to take better shots. 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.

Yzmo 13:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:Indre Fure, Stadtlandet.jpg, featuredEdit

 

Ehm, its a thin snow cover in the mountains… ;) 87.248.30.1 20:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Look on the large cloud at the top and tell me that it's not noise. Freedom to share 21:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support This is what photography is about for me. A great photo..wow! --AngMoKio 17:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support I like this atmosphere. --Karelj 19:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Kjetil_r 21:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nice effect with the light, but I do not see what makes this image exceptionally valuable? Side-issue: I suggest to add geodata to the image. -- Slaunger 21:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nothing exceptional. Lycaon 22:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support---Nina- 23:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support, great light. --Aqwis 09:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --B.navez 03:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Beautiful, black and white, impressive textures --Dtarazona 17:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Not special enough to mitigate the regular quality -- Alvesgaspar 10:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support - Truly magnificent. Chrisglie 16:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nothing special, the only visible thing is the rays through the clouds, everything else lacks any kind of detail. - Keta 18:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support agree with AngMoKio --Simonizer 10:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
result: 10 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Mywood 12:40, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:US Great Seal Reverse.svg, featuredEdit

 

  •   Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Ipankonin 02:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Ipankonin 02:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Awesome job, but it doesn't pass validator of W3C: [10] --QWerk 13:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • All the pictures made by Inkscape are like that. Since the 0.41 version, "Inkscape SVG documents no longer include DOCTYPE declaration with an URI of an SVG DTD; this DTD would not be able to validate our documents anyway (due to extension elements), and was just useless." [11]. Sémhur 19:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • In looking around, it appears the SVG working group is moving away from DTDs and towards XML schemas. I think the W3C validator only uses DTDs to do validation, so that may not be too useful for SVGs. See here. I'm not sure if there is a good way to validate SVGs at the moment; the W3C looks like it has an initial attempt here, but the online version isn't working and the downloadable version still has issues with unexpected namespaces (which are the only problems it reports). Carl Lindberg 17:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support the Roman numerals are not exactly aligned with the bricks and the grass. (it's only to pick holes) Sémhur 19:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support--Beyond silence 15:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Seems like good Inkscape skill to me. Freedom to share 18:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support I don't normally vote here, but I was really impressed with this. If I had a couple of quibbles: the more recent tweaks added maybe too much grass; the area in front now looks like a mowed lawn ;-) The left side of the pyramid could be shaded a bit darker as in most other versions. But those are small things; this is a great job. Carl Lindberg 01:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Yeah I really don't know what I'm doing when it comes to the grass. I think it looks a little better now that I put a shadow under it, but I've known since before I started that the plants were going to be hard for me.[12] I've tried a few things, but I've never been satisfied with the result. Thanks for voting; I value your opinion because you know what you're talking about. Ipankonin 05:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
      • I like the shadows too. I think the grass itself looks good; just that one area in front now doesn't seem to fit a dry/desert area ;-) Maybe you could try going back to a scarred earth look instead of grass for that area, like you had previously (as does the source image), or maybe just thin the grass out and/or make it patcher. Or just leave it ;-) Carl Lindberg 18:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose no wow. Lycaon 06:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Correct illustration but not special enough for FP -- Alvesgaspar 10:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Neutral mhm, IMHO the frame around the seal shuold be flat and not rouded like it is, and the grass before the pyramid still not convince to me. Finally the image lacks a white external line around the frame. --F l a n k e r 22:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Are you saying it should be like that to be correct, or to look good? The frame and the grass are not mentioned in the blazon, so they can be completely different or absent and still be correct. Ipankonin 10:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Update Removed most of the grass in front. Ipankonin 11:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  Support Thanks, it looking better to me now. Changing vote, F l a n k e r 22:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
result: 6 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Mywood 12:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:Höckerschwan Cygnus olor 7 Richard Bartz.jpg, not featuredEdit

 

  •   Info created , uploaded & nominated by --Richard Bartz 17:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Info LIFTOFF!
  •   Support --Richard Bartz 17:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice catch. How is playing with the 70-300? Freedom to share 18:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
First i thought that i need a new camera but i came to the conclusion that the lens is doing the picture, forget about the cam. 70-300 is sugar ! :-)) --Richard Bartz 19:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support tolle Momentaufnahme --Simonizer 19:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)Changed vote to other version --Simonizer 15:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Image size small, too dark, focus not ideal. But not bad. --Karelj 19:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Bergwolf 20:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Small image size? Not in my book it isn't. Very nice. --Digitaldreamer 20:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Comment Marvellous timing. I like the small water droplets very much. Two things I was wondering about: I get the impression that the already nice composition could be improved slightly by cropping a little off the left-hand side. I may be wrong, but have you tried experiementing with that? Next observation: the left wing as seen front on - the three outhermost feathers are much more blurred/out-of-focus than the rest of the wing. I realize the DOF is doing much of this, but is it all due to DOF? The transition between the in-focus part of the wing and the three blurred feathers looks a little peculiar to me. Has the three feathers been included in a BG blur to bring out the subject better or is it all "natural"? Sorry for such a long comment without even placing a vote -- Slaunger 21:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I dont thought about this before, but i asume it's motion blur because the big outer feathers which are pointing to the right side are on the same focus-plane as the torso. So the movement of the outer-wings was faster than a shutter speed of 1/1250. If you think a different crop would help, why not doing a alternative version where Creative Commons is for? .. and always welcome. --Richard Bartz 21:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  Oppose I prefer the other version. -- Slaunger 11:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Klein maar fijn ;-). Lycaon 22:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Has good tech detail, but composition is snapshot and a very meaningless moment captured. About this view, the   other is better. --Beyond silence 15:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I prefer the other one too, which is more dynamic, with foot recognizable. --B.navez 03:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Comment Both are good, but I would really prefer the one Beyond silence refers to. --Thermos 06:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Spiritia 11:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
result: 6 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 12:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:Höckerschwan Cygnus olor 7b Richard Bartz.jpg, featuredEdit

 

  •   Info created , uploaded & nominated by --Richard Bartz 17:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Richard Bartz 12:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Agree with Beyond and Thermos. Ich finde dieses Bild noch besser als die obere version --Simonizer 15:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --B.navez 17:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Much better. Excellent dynamics. --Thermos 20:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support I think it is excellent, BirdFreak! -- Slaunger 23:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Excellent, though a tiny bit oversharpened. Calibas 07:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --norro 11:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Excellent work as usual, I see what you mean about the 70-300. What lens is next on your shopping list? :) Freedom to share 22:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I am perfectly happy. A 2x Teleconverter would be nice and thats all for this year. --Richard Bartz 02:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support too Lycaon 00:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Laitche 06:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Spiritia 11:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Böhringer 22:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Mywood 12:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:Höckerschwan Cygnus olor 10 Richard Bartz.jpg, featuredEdit

 

  •   Info created , uploaded & nominated by --Richard Bartz 18:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Info A resting swan.
  •   Support --Richard Bartz 18:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Gute Arbeit, Richard. Nice composition. Not easy to get that close to a swan without getting a bite. ;) --Katzenmeier 18:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I have bribed him with wholemeal bread ;-)) --Richard Bartz 18:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Very good work indeed. Freedom to share 18:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Bergwolf 20:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Digitaldreamer 20:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Comment and   Question Lovely composition and detail. One comment is that it would have been nice if the eyes of the bird were more visible (I realize that is hard, but then again this is FPC), like in that marvellous vulture FP of yours for instance. And I have a question: Besides the obvious beauty what is it that you find particular valuable about this photo? -- Slaunger 21:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Valuable ... i dont know if everything must be directly ostensible valuable, maybe this counts for Wikipedia or a functional picture (which i'am able to do, too). You can only show things and it depends of whom wants to see it. I am impressed by the beauty and the close distance, which gives that animal a subtle personality. I am sorry to say that the eyes of this animal are very black, shown here or here ... its hard to compare the red eyes of the volture with this. There are some circumstances, depending on the angle of the head where you can see the eyes more exactly. But for this the animal must look directly in the sun which they dont do frequently, like we humans dont do without sunglases, too. --Richard Bartz 21:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I did not necessarily mean functional and encyclopedic value, just how you see it as valuable for Wikimedia projects. I am just recalling the guidelines about value and that "beautiful is not always valuable". It may be in this case, I am unsure. I do see the point about the "personality" - it has this reserved, "stay away or I'll bite you look to it". Concerning the eyes, I am aware that they are black, it was more the angle of the head I was thinking about as you also point out with some good examples. Good point about the sun, and thank you for responding to my comments and questions. -- Slaunger 21:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
It extends the available pictures in the Cygnus olor category in an unusual and beautiful way, IMO. As you assumed correctly with "stay away or I'll bite you look to it", this 5 feet tall beauties like to bite and this picture shows it very well. I think it looks cute ;-)) -Richard Bartz 22:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Composition, shadow, dof. Sorry --Beyond silence 15:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose As Beyond silence. --Karelj 18:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Lovely portrait - Keta 18:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
result: 6 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Mywood 12:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:WiltedRose.JPG, not featuredEdit

 

  •   Info created by Lissen - uploaded by Lissen - nominated by Lissen --Lissen 19:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Lissen 19:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Bergwolf 20:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose no cultivar, species or even genus mentioned!! Lycaon 20:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nice rose, but I am not too happy about the front-on flash lightning only. It gives a non-delicate look to a delicate flower. Besides that there is the missing taxo-information mentioned by Lycaon. -- Slaunger 21:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Loses all value without taxo info. Freedom to share 07:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 12:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Museu do Ipiranga, not featuredEdit

 
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because much too tiny. 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 00:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:Fiore di rododendro.JPG, not featuredEdit

 

  •   Info created by Ancar - uploaded by Ancar - nominated by Ancar --Ancar 19:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ancar 19:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because too small and no exact species information is provided 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 20:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:Red-tail hawk 3695.jpg, not featuredEdit

 

  •   Info created, uploaded, and nominated by --Dori - Talk 22:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support One of my better bird shots, let's see what people think. --Dori - Talk 22:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => /not/ featured. Mywood 12:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:Red-tail hawk 3695 edit.jpg, not featuredEdit

 

  •   Info Slight background-color edit by Richard Bartz
  •   Support I had the feeling that the background needs a different complexion ;-)) --Richard Bartz 00:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Well, OK. --Dori - Talk 16:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose detail --Beyond silence 12:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice composition... - Noumenon talk 08:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 21:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Another version of the hawk, not featuredEdit

 

  •   Info created, uploaded, and nominated by --Dori - Talk 22:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support I don't know if I should put two different shots in the same nomination, but it's the same bird so I will :) Consider this one and the previous one as one nomination with two versions though. If you think they're worthy of support, please pick the one you think is better. --Dori - Talk 23:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Neutral - its a fine image, but it just doesn't have that touch of the exceptional, as FPs should. --- Anonymous DissidentTalk 01:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Comment No offense, but don't you think you'd better edit your images before posting them? --84.190.243.130 01:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
    • That's OK, I don't get offended by trolls. --Dori - Talk 16:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
    • The IP tracks back to Berlin. Lycaon 18:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
      • All I wanted to say is that posting the same image in three different versions on the candidates page is not too productive, you'd better decide in favor of one and then take that one only. That was not a negative comment on the image as such. Not every IP is a troll. I generally like your images, Dori, though this special one is not one of my favorites. Best regards, the troll from Berlin, 84.190.193.205 00:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose, not too sharp, look at its head. --Aqwis 11:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Mywood 12:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:Dolichomitus imperator Oviposition R Bartz.jpg, featuredEdit

 

  •   Info created & nominated by --Richard Bartz 13:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Info Ichneumon wasps are important parasitoids of other insects, and beneficial organisms. Species attacking wood-boring larvae (which are mostly forest pest) must penetrate considerable depth of wood to oviposit, and have attained an extreme length of this organ. This requires an involved process of manipulation to attain the required position for drilling and to exert the force necessary for penetration.

The process of oviposition
1 Tapping with her antennae the wasp listens for the vibrations that indicate a host is present.
2 With the longer ovipositor, the wasp drills a hole through the bark.
3 The wasp inserts the ovipositor into the cavity which contains the host larva.
4 Making corrections, the oviposter must deposit the eggs into the larva or they will be lost.
5 After finding a host larva within the cavity, the wasp deposits her eggs.
6 The wasp is still depositing her eggs.
7 Not pictured here is a male wasp; they just tap around looking for willing and able females.


  •   Support I was eyewitness --Richard Bartz 13:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support x 10 : Extraordinary --B.navez 17:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Wonderful. Not sure that 'suspects' is right in 1, though. --MichaelMaggs 19:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Karelj 21:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support superb --Plenumchamber 22:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Wonderfully done, I wonder how long until we start using video to demonstrate this sort of thing on the Wikis. Calibas 06:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Amazing series of 'action' shots. Freedom to share 22:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support text needs tuning though. Lycaon 00:48, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Mywood 21:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:Buffalo soldiers1.jpg, featuredEdit

 

  •   Info A rare photograph of historical value with surprising informality. In an era when most group military portraits of enlisted men feature neat ranks and perfect uniforms, these men show personality. One peers shyly from behind a tree, another holds up a frying pan, a third rests a shovel on his shoulder. A whiskey flask makes its rounds while three other men brandish weapons--a real Old West flourish. Another fellow stretches on the ground and rests his eyelids. Restored version of Image:Buffalo soldiers.jpg. Created by Chr. Barthelmess - uploaded by Durova - nominated by Durova. --Durova 22:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Durova 22:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Dtarazona 14:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Valuable. Freedom to share 17:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support For informative value --Thermos 18:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose not focussed. Lycaon 00:47, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support I'm a sucker for old pictures. --Dori - Talk 05:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
result: 5 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Mywood 21:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:Mount-Yamnuska2-Szmurlo.jpg, featuredEdit

 

  •   Info created by Cszmurlo - uploaded by Cszmurlo - nominated by Simonizer 12:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Great landscape picture with beautiful colours --Simonizer 12:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Agree --Acarpentier 12:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Joonasl 12:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Comment I think ... Richard Bartz 13:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Richard, how come you're putting comments in the talk page? Isn't it what this page is for? --Dori - Talk 18:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
      • This page is for votes and i dont like to be a opinion maker like some love to be --Richard Bartz 13:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
        • Would be better if this page is used for votes and comments. Comments inside the discussion are not visible on the voting page and will most likely be ignored. --Niabot 13:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice landscape --Dtarazona 14:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Overprocessed. See Richard Bartz' comment. Freedom to share 16:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Retract oppose after Chuck's defence of image. Freedom to share 22:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support I like the colors. --Katzenmeier 17:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Karelj 22:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Comment The color temperature difference between the sunlight and the shade make it look rather strange. And it looks a tad overprocessed. Calibas 06:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Comment As with many landscape photos, the tremendous dynamic range in this scene was beyond the Nikon D70's native ability to accutately record the scene. To control it I chose to use a Hi Tech 3 stop hard graduated neutral density filter over the sky to enable a single exposure. Since this was a tripod shot, I might have tried two successive exposures (one for sky and one for water) and made a composite in Photoshop. I opted to use the GND filter since the light was changing very fast and to minimize post processing. This filter served to darken and slightly increase the color saturation of the sky (and darken some treetops) but rendered the photo very close to what was visible to my eye. The post processing in this particular shot was limited to cropping out filter holder vignetting and a minor levels adjustment.Chuck Szmurlo19:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support after explanation. --Dori - Talk 21:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --B.navez 03:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose -Posterized unnatural sky -- Alvesgaspar 10:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Looks very very unnatural. --Niabot 10:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Wisnia6522 12:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose sharpess --Beyond silence 21:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support I like the colours. --F l a n k e r 22:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I'm afraid I'm going to have to oppose for the unnatural-looking colours. They seem oversaturated, and I'm dubious about the way the reflection of the mountainside is yellowish whereas the mountainside itself is orange. Reflections are of lesser intensity than the original, but shouldn't be a different colour. (This is more noticeable at full size). --MichaelMaggs 09:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I'm unconvinced on the colour/saturation issues. Lycaon 06:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --junafani 12:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Aqwis 19:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support The scene looks convincing to me. I've been places similar to this with this kind of lighting. Given the limits of the technology (dynamic range), I don't know what else we expect. -- Ram-Man 22:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice usage of graduated filter . Andreas Tille 13:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
result: 14 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Mywood 21:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:Vanessa January 2008-1.jpg, not featuredEdit

       

  •   Info A Red Admiral butterfly (Vanessa atalanta) on a Blue Gem flower (Hebe x franciscana). Created and nominated by Alvesgaspar --Alvesgaspar 12:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Original (left)Edit

  •   Support --Alvesgaspar 12:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Great composition but i dont like the colours which result from your flashlight --Simonizer 15:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Moral   Support --Richard Bartz 03:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Thank you for the moral support. Well, these are probably my best butterfly shots. Should I begin fishing instead?... -- Alvesgaspar 20:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose for the front light. Otherwise it's a pretty nice shot.
result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Mywood 21:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Alternative (right)Edit

  •   Support --Alvesgaspar 12:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I dont like the composition and the background of this one --Simonizer 15:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Info - This is now a FP in the English Wikipedia. Funny, I always thought that WP:FPC was a much harder forum than this one... -- Alvesgaspar 12:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 21:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:D Hoarfrost1.jpg, featuredEdit

 

  •   Info Hoarfrost covered winter scene in northern Germany, created, uploaded, and nominated by Dschwen
  •   Support --Dschwen 14:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support great scene --Simonizer 15:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Excellent job. Depth of field could have been wider, but it is nonetheless a great image as what I want to be in focus is in focus. Freedom to share 17:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support I agree. --Katzenmeier 17:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice. --Thermos 20:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support -- MJJR 21:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --MichaelMaggs 22:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Calibas 07:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Neutral - A very nice picture but I really prefer this one - Alvesgaspar 09:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
    •   Comment The one that Alvesgaspar refers to, is truly excellent. I just wonder, why it is not FP? --Thermos 18:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Uhm.. ..maybe because nobody nominated it ;-) --Dschwen 19:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support I prefer this very one. Two species of birches ? (Betula pubescens + Betula verrucosa) + Maple (Acer pseudoplatanus ?)--B.navez 15:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Amazing, breathtaking, it looks like an oil painting --Dtarazona 17:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Nicely composed, nice colours. RedCoat 20:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Wonderful picture. However, it's way too dark for me. And I also prefer the picture proposed by Alvesgaspar. - Keta 18:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Patstuart (talk) 08:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
result: 12 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Mywood 21:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:St Louis night expblend.jpg, featuredEdit

 

  •   Info St. Louis by night as seen from across the Mississippi River. The image is carefully blended from three different exposures to provide low noise detail in the highlights and shadows. Created, uploaded, and nominated by Dschwen
  •   Support --Dschwen 16:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Good work   SBM talk 17:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Katzenmeier 17:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support -- MJJR 21:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Jocadio 21:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Simonizer 21:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Karelj 22:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Excellent --Calibas 06:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support - original, I find. - Anonymous DissidentTalk 11:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Böhringer 12:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Dtarazona 17:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Durova 17:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support RedCoat 20:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice city at twilight shot. Great exposure. Freedom to share 21:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Alvesgaspar 10:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Hugo.arg 14:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --MichaelMaggs 23:09, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support well-done by Dschwen. — Manecke 03:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --junafani 11:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support, excellent work! --Kjetil_r 17:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Urban 17:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
result: 21 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Mywood 09:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:Workmen In A Pearl Farm - Rangiroa 20061118.jpg, not featuredEdit

 

  •   Info created by Sémhur - uploaded by Sémhur - nominated by Sémhur --Sémhur 20:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Sémhur 20:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Could use a touch of sharpening though. Calibas 06:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Colours and documentation are good, but lighting, sharpness and composition are insufficient. Lycaon 06:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose enough for QI (as it is) but not for FP (what these people do is not enough comprehensive especially the one white-dressed who is just looking at the camera)--B.navez 15:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per B.navez. --MichaelMaggs 09:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 09:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:Convergent-ladybugs5.jpg, not featuredEdit

 

  •   Info created uploaded nominated by Calibas 06:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Just got the Giottos MT-9360 tripod. Relatively cheap and extremely versatile. --Calibas 06:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose not good composition. --Kolossos 09:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose chaotic compostion, next time better to take a picture of these animals on a green leaf. --Juan de Vojníkov 11:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Nature is chaotic, taking a picture of these against a perfect even green background would be misleading. This is what it really looks like. Calibas 18:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support I like it ... especially the colors. --Richard Bartz 12:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support so amazing --B.navez 15:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support At first sight, I thought it as something else. Nice. --Thermos 18:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose for sure an interesting photo with a good quality but the composition doesn't convince me. --AngMoKio 19:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Small size, composition. --Karelj 19:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Wisnia6522 12:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Interesting compositional choice, which I ended up liking. Freedom to share 22:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Certain points of background may be distracting but I don't think composition is to blamed for that... "Subject to the middle" composition doesn't mean a good composition always... I find composition and focus very creative without losing anything from its definitive value (with respect to its subject; ladybugs!). Great work... - Noumenon talk 08:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per AngMoKio. --MichaelMaggs 09:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support, though it might be a little small. Adam Cuerden 14:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Lycaon 06:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Composition -- Laitche 15:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Poor bokeh. If this were not the case, it would likely make up for any other deficiencies. -- Ram-Man 22:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The subject doesn't quite do it for me. --Dori - Talk 05:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
result: 9 support, 9 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 09:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:Convergent-ladybugs8.jpg, not featuredEdit

 

  •   Info created uploaded nominated by Calibas 22:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Comment Here's one with "standard" composition for all you philistines. Calibas 22:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Neutral The composition in the other one is better, but this one lacks the background issue. -- Ram-Man 22:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
result: 0 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Mywood 09:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:White Swan dsc01208-nevit.jpg, not featuredEdit

 

  •   Info created by nevit - uploaded by nevit - nominated by nevit --Nevit 07:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose A tad unsharp, color noise in wings, and chromatic aberration (reds and greens around the white edges). Calibas 07:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support I can see the point, perhaps not of the highest quality, but the idea is good --Thermos 18:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Neutral In general a very nice composition. Sth still bothers me...maybe the too dark water. Will think about it. --AngMoKio 19:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Unnatural view, like artificial object. --Karelj 20:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - What bothers me is the extreme crop, making the picture artificial, as pointed out by Karelj - Alvesgaspar 09:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose, because looks very unbeatiful. Канопус Киля 14:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Looks dirty and has a poor quality (note the green outlines). --Katzenmeier 14:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Mywood 09:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:Mahabodhitemple.jpg, not featuredEdit

 

  •   Info The Mahabodhi temple in Bodhgaya, India. Two monks are meditating in front of it. The tree under which the Buddha attained enlightenment is on the left, behind the monks. This temple is the number 1 pilgrimage site of Buddhism in the world. This picture captures the site beautifully. created by Bpilgrim - uploaded by Bpilgrim - nominated by bbbr --Bbbr 08:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Bbbr 08:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I would say: too much light, bad position of the camera and maybe also bad composition.--Juan de Vojníkov 11:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Comment The temple is kinda washed out. Calibas 19:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Low quality. --Karelj 20:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Quality too low. Alexanderkg 21:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 09:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:Japanese Squirrel.jpg, not featuredEdit

 

  •   Info created by Ma2bara, nominated by Laitche -- Laitche 16:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support So cute. (^^)/ -- Laitche 16:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Almost too cute. =) Calibas 19:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Really nice subject, good colours, but too much of the animal is out of focus. -- MJJR 20:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Wonderful squirrel, but as MJJR says, too much is out of focus. --che 21:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Comment The main factor for identification of the squirrel, the head, is in focus. So what if every single hair on his body isn't in focus? You can still see the color and shape so this image works well for identification of the squirrel. I was under the impression that Featured Picture status was more about artistic merit. In my opinion, the out of focus parts draw attention to the more interesting aspects of the image. Calibas 22:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - too out of focus, among other issues. --- Anonymous DissidentTalk 07:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Wisnia6522 12:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Cute, but quality not enough for FP. the preceding unsigned comment was added by Karelj (talk • contribs)
  •   Neutral Very nice image, unfortunately not enough DOF for me. - Keta 18:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Hugo.arg 14:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Guess focus could be better; but everything else seems almost perfect and focus is not that bad... Nice colours and composition by the way ^_^ - Noumenon talk 08:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Bad focus and depth of field. Freedom to share 13:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Emotional vote, look its eye :) --Dereckson 22:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose DOF issues. Lycaon 06:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Comment I want to show this picture to many people. (^^)/ -- Laitche 18:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The DoF is too shallow. I actually prefer this picture over the #3 2007 Commons PotY. -- Ram-Man 22:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support - pretty. Patstuart (talk) 08:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose ack opposers. --Dori - Talk 03:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
result: 7 support, 7 oppose, 2 neutral => not featured. Mywood 09:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:Map of Lewis and Clark's Track, Across the Western Portion of North America, published 1814.jpg, not featuredEdit

 

 
Alternate version.
  •   InfoLewis and Clark's map of their expedition, published 1814. Meriwether Lewis, William Clark, Nicholas Biddle, and Paul Allen. Uploaded by Brian0918 - nominated by Durova --Durova 16:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Durova 16:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support The very definition of an FP. Nice scan, beautifully made, greatly illustrative and a bloody lot of value :) Freedom to share 19:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Neutral I don't like the artificial and 'dead' grey background (a result of editing?), but the sharpness is stunning and the documentary value of the document is huge. -- MJJR 20:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
    • To the best of my knowledge, no editing has been done on this one. What makes you propose that it's artificial? Durova 20:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
      • At the least, the colour saturation seems te be completely turned off. -- MJJR 20:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Comment The Library of Congress has a version here (and a slightly different one here, published in London), with a different background color. Carl Lindberg 22:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Right you are; I hadn't seen that. Would you be of assistance uploading that version? My software doesn't recognize the file format. Durova 00:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Uploaded here (the LoC version is JPEG2000). I cropped it and tried to sharpen it a bit, but I'm really not good at that kind of thing. It is not quite as sharp as the one above (which I think was scaled down a bit to help sharpen it). I can upload the unsharpened one if you like. Carl Lindberg 02:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
        • Thanks, that'd be good. I'm thinking whether to do a restoration on this. Durova 03:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
          • Okay, uploaded a version which is just converted to JPG, no cropping or sharpening, on top of that one. Carl Lindberg 04:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Mywood 09:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:Cuerpo a tierra - Mushrom.jpg, not featuredEdit

 

  •   Info created by Alfonso Benayas - uploaded by Serg!o - nominated by Fernando Estel ---- Fernando Estel ☆ · 星 (Talk: here- es- en) 18:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support ---- Fernando Estel ☆ · 星 (Talk: here- es- en) 18:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose DOF does it for me. By the way, are those jpeg artefacts, or is it me? RedCoat 20:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • {{FPX|much too small. Images here should normally be at least 2Mpx in size}}. --Karelj 20:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • 2.868 × 2.058 px is too small? ---- Fernando Estel ☆ · 星 (Talk: here- es- en) 21:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
    • I deleted the FPX tag, it is definitely within size requirements. Freedom to share 21:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Way overcompressed... --JDrewes 23:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Comment i like the style a lot, it inspire me somehow --Richard Bartz 03:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too compressed. --MichaelMaggs 18:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support its simply magical, an a good game with blurs and sharps. (¡guau! thanks for nominate it so fast!)--Serg!o 19:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose a--B.navez 02:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Comment please state reason for opposition as a courtesy to the author/uploader. Lycaon 13:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  • a graphic game, somehow an artistic creation, but not a featurable picture for its contents (unsharp, unidentified, artificially colored, etc.)--B.navez 19:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Chanterelles or Cantharelus tubiformis the preceding unsigned comment was added by Serg!o (talk • contribs) indeed not!! Lycaon 11:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - best image I've seen so far today. Patstuart (talk) 08:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support I want to look at this. Samulili 17:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support It's similar to the picture from animated cartoons. --AKA MBG 19:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Bad quality, not identified. Lycaon 06:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
result: 4 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 09:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:Mahuri.svg, featuredEdit

 

  •   Info created by Niabot - uploaded by Niabot - nominated by Niabot --Niabot 02:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Neutral --Niabot 02:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support lovely --Richard Bartz 03:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Good sense of colors and composition, well done. I wouldn't think less of the author if the vote was changed from neutral to support, if you have neutral feelings towards this why would you nominate it? =) Calibas 05:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
In Germany it is unusual to elect yourself, so i didn't take any side. --Niabot 09:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support well done! Lycaon 06:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support its something different, which is good. --- Anonymous DissidentTalk 07:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Durova 08:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose, because looks unnatural. I am very sorry, but this image I dosent like. Канопус Киля 14:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support I like itand it is refreshing. Very high quality and good illustration of the subject, Manga and Anime. -- Slaunger 15:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Laitche 18:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support - Very well done SVG - Keta 18:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support GREAT! --Beyond silence 21:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --libertad0 ॐ 13:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose nothing special--Orlovic (talk) 14:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support--Anuskafm 18:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --WarX 00:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC) Personally I hate manga, but this image is outstanding!
  •   Support Nice colours... though I wish tips of hair at the left side were not left out; I guess would make a beter composition then ... ^_^ - Noumenon talk 08:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose For the cutoff hair. Since this is a drawing, I imagine it's a conscious composition choice with which I disagree. --Dori - Talk 05:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
    •   Support --Dori - Talk 16:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Info Image Changed: The hairtips are now within the visible image area, the tips slightly modified and the wrinkles (over the eyes) are in an extra layer, now. --Niabot 09:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support - excellent work, nice colours. Million Moments 11:53, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support well done :-) --217.233.227.197 18:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC) no anonymous voting, sorry. Lycaon 19:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
result: 16 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Mywood 11:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:Polish cavalry in Sochaczew(1939)a.jpg, not featuredEdit

 

  •   Info scanned by Jarekt - digitally cleaned and uploaded by Durova - nominated by Jarekt. Edits done: cropped, dust/scratches and other artifacts removed, levels adjusted. --Jarekt 13:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC) - Nomination on 06:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC). (Lycaon 15:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC))
  •   Info next 3 entries moved from Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Polish cavalry in Sochaczew (1939).jpg by --Jarekt 13:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support The nominator uploaded a higher resolution scan and I've put two days' work into restoring it. I hope this helps because the subject really deserves attention. Durova 07:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose still low quality, despite the recommendable clean-up. Lycaon 16:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Comment I'd support the edit, but it needs a separate listing. I'm not sure how it would be counted as it is. --Dori - Talk 05:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
    •   Support --Dori - Talk 19:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Jarekt 13:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Very good historical image that is important and valuable. Freedom to share 16:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose agree with lycaon -- Gorgo 23:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
result: 4 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 16:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:Polish cavalry in Sochaczew (1939).jpg, not featuredEdit

 

  •   Info uploaded & nominated by Jarekt --Jarekt 15:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Jarekt 15:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose low quality, needs to be cleaned up -- Gorgo 16:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Required some fixing in Photoshop. Trzeba by trochę w Photoshopie poprawić, ponieważ zdjęcie nie jest w najlepszym stanie. Freedom to share 20:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Comment Could we suspend this nomination pending restoration? If I'm not mistaken, the Polish army in 1939 was the last equestrian unit to engage in combat in modern warfare. This is very important historically and I'll see if I can work on it. Durova 00:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Info The next 3 entries were moved to Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Polish cavalry in Sochaczew(1939)a.jpg --Jarekt 14:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

    • Ready to go. The nominator uploaded a higher resolution scan and I've put two days' work into restoring it. I hope this helps because the subject really deserves attention.   Support. Durova 07:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
      • I'd support the edit, but it needs a separate listing. I'm not sure how it would be counted as it is. --Dori - Talk 05:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose still low quality, despite the recommendable clean-up. Lycaon 16:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 09:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:Baumundnebel2.jpg, not featuredEdit

 

  •   Info Das Bild 'Baumundnebel2' wurde im oberfränkischen Sauerhof, Deutschland, aufgenommen. -- created by Tian.chris - uploaded by Tian.chris - nominated by Tian.chris , 2. Februar 2008
  •   Support --Tian.chris 00:50, 2. Februar 2008
  •   Oppose irregular nomination uploader/nominator is not who he/she pretends to be. Lycaon 00:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

-- i'm sorry, i'm a newbie. the link is ok now. Tian.chris , 2. Februar 2008

  • Link is ok now, thanks. Lycaon 16:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Very nice lighting, composition and atmosphere! Unfortunately, the sharpness is not very good. It's possible to do better with a Nikon D40, I presume. -- MJJR 20:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Ack MJJR. Use a tripod (or is just the kit lens that's so unsharp?) Freedom to share 12:43, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  Comment, the kit lens of the D40 isn't this bad. I'm quite sure we have a few featured images taken with the kit lenses of the D40(x) and D50. --Aqwis 08:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Mmmmm... Category:Featured_pictures_by_Derek_Ramsey --Aqwis 12:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Mywood 16:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:VolcjiPotok 11.jpg, not featuredEdit

 

result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 16:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:Blejski Vintgar 01.jpg, not featuredEdit

 

  •   Info all by Mihael Simonic
  •   Support --Mihael Simonic 12:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Neutral No anonymous voting. Lycaon 13:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC) (Fantastic image, but bad focus--84.220.121.32 13:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC))
  •   Oppose Nice, but I would recommend exposing on manual as this could use some more light and taking the photo when the light is consistent. (As in: not with this distracting patch in the background. Nice try for a first time, now come back if you can and shoot again. A winter scene should be really nice if there's snow there. Good luck, Freedom to share 17:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 16:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:Polzevo 03.jpg, not featuredEdit

 

  •   Info all by Mihael Simonic
  •   Support --Mihael Simonic 12:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too cold colours. If you still have the original RAW file, use it to increase the colour temperature a bit. Freedom to share 13:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Comment Did you mean to suggest an increase (oops) decrease in colour temperature instead? -- carol 15:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I really do get confused with this; depending on how the language handles color and temperature, blue is hot and red is cool, but not in (for example) a car; so it was an honest question about the way the colors are used in the language of photography. -- carol 23:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Yes, but even the people who designed Canon Digital Photo Professional seem to have made that mistake. In the program, 10000K (10^5) is very warm. That's how I confused it. Freedom to share 16:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 16:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

 

  •   Support --Mihael Simonic 12:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice winter scene. Good colour temperature now imho. Freedom to share 15:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Comment Seems a little greenish to me. --norro 11:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 16:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:Orchidea.jpg, not featuredEdit

 

  •   Info created, uploaded and nominated by Lissen --Lissen 14:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Lissen 14:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice--Anuskafm 18:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose background --norro 20:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Insufficient DOF and unfortunate background. Lycaon 09:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 16:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:Pale Grass Blue.jpg, not featuredEdit

 

  •   Info created, uploaded and nominated by Laitche -- Laitche 20:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Laitche 20:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Wisnia6522 08:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Samsara 17:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose We have a lot of butterfly featured pictures, and this one falls just below the threshold. Compare it to this superior FP by the same author (with identical DoF). This image has a too shallow DoF with a distracting blurred out flower in the front and part of the butterfly is obstructed from view by a petal. The background is merely average at best. It's a good picture, but I think it lacks maybe one element that excels. -- Ram-Man 22:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • You've misjudged, this is not DOF matter. F9.5 is enough to this subject. It's cause with focal plane. -- Laitche 08:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • My name is not the same author, my name is Laitche :) -- Laitche 17:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 16:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:Green Highlander salmon fly.jpg, not featuredEdit

 

  •   Info created uploaded and nominated by MichaelMaggs --MichaelMaggs 22:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Green Highlander, one of the classic salmon flies. --MichaelMaggs 22:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose A quality picture candidate for sure, but the black background destroys any wow-effect for me. --startaq 14:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 17:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:Tschierva glacier rework.jpg, featuredEdit

 

  •   Support Great picture, and the detail is extraordinary. - Keta 14:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice detail. --Beyond silence 10:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Very good work. Freedom to share 17:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Karelj 20:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support I'm too lazy to search for stitching errors (if any), but the technique is outstanding. -- Ram-Man 22:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support I like it. --Dori - Talk 05:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support -- MJJR 22:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support RedCoat 19:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Mywood 17:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:20070521 Pincushion Hakea Flower.jpg, not featuredEdit

 

  •   Info created by Ian Fieggen - uploaded by Ian Fieggen - nominated by Ian Fieggen --Ian Fieggen 03:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ian Fieggen 03:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Wisnia6522 08:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose An interesting flower. It's a shame that the depth of field is so low. This is the type of image that would benefit from a tripod, a long shutter-speed and a small f-stop. --MichaelMaggs 09:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Comment Geez, I did it deliberately with low depth of field to accentuate the flower against an otherwise busy background! Ian Fieggen 00:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Comment That was a good idea, but you made the DOF too shallow so that only a very small part of the flower is actually in focus. Lycaon 06:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Comment Fair criticism. I guess saw it as a good shot from an encyclopaedic point of view rather than as an entrant into a photography contest.
  •   Oppose The DoF is fine for a shot like this (See this example), but the quality is not that great. To my eyes it looks like the whole image was heavily noise reduced or somehow post-processed. The white parts have halos. Maybe this was just oversharpened bringing out the grain? The end result is not pretty, and it is visible at 2MP viewing. Plus, I'm missing the EXIF information. -- Ram-Man 22:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Comment Looks like the consensus is against this photo, so I won't bother trying to convince you folks further. The perfectionist standards required are obviously way too high for anything but professional photographers with high-end cameras. That said, I'd just like to comment that the image was NOT sharpened or otherwise altered. Halos on white parts? That's just how things come out when you use early morning overcast natural light to photograph a flower with a half decent domestic digital camera. Ian Fieggen 23:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Comment Oh, and it was me that removed the (superfluous and private) Exif info with my program, JPGExtra, though what bearing that has on the image I have no idea! Ian Fieggen 23:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • EXIF is hardly superfluous information, especially for macro shots. It isn't required, but it does help satisfy questions that may arise. For example, in some cases we might assume that DoF is too shallow, but in reality it is just a smaller object than we realize and the DoF is at a maximum. I don't oppose for lack of EXIF, but I may not support without the information. I only mention it because sometimes people will actually upload a version with EXIF when asked. Also, the emotional outburst is understandable, but if you knew anything about me, you'd know that I'm the last person that would say you have to have a professional camera. I have 3 FPs from point-and-shoots, and heck, one of them was a POTY finalist. -- Ram-Man 02:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 17:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:Kohrvirab.jpg, not featuredEdit

originalEdit

 

  •   Info created by Andrew Behesnilian - uploaded by Andrew Behesnilian - nominated by Noumenon --Noumenon talk 08:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Noumenon talk 08:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Wisnia6522 08:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I like the composition, but the tilt is disturbing and at full size it's very noisy which it shouldn't be for a photograph taken on a sunny day. --MichaelMaggs 08:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Indeed it's noisy, but the composition is so overwhelmingly great that I think we can ignore the noise. --Katzenmeier 12:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nice composition, but too noisy. Also, the branches on the right are disturbing. - Keta 14:43, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Keta. Lycaon 20:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose But maybe this is good for a sample of chromatic noise :) -- Laitche 10:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Unfortunate noise, otherwise it's an absolutely picturesque scene. RedCoat 19:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 17:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

editEdit

 

  •   Info created by Andrew Behesnilian - de-noising, upload and nomination of this version by Thermos Thermos --Thermos 18:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support It is a great photo, but the original had certain technical issues, which I hope to have solved at least to some extent. --Thermos 18:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose excessive noise reduction has removed most of the details (e.g. the plants are all a blur now). Lycaon 20:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I'm afraid so. Ack Hans. I had this picture on my desk yesterday, but there is no chance to get rid of this noise, even with professional tools --Richard Bartz 00:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 17:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:William Hogarth - Beer Street.jpg and Image:William Hogarth - Gin Lane.jpg, not featuredEdit

   

  •   Info created by William Hogarth - uploaded and nominated by Adam Cuerden --Adam Cuerden 14:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Comment These images are almost always referred to together, as they were published as a set, so I'm nominating them together. The quality should be the same for both - if not, tell me, and I'll rescan. (By the way, I've added a redirect from Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:William Hogarth - Gin Lane.jpg so that, if this goes through, the templates should still work for the Featured picture notice}
  •   Support --Adam Cuerden 14:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Question Could you provide more details of the source? The description says "Reprint from circa 1880 in uploader's possession". Are they scanned from an old book, or from large framed prints? Could you explain the basis for the 1880 date? Regards. --MichaelMaggs 17:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
    • They were a gift acquired through Abebooks.com, so I don't know, so I don't know everything. The information that came with them (on a label attached to their pouch says c. 1880; this is believable, as the method of printing is typical of that used for high-quality engravings of that time, complete with tissue-paper coverings for each plate, which also shows they've clearly been cut out of a book, I'm presuming well before the bookstore owner got them, because that would be desecration and I would be very upset at someone who did that. The fonts used on the supplementary material - the labels in red on the tissue paper, and the black and red ink used on the description page (not scanned) are also typical of the period. However, a lot of collections o f Hogarth's works were printed in the 19th century, so it's difficult to say which it was taken from. this one seems not unreasonable, at a guess. Adam Cuerden 18:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Thanks. I'm inclined to support, but I don't think we (yet) have any way of promoting a series. I think we ought to find a way, though. --MichaelMaggs 20:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
        • Well, could divide them in two, I guess, but they were intended to be seen together. Adam Cuerden 23:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
          • English wikipedia has an Imageframe template and I have seen at least one image here use an Image Map. It seems like either one of these options could be used without messing with the regular delivery system here. -- carol 23:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Neutral This isn't one of Hogarth's originals, but a copy by Samuel Davenport. It is interesting in its own right, but I'm a bit worried that it will be passed off as Hogarth's own work. The plate of Beer Street lacks the precision of Gin Lane and both misses and mixes features from the issued states. Yomangani 23:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Mywood 17:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:POINTE DE DIBEN SERPENT.JPG, not featuredEdit

 

  •   Info created by Christophe Marcheux - uploaded by Christophe Marcheux - nominated by Dereckson --Dereckson 22:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Dereckson 22:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - eh, artistic, but the general quality isn't quite there. - Anonymous DissidentTalk 12:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose since the object of the picture is dwarfed by stones Gordo 18:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose i don't see anything exciting or very special inside this image. --Niabot 11:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 17:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:RussellLanodeSanJuan1.jpg, not featuredEdit

 

  •   Info Llano de San Juan church, New Mexico, 1940. Restored version of Image:RussellLLanodeSanJuan.jpg. Created by Lee Russell - uploaded and restored by Durova - nominated by Durova. --Durova 04:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Durova 04:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose nice and athmospheric but I think the composition is a little too cluttered and I don't like the oversaturated sky. -- Gorgo 05:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
    • The saturation hasn't been altered; that's the way vintage sheet Kodachrome behaved. Durova 12:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Comment, is it just me who can't tell the difference between the edit and the original? --Aqwis 13:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Dirt spots removed, it seems. - Keta 15:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Yes, a couple hundred of them. Durova 05:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose As Gorgo --Karelj 21:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Comment I would have supported but I don't see the significance of the subject. It looks like something one could probably still find today, and take a better picture. --Dori - Talk 19:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured.

Image:Gotsiy3edit2.jpg, not featuredEdit

 

  •   Info created by Peter Duhon, nominated by Laitche --Laitche 14:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Laitche 14:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support a good and solid picture. --Niabot 11:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Good enough. The subject is nicely composed and the bokeh works well. RedCoat 19:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support - Keta 09:36, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Proper, solid image. Not bad. Any personality rights issues? Freedom to share 20:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Unfortunate background, not FP-worthy. Lycaon 16:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Don't like the composition, and her facial expression looks weird. --Dori - Talk 05:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   I withdraw my nomination Thanks. -- Laitche 11:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC) I thought FP also need this type of picture but I got a feeling this is not the one :) --Laitche 14:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Weird that you'd withdraw when with the voting so far it's going to FP. --Dori - Talk 06:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes I know. So far 5 support 2 oppose is going to FP. This one could be FP but I really wanted more suitable one. But if you want to reopen then I will withdraw my withdraw :) --Laitche 06:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:Rosam.jpg, not featuredEdit

 

  •   Info created, uploaded and nominated by Lissen --Lissen 18:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Lissen 18:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Background --norro 18:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The background is acceptable because of the DoF required, but the extreme overexposure is not. The red channel is almost entirely maxed (blown) out, making this an unrealistic image. I'll admit shots like this are difficult, but this doesn't cut it. -- Ram-Man 21:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Question What is "DoF"?--84.220.121.32 17:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Depth of Field (How much of the picture from front to back is in focus). Since most roses are an inch or two in depth, you can't blur the background (which looks pretty) by using a large aperture. A "Deep" depth-of-field is normally expected for this type of flower. -- Ram-Man 23:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 11:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)(Rule of the 5th day)

Image:Star in honor of the Soviet soldiers.JPG, not featuredEdit

 

  •   Info This photo is a photo of the monument to the Soviet solders in Kharkov. In this photo good light, and beatiful sky. This photo like the best photo of 2007- Tower Brodvay in England. Maybe get elected in?
  • I   Support. Канопус Киля 16:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Good pictures should not use shadows for the lighting. Also the background is very disturbing. The top corner of the star is to close to the edge of the image. --Niabot 16:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC) PS: You should read the instructions to make a correct voting entry. I don't want to fix it everytime.
    • Thanks for fixing, Niabot ;-)). Lycaon 16:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too tight crop and unfortunate lighting. Lycaon 16:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Qualiaty, especiall lighting. --Karelj 21:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Background , lowish-quality, and insufficient wow. -- Ram-Man 21:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 11:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)(Rule of the 5th day)

Image:CasaRinconada.jpg, not featuredEdit

 

  •   Info created by Charles Sauer - uploaded by Charles Sauer - nominated by Charlessauer --Charlessauer 01:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Charlessauer 01:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose not really sharp, weird light and unfortunate size. BTW, what happened to the EXIFs of your uploads? Lycaon 14:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Size and sky coloration. Recommend EXIF, as images taken from point-and-shoots will sometimes be afforded mitigating circumstances. -- Ram-Man 21:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Comment The size fits within the norms of featured picture rules and EXIFs are not required. Charlessauer 13:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Comment The sky coloration is normal. Somehow I know that you've never been to this national treasure in the U.S.A. becuase of the comment about the sky. Not that that matters. This picture was taken at dusk with no filter. The sky looks different because it wasn't taken in the suburbs where the sky is polluted by automobile exhaust; it was taken in the "bad lands". I did not retouch this picture. Charlessauer 13:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Comment There are so few pictures of Native American architecture, for instance Chaco Canyon, and there are no articles that include the ruins of Casa Rinconada. Charlessauer 13:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
    • You make many assumptions in those comments! First, the resolution guidelines is a minimum. For a relatively easy landscape shot, there is no reason why a high resolution image could not be supplied. Second, EXIF can have a positive effect, but the lack won't have a negative effect on outcomes. Third, atmospheric distortions are affected by temperature, which is why clarity is much higher in the winter. Also, I've been to plenty of remote areas, such as Alaska. Fourth, the very fact that you used no filter actually proves my point. A camera's sensor can see UV and it interprets it as blue. This is why digital cameras have such trouble matching the sky with what our eyes see and also why skies often look so bad. You may be used to it, but it still looks bad and has nothing to do with pollution. Lastly, you are confusing the value of this image with whether or not it should be a FP. It is merely a contributing factor. You can add this image to an article without it being a featured picture. -- Ram-Man 17:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
    •   Comment Good point about the minimum: I'll think about adding a larger resolution image next time. Good point about the EXIFs. I am certain you have been to plenty of remote areas, and there is nothing wrong with the suburbs. . . Thanks for the tip about filters; although, I love this picture of mine. It looks great, by golly! I think I'll frame it and put it on my wall. Lastly, you should enter or re-enter some of your pictures of plants. Charlessauer 18:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Commons reviewers are among the pickiest art critics I've ever met. The kind of rigourous beatings that my perfectly good pictures take is what presses me to make even better work. My most popular image, the waterfall that was a POTY finalist, was criticized for noise, overexposure, and slight unsharpness. It looks spectacular when actually printed large and is hanging on my wall. I'm going to be off-wiki for a few days, so we'll see about more nominations when I have time. -- Ram-Man 19:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 11:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC) (Rule of the 5th day) 

Image:Ouzellake2.jpg, not featuredEdit

 

  •   Info created by Charles Sauer - uploaded by Charles Sauer - nominated by Charles Sauer --Charlessauer 01:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Charlessauer 01:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose, bad composition, detail/sharpness, light. --Aqwis 12:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Lots of CA fringing, not crisp. Lycaon 14:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Appears to be overexposed, accentuating the bright fringing. -- Ram-Man 21:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Blurry, lots of chromatic aberration especially in the snow parts. -- Laitche 04:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 11:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)(Rule of the 5th day)

Image:Skogskyrkogarden-night-2007-11-03.JPG, featuredEdit

originalEdit

 

  •   Info created by BloodIce - uploaded by BloodIce - nominated by Spiritia. I loved the way it combines encyclopedic illustrative capability, creative composition, emotional touch and high photographic quality :-) --Spiritia 21:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Spiritia 21:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support haunting. Durova 21:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support I disagree Durova. It seems calming to me, to me it reassures us of our Christian beliefs of heaven and seems an appropriate way to respect those who passed away from this earth. Freedom to share 21:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose To me it is just a noisy picture with ghosts (left) and a cross (right). Why are images not properly de-noised before submission? Lycaon 22:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Great atmosphere. --Karelj 23:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Question What's the origin of the ghost crosses on the left? --MichaelMaggs 07:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Looks like people - Keta 09:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
    • These are people indeed or maybe just a single man. 10 sek of exposition in a busy night - a lot of people are celebrating All Saints Day. BloodIce 13:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sharpness, noise. --Beyond silence 08:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nice composition, but limited value for me and very distracting ghosts. -- Slaunger 21:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Why limited value? The photo depicts a certain cemetery near Stockholm, and does so in the finest possible way. Of course that it can illustrate more general articles on cemeteries or death-related customs in Sweden, but I don't really expect that it can be applied to everything in between nuclear physics and babysitting :-) Cheers! --Spiritia 23:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
      I certainly do not expect an image to cover everything in between nucleal physics and babysitting :-). I just expect an FPC to have high value for Wikimedia projects. I acknowledge the artistic values of the photo and its mood, but I fail to see a good context for it to be used in. Like, if we follow your suggestion that it is "the finest possible" illustration of the World Heritage site Skogskyrkogården, I personally think that the illustrations used already in that article are better at illustrating the place, simply because they are not taken during the night, where it is hard to discern details and get the full context. I think it requires a quite good knowledge of the area to actually recognise the place from the photo. The photo may have good value for illustrating more abstract concepts such as certain emotions and religious topics. For me it is just not clear what that might be. On the technical side I forgot to mention the distracting chroma noise in the sky. -- Slaunger 07:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support -- herbstmeier1806 22:32, 02 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Very nice image. --Michael { talk } 11:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
result: 6 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => (Waiting for result of the edited version) Simonizer 14:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
no votes for the edited version. --Spiritia 16:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

de-noised, not featuredEdit

 

  •   Info uploaded by Lycaon 23:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Comment - I may be dense, I'm not good at this, but those two images look the same to me. Patstuart (talk) 08:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • No, you are not ;-) It is not easy to see at first glance, but the quality of the second image has substantially improved IMO. Have a look, e.g., at the sky above the small bush left of the cross at 100%. The noise in de sky is virtually gone, while details that were there have been preserved. Lycaon 09:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Seriously, do you think that this image will ever be used above resolutions of 1000px? I should've uploaded a smaller version. The reason that is not de-noised is that I believe in purity of the moment - with as less as possible software tricks. BloodIce 09:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
The option of using it at resolution above 1000px has to be there per Wikicommons Scope. And do you really believe that your camera is not doing any software tricks with your image? That noise is per definition a software/hardware trick. Lycaon 10:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
You are absolutely right - the hardware is generating the noise (despite of the advanced algorithms to mask it), exactly as the film resolution is a limitation in classics. However with particular hardware you can make just a certain image similar to a single shot from film camera. And in my opinion it must stay as it was shot, with as less as possible interventions (to be honest I increased the brightness and contrast of that image with one or two steps). I am not trying to defend the noise - it is obviously there, I am just expressing an opinion. BloodIce 13:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
result: 0 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured --Spiritia 16:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:Hylomanes-momotula-001.jpg, not featuredEdit

 

  •   Info created & uploaded by Mdf - nominated by Laitche -- Laitche 14:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Laitche 14:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   I withdraw my nomination Thanks. --Laitche 17:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:Trashbin.jpg, not featuredEdit

 

  •   Info created by Thegreenj 20:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC) - uploaded by Thegreenj 20:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC) - nominated by Thegreenj --Thegreenj 20:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Thegreenj 20:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  • ´  Oppose It could look nice, but what is the point? --QWerk 21:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Question How do you see this image has potential value for Wikimedia Projects? -- Slaunger 22:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Hmmm... You are right. Perhaps I have misstepped. Thegreenj 02:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Isn't Wiki Commons a project of it's own? I thought we'd had this discussion before and established that it's a repository of free images which don't necessarily depend on other Wikimedia projects. FP is judged by artistic merit, but if the image is too artsy it's declined. I find this puzzling. Calibas 18:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

  Thegreenj 02:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:CID - Balboa.jpg, not featuredEdit

 

Created by Michael Seljos nominated by Serg!o 15:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

 
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because oversaturated, noisy and suffering from chromatic aberration 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 16:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Definitly extremly unsuitable on this kind of photos. Jeblad 12:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:Parque Balboa - San Diego, California.jpg, not featuredEdit

 

 
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because oversaturated, noisy and suffering from chromatic aberration 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 16:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

  • These reasons are unsuitable because this is the aim for high dynamic range imaging, I mean, it's like saying classical art is worse because it's not as realistic as a photo. Serg!o 16:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Oversaturation, noise and chromatic aberration are never an aim. Lycaon 16:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Never is a too strong word, I have seen both oversaturation and noise being used in pleasing ways (not sure I have seen chromatic abberration beeing used in a positive way though). Nevertheless I agree that in this image it's not very well done. good oversaturated example /Daniel78 21:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Definitly extremly unsuitable on this kind of photos. Jeblad 12:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:Bucephala-albeola-010.jpg, not featuredEdit

 

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

Lycaon 03:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Without discussion better than most of the images that are nominated. Jeblad 12:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:Egua em Clonmel.jpg, not featuredEdit

 

 
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because unfortunately lit 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 16:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:Heliconius melpomene 2 Richard Bartz.jpg, not featuredEdit

 

  •   Info created & nominated by --Richard Bartz 15:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  •   Info There was a version which was featured on en.WP a few days ago. This version for Commons is much better ;-)
  •   Support --Richard Bartz 15:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support but you should fix the date on your camera (or your computer) as it says it's from 10:04, 8 March 2008. --Dori - Talk 16:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
    •   Oppose Richard, you've really messed up the background with these later edits in my opinion. I also don't think it's right to make major changes to the image while votes have been placed. Now it's not clear whether those same votes would stand with the current version. --