Open main menu

Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/November 2007

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


Image:aglais_urticae.jpeg, not featuredEdit


  •   Info created, uploaded and nominaded by Fabelfroh 11:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support I optimized colors and uploaded the photo under a very decent resolution (near 1:1 crop). Only the outer right part of the winh is slightly out of focus. But all the other important parts are sharp. Fabelfroh 11:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sharpness. Sorry--Beyond silence 12:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Why did you want to focus on the hair of the butterfly and not on its wings. It makes them not important.--Alipho 16:56, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Oppose ack Alipho. Lycaon 18:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Oppose No WOW for me ... Low Q and nervous, disturbing background --Richard Bartz 14:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The bar for bug pictures is set pretty high. --Digon3 talk 21:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Cecil 23:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Roman Republic Empire map.gif, not featuredEdit


  •   Info created by Astrokey44 - uploaded by Astrokey44 - nominated by White Cat -- Cat ちぃ? 17:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Cat ちぃ? 17:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - As per my comments above - Alvesgaspar 20:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Fix what Alvesgaspar mentions and I'll support this. Calibas 21:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Cecil 00:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Roman Empire map.gif, not featuredEdit


  •   Info created by Astrokey44 - uploaded by Astrokey44 - nominated by White Cat -- Cat ちぃ? 17:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Cat ちぃ? 17:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Oppose for now - Needs some improvements to reach FP level. Here are a few suggestions: (i) Crop the map at north, that area is never used; (ii) Insert the legend in the picture so that it is always visible; (iii) Instead of just writting the date, insert a time scale and a marker, which should move from left to right (BTW, times before Christ should have some kind of indication); (iv) The Europe map looks naked, some generalized geographic information would fit well in the representation. This suggestions also apply to the animation below - Alvesgaspar 19:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  Comment If the legend is included, it can only be in one language. If the legend is external, it can be done in every language needed. So just add the legend to the description page.. --Jeses 11:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Fix what Alvesgaspar mentions and I'll support this. Calibas 21:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Cecil 00:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Baja California Desert.jpg, not featuredEdit


  •   Info created, uploaded, and nominated by User:tomascastelazo --Tomascastelazo 20:46, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support --Tomascastelazo 20:46, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Neutral I like the composition and colors but there's too much noise in the sky. Calibas 22:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too noisy and not crisp enough. Lycaon 08:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Oppose noise, sharpness.

Sorry, you should try Commons:Quality images candidates first! --Beyond silence 11:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

  • (*ponders strangling Beyond silence and deleting his template*) If it doesn't succeed here because of technical quality and composition, why would it become a QI? --Pumpmeup 05:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Because QI requirements are much more forgiving than FP. Calibas 00:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
That's not true; same technical qualities required, just less of a wow requirement... Doodledoo 19:42, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Low Q, distracting comp --Richard Bartz 14:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  • And what is, in your opinion, distracting composition?--Tomascastelazo 00:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm think he means that it's too cluttered, there's no clear subject. Calibas 00:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Cecil 00:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC) 

Image:50 buick model hood.jpg, not featuredEdit


result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Cecil 01:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Egretta thula.jpg, not featuredEdit


Original, not featuredEdit

  •   Info created, uploaded and nominated by User:Tomascastelazo --Tomascastelazo 17:04, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support Taken at Lake Yuriria, Guanajuato, Mexico--Tomascastelazo 17:04, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Neutral for now. Excellent composition. I like the use of space. It could do with some noise-reduction and sharpening, though. --MichaelMaggs 17:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Noise, sharpness. Unnecesarry editing. --Beyond silence 19:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Neutral good composition but i agrre with Michael --Simonizer 19:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Neutral I like it but too noisy and not sharp enough for FP. I'll support if these are fixed. Calibas 22:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Neutral (original) Beautiful! Near mitigating composition. It is not because this picture was shot down that I have to oppose a similar one ;-). Lycaon 08:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support --IMO the original is the best as the noise has more the aspect of natural film grain, which is not the case for the edited versions where it looks like more digital blur. Grain is acceptable but it depends on the subject of the photograph. In this case (photograph of animals), it's not « top », but the overall visual quality of the picture makes it really good. Sting 12:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support Composition really stands out... - Noumenon talk 16:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support Noisy but superb :-) --Tony Wills 08:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
result: 4 support, 1 oppose, 4 neutral => not featured (not enough support votes). Cecil 00:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Edit 1, not featuredEdit

  •   Info - I have uploaded a edited version, but I really think the image is beyond repair. It's a shame because the composition is very nice. Alvesgaspar 22:54, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Comment - First of all, thanks Alvesgaspar, I like your version better... On the other hand, I come from the days where grain is just grain, generally accepted and given "normal" considerations, part of the image. Noise is nothing else but digital grain. Back in the old days, one could choose fine grain film, fine grain processing at the expense of not getting the image. It is no different now... one must choose ISO speed over other considerations in order to get the image. Not because the camera can produce noisless images, due maily to ISO setings, it means that every picture must be grainless. All pictures will show noise at certain magnifications, just like in the old days. And besides, screen displays are so far from print displays that some of these observations about noise are completely irrelevant. Noise, most of the time, is irrelevant. Grain, most of the time, is irrelevant. Some of the greatest pictures ever, were taken with the good old Kodak Tri X film, pushed, pulled, and grainy... What I see here, over and over, is a general misunderstanding of the medium and how the medium is evaluated and appreciated. Form is privileged over content. Alleged technical quality is privileged over true photographic quality. As I have often said, do not miss the lanscape beyond the window... Photography is just a medium... ----Tomascastelazo 03:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Oppose --For the edited version : if the noise of the background is better, the post-processing introduced heavy rainbow artefacts on the birds (head, body, their image in the water). Sting 12:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Oppose all versions. Very beautiful picture and composition but for my taste I dont see any mitigating reasons here. Low Q @ 3k, its a pity!° --Richard Bartz 14:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Oppose --Beyond silence 23:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
result: 0 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Cecil 05:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Edit 2, not featuredEdit

  •   Info I propose an edit of Alvesgaspar's version with colour noise reduction. Vassil 21:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Oppose One more edit on an edit of an edit and there is nothing left ... Lycaon 22:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Oppose --Beyond silence 23:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
result: 0 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Cecil 05:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Bolivian vizcacha.jpg, featuredEdit


  •   Info A vizcacha in the Sur Lipez desert, Bolivia. This was taken in the same spot than Sur Lipez.jpg.
  •   Info created, uploaded and nominated by Nattfodd --Nattfodd 15:08, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support --Nattfodd 15:08, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not FP detail, composition. How did you think?

Sorry, you should try Commons:Quality images candidates first! --Beyond silence 16:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

    • No FP detail? Give me a break, you can count the hairs on his fur or on his ears! And what about composition? I have trouble imagining a better composition for describing a vizcacha on wikipedia! --Nattfodd 16:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support The foreground grass is a little bit spoiling the image, but I like the rest of the image a lot. Lycaon 17:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support Very good picture of a wild animal in its natural environment. Vassil 20:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Detail is good, but the grass is too disturbing for me. --Digon3 talk 21:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
    • How so? It hardly hides any part of the animal and is not very high either. --Nattfodd 22:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support Good picture, and falls nicely within the scope of Commons, that is, encyclopedic value and good photo technique. --Tomascastelazo 23:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Is that really the scope of commons? Lycaon 23:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
    • I quote: "Wikimedia Commons is a freely licensed media file repository (similar to stock photography archives) targeted at other Wikimedia projects." Wikipedia, I think, is an encyclopedic effort. Problem here is that there is sooooo much photography around here that is not appreciated for that value...--Tomascastelazo 23:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Pudelek 23:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support although I really should stop supporting all th`e pictures of cute little bunny wabbits --Pumpmeup 05:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Vizcachas and wabbits are not really related. Check Wikispecies ;-)). Lycaon 08:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Indeed, but they really look like (ugly) rabbits. And Pumpmeup, you really have some wild imagination to find it cute ;) --Nattfodd 08:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nice shagger, but this doesnt sweep me of my feet, sorry. Plus Ack Digon. --Richard Bartz 15:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support --Karelj 19:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support --Aracuanotalk 10:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support --Digitaldreamer 18:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ahonc 14:10, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support --MichaelMaggs 07:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support Qu'il est mignon le mossieur ! (au passage, les critiques sur les parties "impressionnistes" que j'ai faites sur ta photo du bas sont valables ici, pourquoi ces étranges couleurs qui bavent un peu ??) -- Benh 17:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
result: 12 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Cecil 05:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Ossau.jpg, not featuredEdit


*  Support -- 15:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC) Please log in to vote ;) --Richard Bartz 16:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

  •   Oppose Detail, noise, no wow. --Beyond silence 16:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support Well, I only have a modest camera. I have just had a chance to shoot something far beyond its possibilities --Semetria
If I only have a beginner camera can I make my photo FP, only because I only have low possibilities? No, so you can't too.

Sorry, you should try Commons:Quality images candidates first! --Beyond silence 19:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Please try to make sense (and stop redirecting people to QI when you reject FP status for technical reasons. It makes no sense.) --Nattfodd 21:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Please sign with four tildes (~~~~) as to record date and name of vote. Thanks Lycaon 17:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Looks nice as a thumb, but in full lacks indeed detail and sharpness. Lycaon 17:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support with a lot of goodwill for newbies --Jeses 18:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks a lot. I appreciate having support in this hostile world. Semetria 19:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Neutral I want to support but it really isn't sharp enough, that's a shame. Great composition and colours. Hopefully next time, you'll have a bigger camera :) --Nattfodd 21:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your opinion.
  •   Neutral Ack Nattfodd. This world is not really hostile, but just (very) critical. Don't let you discourage. Try and try again, first in the QI section, and you will succeed! -- MJJR 21:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your opinion. I understand the critics.
result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 2 neutral => not featured. Cecil 05:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Schema Grenade-i18n.svg, featuredEdit


  •   Info a SVG cutaway view of the plug of a grenade
  •   Info created, uploaded and nominated by walké 17:28, 22 October 2007 (UTC) --~~
  •   Support --walké 17:28, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Comment Looks good, but before I vote a few small comments. (1) I would prefer full line labelling. (2) Maybe a bit more space around the two-figure numbers. (3) Why not also sectioning the bolt? It is a bit weird that that is the only part which has a 3D look.
    For the rest: well done. Lycaon 17:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Comment( 1) full line labelling ? (sorry i'm french) (2) Good idea ! (3) The schema is a vectorial version of this. It was a request of the french workshop graph. I think it helps understanding. For the rest : thanks ;-). walké 18:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Full line labelling = les pointillés rouges foncés pour les annotations would probably look better as full lines, but it is not a conditio sine qua non. And I've looked at the request of the French graphics workshop, but there no explanation is given why the bolt has to be in 3D. Oh yes, BTW, you don't have to be sorry that you are French ;-)). Lycaon 18:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  • With full lines it's to heavy (¿) see here. For the 3d : the bolt was in 3d in the manually technical sketch, so i make it. walké 18:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support --Beyond silence 20:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support SRauz 22:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support Interesting, informative, clear. --JaGa 03:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support I would still prefer full but thinner labelling lines, but the drawing itself is excellent. Lycaon 08:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Oppose for now. The illustration is so good that definitely deserves a better labelling. The lines should be a little longer and full, like Lycaon suggests. Also, the circles are too small for such big numbers (or the other way around...). Alvesgaspar 08:35, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
    •   Support - Ahh... this is a different thing! - Alvesgaspar 13:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice scheme. La largeur gagnerait à être augmentée, ce qui permettrait d'aérer les numéros. Et rien n'empêche de mettre des numéros au dessus et en dessous de l'image, plutôt que d'avoir tout sur deux côtés. The circles should have the same diameter. Sémhur 08:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Info So I improved lines, and extended circles ... It's ok ? walké 12:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support KABOOM ! --Richard Bartz 15:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support --Sting 16:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support --Karelj 20:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Neutral because of the less than optimal labelling. The reason it looks so heavy is the use of circles round the numbers (these would never be allowed in professional patent drawings). Get rid of the circles, use thinner but non-dotted leadlines and this would be perfect. The drawing itself is excellent. --MichaelMaggs 06:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support with good labelling now. --MichaelMaggs 16:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Comment - Agree with MichaelMaggs, the circles are ruining the labelling. Also, as I said above, full lines should be used (but thin lines, not the ones shown in your example) - Alvesgaspar 11:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
    • It's ok ! Here is. walké 13:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
      • Thanks for that. I've changed to support.--MichaelMaggs 16:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support Clear and informative image. Very well done. Arria Belli | parlami 18:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support Vive l'atelier graphique, bravo Walké. le Korrigan bla 10:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support Beau boulot. Bravo. --Pinpin 14:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support - Net, clair : parfait ! Yug (talk) 09:03, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support Travail époustouflant qui mérite d'être récompensé! Je ne regrette qu'une seule petite chose: le style graphique contrasté de la mèche par rapport au reste de la grenade Karta24 20:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  • ... je suis aussi de ton avis mais hélàs faire une jolie mèche en svg n'est absolument pas de mon niveau. J'ai donc pris une photo de ficelle, tenté et intérgé. Si tu peut faire mieux j'en serais ravi ! -- Walké 21:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support Merlijn 11:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Cecil 05:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:SotresPanorama.jpg, featuredEdit


  •   Info created by mixpix - uploaded by mixpix - nominated by mixpix --mixpix 18:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   InfoThe peaks of Peña Main overlooking the village of Sotres in Cabrales, Asturias, Spain.
  •   Support --mixpix 18:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Comment Great!! But why so much downsampled? Lycaon 18:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Several reasons, file size and viewing conditions being two of them. Too big and the 100% view gives you no sense of place in the confines of a computer screen. As it is, it's 50% bigger than the recommended height... glad you like it, anyway. --mixpix 21:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
      • Oh I was going to   Support anyway, only wished it was at least twice the size :-)... Lycaon 21:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
BTW, I use my pano's in Powerpoint with a custom animated path to scroll them around automatically. Lycaon 21:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support nice view --Jeses 18:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support Vassil 20:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support Beautiful and incredibly sharp. I'm so jealous! --Nattfodd 21:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  • That's what stitching and downsampling can do for you if well performed (as it is here). You should give it a try. Lycaon 21:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support Wonderful. --MichaelMaggs 21:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support --Digon3 talk 21:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support As Nattfodd, I feel very jaelous... I never get landscapes so beautifully... and sharp ! wow ! Benh 22:14, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support - Excellent Alvesgaspar 22:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice!--Tomascastelazo 00:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support fantabulous --Pumpmeup 05:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support - Maybe a little bit too sharp ;-) , but no question --Simonizer 11:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support - I support walké 12:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support --Lestat 15:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support --Bergwolf 17:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support --Böhringer 22:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support - Impressive. You make me feel homesick... and I geotagged it. Puxa Asturies! :-) --Alberto Fernandez Fernandez 14:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support (No anonymous votes. Lycaon 18:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)) Estoymuybueno 09:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Cecil 05:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Arc Triomphe.jpg, featuredEdit


  •   Info created, uploaded and nominated by Benh
  •   Support I'd like to give it a try because I find it sharp and encyclopaedic. -- Benh 22:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Neutral For now. Very sharp but is it possible to fix the perspective? Acarpentier 00:15, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support The sharp detail you see in this pic at 100% is incredible. Could you give us some info about it (how many pictures, what lens you used)? --JaGa 03:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Info Of course :) this is a 4x3 mosaic. I used a Canon EF-S 17-55mm at 55mm, f/8.0, 1.6sec and ISO 100. The original picture was much larger, but my target was something which fits into a 5000x5000 square with great sharpness, hence the actual resolution. I oversharpened the larger version (but not so much) and then downsampled it so even the little details remain visible enough. I'll update the description page tonight. Benh 09:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Comment The fact you did this with a EF-S 17-55 makes it all the more impressive. Great work!!! --JaGa 22:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I'd like to accept the compliment, but I can't :) It seems you believe I used the 18-55mm... the 17-55mm is a totally different one, and it is a topnotch lense !! The best or one of the best in this focal range for sure... (see links on my user page for reviews). That said, it's certainly possible to get similar results from the 18-55 -- Benh 06:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  • LOL you're right. Got my lenses wrong. --JaGa 07:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support --Thermos 04:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support --Pumpmeup 05:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support Great colors. Rocket000 05:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support I agree with Jaga, sharpness is really unbelievable! Great work, and thanks for sharing. --Nattfodd 07:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Neutral - The detail on the arch is amazing and I'll probably support this picture later. There are some issues though: (i)I also don't like the perspective very much, the monument seems to be leaning to the right; (ii) What about the strict French law on monument pictures? (iii) The picture won't pass with this noisy sky!... Alvesgaspar 08:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
    •   Support - After the improvements. Great photo! - Alvesgaspar 11:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
    • For the perspective, I chose to have the vertical lines converging slightly, so it looks natural enough. I could choose another anchor point and another anchor vertical line. What would you suggest, so I can give it a try ? I'll fix the noise in the sky tonight (I used wrong parameters when sharpening this one...). There is no copyright problem, as Semhur mentionned below. Benh 09:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
    • For the perspective, nothing wrong with the converging verticals but I would move the anchor vertical line to the longer edge of the building (or slighly right of it?). Like it is, the edge at right is almost parallel to margin. Alvesgaspar 15:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
      • I Haven't forgotten you :) It's even done actually but I'd like to fix issue raised by Sting, and it's very hard. Benh 07:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Question And what about damned French night light copyright law?--Beyond silence 08:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support Detail is excellent. About the french law, it's not a problem here, because the Arc de Triomphe is two hundred years old. Sémhur 09:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support Beautiful mood and colours. Good sharpness. Bravo Ben! --Simonizer 11:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Oppose (for now) Good point of view and very good lightning. Excellent idea to make a mosaic which brings the level of details of a medium format camera, but… there are perspective problems and heavy lens distortions in barrel (for sure the use of the EF-S lens, one of the worst of Canon, didn't help). One concrete example : at the right, just left of the Eiffel Tower, the first level of the building is curve and goes to the left and the upper level goes to the right. This picture needs a lot of work in order to correct these issues (that's the problem of making a mosaic of a too close subject) : you will have to correct the distortion of each photograph (see here) and after mounting the mosaic, the general perspective. Alternatively, as Alvesgaspar wrote, it would be also good to soften some parts of the sky which makes blurs. Sting 12:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  • True. Hard to fix... It may be not only due to distorsion, but also to the fact that overlapping areas between pictures are very small, and then Hugin takes some liberty when warping pictures. I tried a restitch last night, which didn't give expected results, and I'll try another way when I can (hopefully by the end of this week)... Benh 07:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Juste une information concernant l'objectif utilisé... ce n'est pas un EF-S 17-55 de base mais le 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM qui est un excellent objectif (voir les liens vers les tests sur la page de Benh)... Sanchezn 09:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Oups ! Ah oui, ce n'est pas le 18-55 mais le 17-55 qui a été utilisé. Désolé. Mais à priori il a était réglé sur une focale de 17mm au vu des distorsions. Dommage. Sting 15:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Ah non pas 17mm mais 55mm il l'a écrit... les distorsions viennent de hugin... Sanchezn 16:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Décidément je n'ai pas les yeux en face des trous !! Il serait alors bon d'essayer avec un autre soft parce que celui-ci fait àmha un travail catastrophique qui n'est pas digne de cette image. Sting 17:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  • ça n'est pas Hugin, Hugin utilise les Pano Tools, comme PT Gui (bien que maintenant, celui-ci a son propre moteur dans certain cas). En fait, comme les images ne se chevauchent que sur une petite zone, Hugin déforme l'image en ne donnant priorité que sur cette zone, et se fiche du reste. Les images du droite sont corrigé en priorité sur leur partie gauche, ça peut donner de mauvaises surprises, comme celle que tu as si bien remarqué. J'ai refait le collage hier, avec nouveau paramétrage, et je suis fiers de te dire que j'ai corrigé le problème (ainsi que les autres mentionnés dessus) ! J'ai demandé à sanchezn mon bêta testeur ;) de faire une dernière passe dessus, puis j'écraserai la présente version. Benh 06:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  • It would be really a pity if these distortions couldn't be fixed because this photograph has the potential of a very great picture. Sting 15:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
P.S. : Btw, the picture is not categorized !
  •   Support now : The perspective is much better as well as the sky, the picture is now categorized (but I cleaned them as cat:Arc de Triomphe is a sub-cat of all the others so they were unnecessary). The barrel distortions in each single image from the mosaic are still well visible so the picture is not as great as it could (should ?) be, but the overall quality (and work it needed) makes me think it's a very good picture which deserves the Quality label. Sting 14:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support Good, how about copyrights ? --Richard Bartz 15:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
No copyright problem, I think. The building itself is too old for copyright and although in France claims have been made to copyright in lighting schemes (especially of the Eiffel Tower), this is not a copyright lighting scheme but a series of flood lamps. --MichaelMaggs 16:15, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Info Yes, no copyright problems for the building itself. As far as I know (I haven't checked the accuracy of what I'm going to say), night lightings aren't copyrighted either, unless they add a very artistic value to the rest. I think the "standard" lighting of Eiffel Tower (as seen on this pic) isn't copyrighted but the sparkling lights are. Benh 16:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Info This FAQ says that publishing night pictures of the Eiffel Tower is copyrighted. Normally, this picture isn't concerned as the eiffel tower is far from being the main subject, is show in half of its part, and because of this case law. Benh 17:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support MichaelMaggs 16:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support -- MJJR 22:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support nice colours --Jeses 10:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Info About copyright issues (again !). I just gave a call to the people in charge of Arc de Triomphe, and I've been confirmed that this picture is freely diffusable. Arc de Triomphe is in the public domain, lighting isn't copyrighted either (it seems to be very specific to the Eiffel Tower). The only thing that could have prevented such a picture to be diffused is the location from where it was taken. Some people might be interested to know that Pictures taken from the roundabout cannot be diffused (I don't understand why !! The more I dig into copyrights stuffs, the more I get lost...). Benh 14:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Info About copyright issues (again and again !). People has to understand how this stuff works in France in order to a) not upload copyrighted material, b) stop asking each time the same questions about the legal validity of a photograph. The two most famous school cases are a) the Eiffel Tower by night because the lightning is operated by a commercial and private firm earning money from it's pictures (even if the building is public, that's why you can shoot it by day without problem) and b) the Pyramid at The Louvre (day or night) because the building is recent and considered an artistic work copyrighted by it's architect. This, as well as for some other buildings, applies only if the photograph pictures the building as main subject of the image. The striking (and quiet contradictory) example is the Pyramid which is so big that if you want to snap the main courtyard of The Louvre Palace, the Pyramid will occupy a big part of the picture. That's authorized as you can neither move out the Pyramid, nor find another POV for the courtyard without it. That's why this one is legally authorized, but I doubt this other one or that one are and should be deleted imo. For our example above, the Eiffel Tower is really a minimal element of the picture and obviously not the main subject, that's why the copyright on it's lightning can't apply here. About the Arc de Triomphe itself, of course it's an old building so no problem on this side and it's lightning isn't operated by a commercial firm in the contrary of the specific case of the Eiffel Tower. I hope it's clear enough so these questions about freedom of panorama and copyright law in France will not be asked each time a picture appears here. Sting 16:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Ok, thanks.--Beyond silence 16:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
What's wrong with the french government?? And I thought the US was messed up. Dori - Talk 02:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Nothing really wrong : as well as in other countries, recent artwork or firm / private creations are protected by copyright. What makes people usually think wrong about these two examples is that they are located in public places. Sting 14:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support --Digitaldreamer 18:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Info What are the strange thingies I can see in the blue parts of the photo (only in the thumb)? is my monitor configured in a wrong way? --Canislupusarctos 23:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  • compression artifacts ? Benh 17:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Done I fixed issues raised above : 1. anchor vertical line moved to the left edge of the right arch so the whole thing doesn't lean to the right anymore. 2. restitched in a different way so the rightmost edge doesn't dangle any more. 3. Noise in the sky slightly reduced (but not so much). I overwrote the previous picture as I believe this is an obvious improvement. Thanks to everyone for the detailed reviews which showed the problems ! -- Benh 17:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support Tbc 23:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support Dori - Talk 02:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support --Böhringer 22:08, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support Merlijn 11:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Cecil 05:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Aerogelflower.jpg, not featuredEdit


  •   Info created by NASA - uploaded by Siebrand - nominated by Rocket000 --Rocket000 05:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support Encyclopedic and good quality. It demonstrates the insulating properties of aerogel artistically. --Rocket000 05:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Needs a thorough clean-up. Lycaon 08:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Agree. Also, the apparent quality would improve with a downsample. Alvesgaspar 08:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support Jeeeezzzzzzz! Come on people!--Tomascastelazo 13:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Comment Hey, chill out :) We didn't say it is impossible to get through or even downright bad, did we? Lycaon 16:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Yes, here it comes. The construction of the experiment looks interesting but i have the feeling that the colors/picture looks dull/sad. It's not banging for me, sorry. Have a look at this, which is more expressive (only to point out what i mean) --Richard Bartz 14:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree, I like that picture more, but it's too small to nominate :( Rocket000 15:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support --Karelj 20:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Lycaon and Alvesgaspar. --MichaelMaggs 06:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Please reduct tne noise! --Beyond silence 08:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support wow... made me read the article... --Canislupusarctos 23:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Walké 08:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Comment A valiant attempt to protect the flower from the flame, but I think it is all in vain: someone has cut the flower from its stem and it will shortly wither :-( --Tony Wills 09:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
result: 5 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Cecil 05:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:White Duck 2.jpg, not featuredEdit


result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. -- Lycaon 17:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Chromacris sp 1.jpg, featuredEdit


  •   Info created by Luis Fernández García - uploaded by Luis Fernández García - nominated by --Richard Bartz 15:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support This is good --Richard Bartz 15:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support - walké 16:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support Beautiful and very martial. --LucaG 18:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support --Karelj 20:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too dark and disturbing reflections. Lycaon 06:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice main detail. --Beyond silence 08:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Don't like the DOF. Dori - Talk 16:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support Amazing. --Aqwis 20:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support Agree. Acarpentier 13:17, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Comment Een duidelijk geval van twee maten, twee gewichten. Lycaon 18:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Men moet dat waarschijnlijk goedkeuren ... zodra ook verschillend zijn deel te nemen --Richard Bartz 23:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
result: 7 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. -- Lycaon 17:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Acanthacris ruficornis ruficornis.jpg, not featuredEdit


  •   Info Acanthacris ruficornis ruficornis, created, uploaded and nominated by Lycaon -- Lycaon 16:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support --Lycaon 16:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support Sehr gut, the crop <-- is on the borderline but the sharpness does iron it out! :) --Richard Bartz 18:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Shadows across the head, prominent out-of-focus sticks in the foreground, not easy to distinguish subject from setting. --JaGa 19:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Backgound color is very similar to subject so that subject cannot be clearly seen. --Karelj 20:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  • That's called camouflage ;-) Lycaon 20:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Great at full size, but the subject's camouflage techniques ruin it at small sizes. :) --Rocket000 21:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support Yes, it has good detail in nature, the camouflage can't be a negative option.--Beyond silence 08:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
    •   Comment This was a bad place to take the picture. The pic should've been shot where you can actually see the subject, like in the pic below. --JaGa 19:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
      •   Comment I wanted it in it's natural environment, unlike the picture below, and without having to use a flash, unlike the picture below. :) Lycaon 21:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Don't like the DOF. Dori - Talk 16:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. -- Lycaon 17:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Le Grand Heron.jpg, featuredEdit


  •   Info created & uploaded by Acarpentier - nominated by --Richard Bartz 19:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Info The Great Blue Heron, Ardea herodias, is a wading bird in the heron family Ardeidae
  •   Question Ok I think I will merge these and update the image with the original background version since there is no opposition on Fir0002 point of view. If there is a problem, I'll revert theses changes. Acarpentier 14:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support Good one <3 --Richard Bartz 19:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support until the selective colour filter issue is resolved. It has been resolved Lycaon 14:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC) Lycaon 19:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support I like it. Good details. --JuliusR 19:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support. Pour le regard du poisson, qui est probablement son dernier. Thierry Caro 21:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Effectivement, je ressentais la peur dans les yeux du poisson, hé hé hé ;) Acarpentier 19:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice picture. Calibas 05:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Neutral A cropped version of This one would be more interesting by several magnitudes and actually starts to hint at the size and beauty of this bird which while in flight covers (as in blocks from view) a significant area of the sky (compared to other birds). --carol 05:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Also, forgive me if I have encroached upon a voter block here; it is fun how little groups of people always support each other, isn't it?! Doesn't everyone have fun with this? -- carol 05:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I also like the heron 4 version showing wing... you are right about the cropping, I’ll do as you proposed. ;)Acarpentier 19:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support A very good capture. A crop of the other one would, unfortunately, be too small for promotion as an FP. --MichaelMaggs 06:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support Joli ! moved below Benh 07:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support --Beyond silence 08:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support --Digitaldreamer 18:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Hopefully everyone above is aware of the selective background desaturation that has been applied to this image? Anyway I personally think it really ruins an otherwise terrific image --Fir0002 www 06:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  • How can you tell, Peter? Lycaon 07:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Isn't it obvious? When have you seen a seen where you get vivid yellow beak and eyes and virtually monochrome background? Including autumn colored leave? Including green growth near the river? Check out another one of the shots by Acarpentier, Image:Female Mallard Duck.jpg - anything strike you as odd with that? The only colour is on the bird? But that aside there's some pretty obvious clues, namely the colour halo around the heron's legs. See Image:Le Grand Heron temp.jpg. Honestly I've said it before but I'll say it again - you commons folk need to become a little more careful when examining photos.... --Fir0002 www 22:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  • And I've said it before and I'll say it again - you need to learn how to make a point without being condescending. Most people will just see the negative tone and disregard the point altogether. Not to mention it makes you look kinda silly. --JaGa 06:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  • This beaviour will change when growing a bit... ;) Acarpentier 01:41, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Let us hope not - I value the ability to evaluate images... --Fir0002 www 09:13, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  • An interesting perspective on this - if anything I would expect it would leave a lot of the above voters looking pretty silly that they didn't notice something which is pretty obvious. I think it would do voters well to take notice of this, because I've only decided to comment here in hopes of getting a better version of a pic I really liked; dare I suggest that if I hadn't comment this would never have been noticed? Dare I suggest that numerous images with manipulation which have gone unobserved by voters here? And if people are just letting there egos get in the way of proper voting well that's just another failing of com:fpc IMO. --Fir0002 www 09:13, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I think that you are wrongly presuming that people didnt notice it and that's where you're bit too fast on conclusion... Even on QI process people remarked it, and it pass the test anyways. You should just step down a bit and relax, think twice before acting like that and insult people... ;) Acarpentier 14:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  • OK if any of the above supporters (prior to my comment) can honestly say that they knew that the image had been selectively desaturated and still supported without comment I'll gladly apologise. But I seriously doubt anyone did.... --Fir0002 www 22:27, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Question Is there some sort of Australian kids vs. Richard Bartz war going on? Well, anyways, I for one don't know what selective background desaturation is or why it's bad. Could you enlighten me? --JaGa 07:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  • ??? It's not even taken by Richard Bartz! Selective background desaturating is where you either use a sponge tool to desaturate or as I suspect was the case in this image, duplicate layers and desaturate the bottom layer to about 70% and then erase through. This is bad because it presents reality in a way which is impossible (leaves and that will never by near monochrome whilst the bird is full colour, and I personally find it very bad aesthetically. --Fir0002 www 22:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I prefer using adjustement layer in photoshop than to duplicate a layer. In that way you keep the image layer clean and original. I also found very usefull the photo filter tab to fight against bad lightning, and cost less money than buying real filter. Anyway I found it better like that and think that the background where distracting. Take a look, do you like it better? ;) Acarpentier 23:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Image too dark. Dori - Talk 23:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support Now this is very nice! Yzmo 07:23, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Oppose see original. Lycaon 10:50, 28 October 2007 (UTC) see above (this gets complicated:-)). Lycaon 14:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Conditional   Support As long as the background remains saturated :) Benh 22:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

If you prefer this oneEdit


*  Info - If you prefer without the vignetting. ;) Acarpentier 23:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

  •   InfoSince there is no opposition on Fir0002 point of view about the deasaturation background, I've deceided to replace it with the original background version. So you can replace your support or oppose from this alternate version to the previous one since it's the same now. Thanks, ;) Acarpentier 23:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I actually do like this one better, but still the image is too dark. Dori - Talk 23:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support Much better version. Much better - I'd love to see your mallard duck without the desat as well! Possibly a downsample/sharpen should be applied to improve image quality at full res --Fir0002 www 09:13, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support per Fir. Lycaon 10:50, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support Agree with Fir0002. I haven't noticed the desaturation applied to the bg (but the colours weren't that shocking to me, not as much as on the picture of the duck) -- Benh 16:58, 28 October 2007 (UTC).
  •   Support This picture shows why the bird is colored they way it is. I thought the original looked strange. Same image as above. Calibas 23:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
result: 10 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. -- Lycaon 17:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Lutheran Cathedral Helsinki.jpg, featuredEdit


  •   InfoThe Lutheran Cathedral in Helsinki, created, uploaded and nominated by Lycaon -- Lycaon 19:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support --Lycaon 19:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support --Karelj 20:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Oppose. Du fait des blancs. Thierry Caro 21:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Kunt u daar wat meer uitleg over geven? Lycaon 21:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, too much of the boring steps for my liking, and the shadows are also rather noisy. --MichaelMaggs 06:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Oppose sorry I know it is hard work to stitch that. But it really is the typical shot of that church. I know the square in front of that church makes it difficult to get a better view on the church as it is sloping and those stairs are also not helpful.... Maybe one day someone will upload a picture of that church made out of a building opposite to the church. --AngMoKio 07:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree and I don't agree:). Yes it it is a typical view bottom up. But what makes it different is that this is the only angle where no lighting poles or fountain are obscuring part of the building (as also taken here). The opposite buildings are quite low an I don't think they are readily accessible (small shops, a few restaurants, if I remember right). I hope someone who lives there, one day obtains a reasonable digital camera, takes a good shot and posts it on Commons (or is this too long a shot...). ;-). I do acknowledge your critics however. Lycaon 10:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support Anyway really good resolution and value. But some improve on noise and sharpness can be so good. --Beyond silence 08:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support impressive.. why is exif missing?? --Jeses 10:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - I was so sure I was going to support this picture! I like the composition, including the stairs and people seated. But then I realized it is too noisy, both the sky and the shadowed parts of the building. I'm pretty sure it can be fixed though. Alvesgaspar 11:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I try to fix that Joaquim, and for Jeses I'll 'construct' an exif (the image is a composite from 22 images). Lycaon 11:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Unacceptable noise in shadows, lack of detail in white (burned out), too much unnecessary foreground, distracting block, people, artifacts. Otherwise a very nice image. Too bad these flaws interfere with a well composed, well exposed picture and relevant building. Sorry, try Quality images first :o).--Tomascastelazo 19:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Comment Didn't I see a policy somewhere that sarcastic votes were considered as jokes and thus invalid? Lycaon 21:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Question Which is the sarcastic vote? The oposing votes basicaly agree on the same defects... ;o) --Tomascastelazo 22:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support If this picture will printed out as a photo i guarante you there will be no noise visible. This contraproductive noise discussion will result (like we have already) that everybody will go to 2k. This is a great picture from a great photographer --Richard Bartz 22:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support Defines its subject in a very artistic and nice manner... and a lovely composition for sure. - Noumenon talk 16:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support I remember I wanted to nominate this one !! arg sorry to have forgotten :) I do support despite the noise (the picture is large enough to mitigate). High quality stitching, and I like the building. Benh 17:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support --Böhringer 22:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice 39 Mpix-equivalent picture. Great stiching job. If somebody would have access to a Hasselblad H3D 39, we could compare ;-) - Alberto Fernandez Fernandez 15:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Hopefully not as the Hasselblad use special cooling to do away with noise... ;-)). Lycaon 22:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support Phenomenal. Doodle-doo Ħ 22:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support A month ago I voted this picture for an QI. I think this picture is good enough to earn a FP stamp also. I quote my text from the QI candidates discussion: "Finally, a decent image of one of Helsinki's finest buildings. Lycaon has done good job stitching the 22 photos together." --Siipikarja 20:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
result: 11 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. -- Lycaon 17:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Svyato Mihailovsky Cathedral Izhevsk Russia Richard Bartz.jpg, featuredEdit


  •   Info created, uploaded & nominated by --Richard Bartz 21:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Info Izhevsk , after Dmitry Ustinov, is the capital city of the Udmurt Republic, Russia, located on the Izh River in the Western Urals area. Here i bring you (from very far away) the Svyato Mihailovsky Cathedral as part of my adventures in the western Ural area.
  •   Support Lets go east --Richard Bartz 21:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice. --Rocket000 21:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support. Thierry Caro 21:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Lighting could be better, and maybe a crop at the bottom, but very nice detail. Dori - Talk 01:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Changed my mind due to the red, fire looking thing next to the lower left steeple. What is that (flash, lens reflection)?? Dori - Talk 01:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Would say a reflection of the red wall on a metallic surface --Richard Bartz 08:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support Boffo. Calibas 05:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Question Is it possible to cut the bottom of the picture for removing parking ? After that, I support. walké 06:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Tried it before but it looked to stocky for my taste. There is not much choice to find a spot to take a nice picture without disturbing buildings in the background. If taken from the left side you have the Kalaschnikov museum in the background, taken from the opposite side there is a unfortunate hill I was very happy that there was no parked cars on this time :) Otherwise the white lines on the ground fits with the white decoration lines on the building, just my opinion --Richard Bartz 08:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
    • If you are accustomed to a high image, it appears stocky cut. But stocky itself even for a picture makes no sense, the size suited to its subject/ Si tu es habitué a une image haute, découpée elle paraît trapue. Mais trapue en soi même pour une image n'a pas de sens, les dimensions son adaptée au sujet.Sorry, all my english com from Google translate. walké 13:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Feel free to improve it. :) Thats why Creative Commons is for. I like it how it is. --Richard Bartz 20:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  • So I have removing parking and the spot in this version; and I don't forget to congratulate you for the photo. - Walké 17:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Great picture. I'm going to change to support, if this file with progressive jpeg-encoding is replaced by a normal jpeg version. I think progressive jpeg is rather disturbing the whole thing. --Jeses 10:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
? No clue, whats the difference? --Richard Bartz 11:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
It's very disturbing when you load it with a slow internet-connection. --Jeses 15:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  Support much better --Jeses 10:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support --Digitaldreamer 18:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support -- MJJR 19:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Oppose After reflection, I think the parking is really annoying -- Walké 08:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support Composition is really nice... surely a definitive image. - Noumenon talk 16:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Question This picture is really nice, but why is it so small ? I have in mind people complaining about Fir0002's lowres pics, but we aren't that far from a picture fitting in a 1600 square here (and most of your recent submissions seen on FPC fit in a 1800 square)... I can understand that a picture of an insect needs being downsized to produce apparent quality because from my experience, it's harder to shoot macro than shooting landscape. But taking this kind of picture doesn't require that much dexterity I believe (so I suspect the larger version to have sufficient quality for FP), one just need to be at the right place, at the right time, under right conditions. Benh 17:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Size? surely, because its a one-shot taken by hand and to avoid these unpleasant commentaries about noise. Its not a 155 picture collage but it can stand --Richard Bartz 18:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for replying. I was just finding that this was quite a huge downsizing from a camera which takes 10mpix pics. I personnaly don't find the Canon 400D that noisy at 200 ISO (not enough for being a reason to oppose on FPC). I do the same (I reduce pics to fit them in 2000 square) when using my 18-55, which isn't very sharp, but I think you have some much better lenses (which one here ?). Benh 20:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
A cheap and not so sharp Sigma 18-50mm when iam travelling, but i am going to upgrade with this :) ASAP and this in a few weeks :)... The downsampling of my last insect macros was because i bought a Tamron 180mm Macro which has a strange backfocus on my 400d, but works great on a 5d or 1d. Its possible to adjust it but i give my 400d away :) :) :). --Richard Bartz 00:53, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks again, and sorry to make you justify... I own "this" and strongly encourage you to get it :) But this is an EF-S lense and you said you wanted to give away your 400d ? does the new body you want to upgrade to take EF-S lenses ?? -- Benh 08:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
I know that EF-S doesn't fit on 5d/1d but after (feb-may) i will sell the 400d with it as a kit lense. ;) --Richard Bartz 11:28, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Benh 08:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support --Bergwolf 17:08, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support --Böhringer 22:04, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support --LucaG 20:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
result: 11 support, 1 oppose, 2 neutral => . -- Lycaon 17:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Aloe aristata.jpg, not featuredEdit


  •   Info created by Raul654 - uploaded by Raul654 - nominated by Rocket000 --Rocket000 21:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support --Rocket000 21:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Oppose. Je trouve qu'on pourrait faire mieux au niveau du cadrage et de l'exposition. Thierry Caro 21:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
    •   Comment Vou le vou Moulin Rouge Grey Poupon bon appetit. --JaGa 22:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
      • He said I think framing and exposition could have been better. A votre service, monsieur. --Nattfodd 22:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Lighting is too harsh. Sorry. --MichaelMaggs 06:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Overexposed parts, and no description - please write it!

Sorry, you should try Commons:Quality images candidates first! --Beyond silence 08:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

  •   Oppose agree with Thierry Caro -- Walké 08:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. -- Lycaon 17:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Kiefernschwaermer Hyloicus pinastri Caterpillar Richard Bartz.jpg, featuredEdit


  •   Info created, uploaded & nominated by --Richard Bartz 22:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Info A caterpillar of Hyloicus pinastri
  •   Support Cute fellow --Richard Bartz 22:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Comment I would have loved seeing it on its host plant (Pine?). Lycaon 22:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
You can often find her on the ground. --Richard Bartz 22:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support Always impressing me ;) Acarpentier 01:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Neutral I really think it could use some cropping on the bottom. The bokeh there is too disturbing (at the top it's not as big an issue. Dori - Talk 01:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support Good, but cut the out of focus ground!--Beyond silence 08:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support Impressive!! In my opinion, you don't need to crop the out of focus parts, as they produce a strong impression of depth. -- MJJR 19:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Dito --Richard Bartz 20:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support I agree. --MichaelMaggs 20:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nice picture, but like i said about the last caterpillar.. Caterpillars should be on the plant they feed on, not on some random ground, even if they often are on the groud. + the Image has a bit low resolution for such an easy shot... Yzmo 14:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I wouldnt say easy shot .. this caterpillar is moving all the time, just 1 of 15 photos was usable --Richard Bartz 09:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Of course, but its alot easier than for example a bird or a wasp or similar. And i never said the picrure wasnt good... But, it just looks to artificial. Yzmo 07:21, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Oppose As above --Karelj 21:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support When are they like this? I might have stepped on one the other day. This is a vote of support because it is a beautiful photograph and sometimes there are things like this on the ground. -- carol 05:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support --Böhringer 22:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
result: 7 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. -- Lycaon 17:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Phasia hemiptera male sideview2 Richard Bartz.jpg, featuredEdit


  •   Info created , uploaded & nominated by --Richard Bartz 22:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Info Aerobic lessons with Phasia hemiptera
  •   Support 1,2,3 and 1,2,3 --Richard Bartz 22:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Don't like the DOF. Dori - Talk 01:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support Works for me. Lycaon 06:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, not this one. Background is very posterized, eg above the fly's head. --MichaelMaggs 16:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Composition, bad glowing flower, no wow detail. --Beyond silence 16:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support --Digitaldreamer 18:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support Stunning detail and a nice smooth background. Wwcsig 23:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support cute --Pumpmeup 07:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support defines and expresses its subject very well... composition seems nice too. - Noumenon talk 16:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support --Bergwolf 17:08, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support --Böhringer 22:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Question Where did you see this one (location?) -- Slaunger 23:19, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Somewhere around munich, cant remember it was long ago. (June if exif says September) Why you asking for ? You planning to oppose because it has no location temp ?`--Richard Bartz 08:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Discussion about Slaunger gets bored on Insects on flowers pictures is moved to here
result: 8 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. -- Lycaon 17:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Lightmatter flamingo2.jpg, delistedEdit


result: 6 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. Cecil 23:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Crocodylus acutus mexico 01.jpg, not featuredEdit


Sorry, you should try Commons:Quality images candidates first! --Beyond silence 19:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Indeed, beyond silence... way beyond... beyond beyond... must be very dark in there... :o)--Tomascastelazo 19:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Comment I am intrigued by the interference pattern of all the circular small water waves. Is this a wild-life shot? I suggest you add geodata to the photo. The photo is not thaat sharp, and all this water gives a subjective feeling of blurriness leaving the impression of a slightly messy composition. I cannot make up my mind on what to vote on it though. I would like to give an additional comment. I do not like sarcastic comments and personal attacks rearding other reviewers evaluations as above. There seems to an uprising of harsh sarcastic comments like that, which are not in the spirit of the guidelines stating that you should always be polite. I too do not always agree with other reviewers opinions and often shake my head. However, I propose either to ignore reviews you cannot approve of or give a more balanced reply. In the end single wrong evaluations does not normally influence the end result as normally quite a lot of users vote on FPC, which averages out anomalies. The rules state that any Commons user is entitled to vote on and have an opinion on the photos here. It is not stated that you should have qualified as a reviewer somehow. -- Slaunger 20:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
You get out what you put in, just my opinion. No robots here. --Richard Bartz 20:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Comment Slaunger, It is a wildlife shot, hanging from a manglar, low light conditions. Sharpness? Well, that is an academic point… The picture was taken at 60th of a second, so there is motion blurr, and the subject itself was moving. The skin color and texture do mimic the environment, a good predator camouflage. Distance? 10 feet? Maybe less. But of course, the technical difficulties and the danger inherent in this type of situation in no way match the mortal danger incurred in close up lady bug photography. Next time I will take to the swamp lighting equipment, a make up artist, several crocs in order to take that “Feature Picture” with a 200 megapixel camera. Sarcasm? Yes. But what is sarcasm an answer from?--Tomascastelazo 21:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  • BTW, the danger incurred is of course irrelevant: or you take the picture or you don't, and BTW you can make a 200 Mpix picture by stitching 40-odd 5Mpx (allow some overlap) snaps. Lycaon 21:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Comment The circular patterns in the water are most probably produced by the croc vocalizing with infrasound underwater. Lycaon 21:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Oppose if only for those patterns. But quality is really too low. Lycaon 21:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support Thank you for explaining the special circumstances. That is one of the reasons why I asked without coming to immediate conclusions first. I think the special circumstances overcompenstaes technical issues. Very nice. And no, I still do not approve of the sarcasm, I was just asking a question to learn more. -- Slaunger 21:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Comment Slaunger: Sarcasm not directed at you and thanks for your vote!. Lycaon: Thanks! All: This is true for me: I am my own harshest critic, and when I critique someone else's work, I do it following well established photographing judging criteria. That it the least I owe to someone I critisize. Do I fall short? Probably, and due to my own ignorance. However, by acknowledging my own ignorance and shortcomings, and doing something about it, I lessen the damage bad judging can create.--Tomascastelazo 21:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support I think Lewis Carroll put it best: Calibas 22:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
How doth the little crocodile
Improve his shining tail,
And pour the waters of the Nile
On every golden scale!
How cheerfully he seems to grin
How neatly spreads his claws,
And welcomes little fishes in,
With gently smiling jaws!
  •   Oppose Not so much on its technical merits - it is sharp enough and has sufficient light - but the subject is too much hidden in it's environment to generate an outstanding image, a wow factor. I understand that hiding is the predator's intend and yet as a photographer I have to have the patience and yes luck to find it in a situation where it stands out and presents itself in all its beauty (well here beauty is relative) to the viewer. Wwcsig 23:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Oppose due to technical quality, and I hope people are not getting themselves in dangerous situations just to get FPs. Dori - Talk 17:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support I said elsewhere that I was not going to be participating in these things, but this photograph is awesome! I know that the collection which is the Featured pictures is not necessarily mentioned in the guidelines but if you look at the collection; the photographs that are there and the photographs that are missing and judge photographs like you would how a teeter totter works where it is a total weight not just both sides being perfectly matched. As far as safety goes, the more crocodile photographs there are, the less of a need for them and that much more is understood about photographing them. I can see a day in the future when a photograph of a crocodile is not supported because the Featured pictures collection has 30 of them and 4 dead photographers as well. My support hopefully will move these photographers into a future like that. Thank you for not only giving this photograph to the commons collection but having the balls to show it here where the bug and flower people will try to hurt your feelings. -- carol 05:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Comment This kind of so-called support vote is actually there to debase photographer who do an effort to sit still for hours trying to capture a high quality botanical or entomological picture. Sarcasm has become the rule in FP. It doesn't matter whether you make a picture of a fly in your garden with your 100€ digital camera or whether you are fortunate (as in having lots of money) enough to make that shot with your state-of-the-art camera on the top of the world. A good picture is a good picture. Every good syrphid picture gets my support, every bad Asian tsunami pic my oppose, and vice versa. If the only thing you are here for is to insinuate and spew sarcasm, it would be better if you stayed away. Criticize pictures not people, you can always start FPh (Featured Photographer) if you want to do that. I can very much appreciate critics (in al senses) from people who contribute and show they know what they are talking about but in your case it is as we say in Dutch "De beste stuurlui staan aan wal", Lycaon 06:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, sir or madam Lycaon, I love those Macro shots as well. I really do. Lord knows, they do not get the support they deserve around here and I will try to vote favorably for more of them. Thank you for correcting me. -- carol 07:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
By the way, do the Commons Photographers use a buddy system when getting photographs like this? I was wondering if there was a gallery of photographers being eaten by their subject yet or plans for one in the future? You know, things just happen and it would be nice to have a camera around when they do happen. -- carol 13:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh my, what happened there, Carol? Did a million neurons just zap instantaneously in your brain causing a spasm of arbitrary keyboard commands followed by a violent jerk unwillingly pressing you finger on the mouse button while having the pointer positioned over the Save page button? (This is not meant as sarcasm. This is meant as concern.)-- Slaunger 13:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Nope. And no offense is taken. I was imagining hanging from a tree getting photographs of a crocodile and thought it would be nice to have a photograph of this photographer taking that photograph -- regardless of the outcome. There was that bird photograph and Dori mentioned (or hinted) that the photographer had to be lying on his belly in the wet sand to get it. There is a joke somewhere within all of this about imagining imagery imaging but I can't make it work out correctly. I began all of this with the assumption that the photographer knew the equipment that was being used and was comfortable with it and was mostly safe the whole time.-- carol 14:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh, so that's what you meant? I got the impression from your previous comment that you suggesting feeding Commons photographers to wild animals while photographing it. I'm glad we settled that misundertsanding of mine. I think these thoughts about imagining imagery imaging (albeit interesting) are quite off-topic for the evaluation of this FPC though. -- Slaunger 14:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Comment I would love to support this. Could someone have a go at applying an unsharp mask, please? --MichaelMaggs 07:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  • MichaelMaggs – I normally upload images that are mostly unprocessed, except perhaps histogram adjustments and minor color adjustments. The reason I do this is so if the image is used in print (or other media), it can be manipulated with freedom for any application, that is, from unsharp to sharp, from low to high contrast, to the measure required by the final output. Over processing may look a picture look nice on screen, but be usless for other applications. In fact, most of the time reduces the possibilities of the editor.
  • ALL: Well, I leave you all, and take my sarcasm away with me…. Have fun with the bees and the flowers!!! Love,

--Tomascastelazo 15:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

  •   Support - It is sharp enough all right, and if it has not enough wow factor, I don't know what has. Sometimes this evaluation process is a real farce. We accept very-very simple maps only because they are self-made, but very old and rare ones are rejected, because they are old...--Szilas 18:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
result: 5 supports, 4 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured. Cecil 22:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC) 

Image:Aquifer en.svg, not featuredEdit


  •   Info created (concept USGS), uploaded and nominated by Lycaon -- Lycaon 22:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Lycaon 22:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Oppose --WarX 09:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC) Legend looks awful, unneeded margins around image.
  • Poor USGS :-). Lycaon 09:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  • The need for the margins is illustrated in the article on the English wikipedia (here). And though if I had to make such an illustration from scratch, I would have placed the legend differently, I still think it works the way it currently is placed. It is readable at sizes useful for inclusion in articles. Lycaon 07:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Perso je supporte. Walké 17:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Comment The legend is in a weird place - I think it would work better on the right or left sides. Doodle-doo Ħ 19:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Comment It's unclear to me, as a non-specialist, what the significance of the 'low hydraulic-conductivity confining unit' is. How does the water get into and out of it? Does the water travel along it? Is 'low hydraulic-conductivity confining unit' the correct technical English expression? ('unit' sounds very odd). --MichaelMaggs 06:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  • The concept of an Aquifer is explained on en:. The image is a vectorized version of a drawing by the USGS geologists, whom I trust to know what they are talking about ;-). Not being a geologist myself, I have to rely on specialists for the correct terminology. Lycaon 07:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
result: 2 supports, 1 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured. Cecil 22:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Pachypodium lealii.jpg, not featuredEdit


  •   InfoBottle tree (Pachypodium lealii) close to Palmwag, Namibia. Created, uploaded and nominated by Lycaon -- Lycaon 22:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Lycaon 22:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  • CRITIQUE First of all, bad time of day to take photograph, harsh light flattens the image. Second, I would have taken it from ground level so it silhouettes against the plain sky, giving us a better shape or contour. Third, I would have chosen a larger aperture in order to have just the plant in focus and foreground and background out of focus in order to concentrate on the subject. Enough environment detail would have been conserved without distracting attention from the subject. Fourth, I would have taken the picture with softer, side light in order to enhance volume and texture. --Tomascastelazo 23:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Point 2 may have been remediated at the time. The lighting conditions however were as they were. We were on our way from Twyfelfontein to Sesfontein over several hundreds of kilometres dirt roads. We only saw P. lealii that once and it happened to be almost lunch time. Are those mitigating circumstances? I would think not. But where these plants grow (20°S, no trees, no clouds), soft light is limited to the 90 minutes after and before sunrise and sunset. And what concerns point three: it was very windy high up those hills, so I needed the speed. Alas!. Lycaon 23:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I did not say "Oppose", I said "critique".A larger aperture would have given you a faster shutter speed and reduce depth of field.--Tomascastelazo 00:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Indeed, that could have been an option. But don't you think that showing the harsh stony desert environment where these plants grow is an asset here? IMO it enhances the encyclopaedic value of the image (and probably slightly reduces the phototechnical value). Lycaon 07:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Harsh light, dust spots, noise. Dori - Talk 23:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes those dust spots I overlooked. Tried to fix the 'noise' too, but the harsh light is beyond my capabilities. Lycaon 23:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  • The dust spots were the major reason for opposing, but I can't support due to the light. Dori - Talk 17:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I can live with that :). Lycaon 21:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support It is by far the best photo in Commons of this unusual tree depicted in what appears to be a very hostile environment. The light is harsh, yes, but I actually think that adds to emphasizing the harsh environment. Taking the photograph in the morning and evening would have lead to a "nicer" light, but it would not be representative of the scenario I think. -- Slaunger 20:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support Love it. A wonderful subject with TONS of wow (seriously, I'm drooling) and I think that outweighs the few problems raised above (Can't we all just get along?) Doodle-doo Ħ 21:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support I also think the lighting is flat, and DOF could be shallower but overall quality is good to me, and the subject is unusual (to me also). Benh 00:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I don't find the subject very interesting, don't like the light, focus seems subpar. Sorry. --JaGa 17:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
result: 4 supports, 1 opposes, 1 neutral => not featured. Cecil 22:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Sligachan Bridge1 2007-08-22.jpg, not featuredEdit


  •   Info Sligachan Bridge on Skye. Image created, uploaded and nominated by Klaus with K --Klaus with K 18:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support --Klaus with K 18:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support Great composition and color. --JaGa 20:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support Acarpentier 23:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support --MichaelMaggs 06:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Walké 08:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support Good! -- MJJR 18:50, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Harsh light, sporadic chromatic aberrations, low wow factor, and the composition is close but not exactly centered (were you in the water?). Dori - Talk 21:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Info I was standing on stones in the riverbed, camera around waist height. Slightly off-center IIRC to hide a road sign on the far side bridge. -- Klaus with K 12:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  •   Oppose There isn't any wow to me. I find composition a bit trivial and lighting of the bridge is very flat. Benh 21:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm just wondering if lighting could have been better than that now... Benh 21:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Klaus, I am a great fan of your technically excellent panoramas and stitches. Here you have produced another pano with of very high technical quality, but it is not exceptional enough to make it FP for me. -- Slaunger 23:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Oppose A sub-optimal pano from the 'stitch-master' I find it a bit dark and the composition doesn't wow me neither. Lycaon 12:34, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I dont want to follow this oppose tendency in a lemming manner but the impression is a bit too dark for me, though i have a faible for morbid things   Richard Bartz talk 22:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Info Regarding brightness, the blue channel is already at the limit. As I think that altering the contrast would change the image character, I see no proper way of making the image brighter. -- Klaus with K 11:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   I withdraw my nomination   Info I understand too few people are wowed enough to make it FP. Thank you for your constructive comments.-- Klaus with K 12:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Gull in Gibraltar.JPG, not featuredEdit


  •   Info created by RedCoat - uploaded by RedCoat - nominated by RedCoat --RedCoat 14:07, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support --RedCoat 14:07, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, it's not sharp enought. And over exposed Acarpentier 14:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Oppose sharp, noise. --Beyond silence 16:22, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Oppose First the good thing: I like the composition and the pose of the bird. The bad things: the technical quality is pretty bad. There is something very strange going on in the boundary between the bird and the background. Like a multicoloured line dominated by red. It is very distracting to look at even in preview size. I do not know whether this is due to chromatic abberation of the lens or some other effect. Also the colours look posterized and the background has too much noise and a lot of colour fringes. -- Slaunger 22:54, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Comp is good, quality is nonsatisfying   Richard Bartz talk 19:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Oppose As previous comments. Attractive pose, sharpness and contrasts not excellent enough. --Javier ME 17:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  •   I withdraw my nomination -- RedCoat 20:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Perpendicular Gothic, Westminster.JPG, not featuredEdit

Original, not featuredEdit


  •   Info created by RedCoat - uploaded by RedCoat - nominated by RedCoat --RedCoat 23:21, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support --RedCoat 23:21, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support Good, proper, illustrative image. Carries the point across. Maybe a polarizer would have helped even more. Freedom to share 11:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Oppose It seems to be leaning, the crop is too tight, and there are chromatic aberrations. Dori - Talk 18:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Cropping the tips of the towers is the major problem for me. Otherwise great colors, exposure and detail. Wwcsig 18:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Oppose yes, it's very pity that The image is cut off in the top. Otherwise it is superb. -- Walké 19:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Due to the crop. It makes it very unclear for me what the subject is. -- Slaunger 21:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   I withdraw my nomination -- RedCoat 20:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Perpendicular Gothic, Westminster edit.JPG, not featuredEdit



  • Ah, behold the power of photoshop... -- RedCoat 20:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Shame on you, you've damaged the tower of Westminster ;-)). See real spire here. Lycaon 21:16, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Whoooops, for want of better word. I've just chopped off a very old tower. *smiles evilly* hmmm, Guy Fawkes Night isn't far away now is it.... -- RedCoat 21:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Would one tower which could be much sharper and with more detail in a upright format not better ?   Richard Bartz talk 19:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Don't think so. The idea is quite good, it's just (important) details where it fails. Lycaon 22:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   I withdraw my nomination -- RedCoat 20:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Polietes lardarius sideview artistic Richard Bartz.jpg, not featuredEdit


  •   Info created & uploaded & nominated by   Richard Bartz talk 19:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  •   Info If you think the earlier picture is to straight and enc. I can offer you this.
  •   Support Frisky and surreal, for those who know   Richard Bartz talk 19:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  •   Neutral for now - The subject is lovely if a twinge small, but I really don't like what appears to be an applied blur over the rock in the foreground. The line along which it ends intersects with some of the rufous colouring on the rock near the fly and it bothers me. Perhaps a more graduated blue to give the illusion of DOF would be better. Therefore the neutral for now; I'd like to see what the photo looked like before the blur. Gorgeous otherwise, no complaints aside from the blur : ) Doodle-doo Ħ 20:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - No way, I take this as an aesthetical experience (which didn't work out) - Alvesgaspar 21:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  • This is called trendsetting ;) --Richard Bartz 21:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I don't like the composition either, and for another insect it should be something amazing. Dori - Talk 04:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I think it has too much blurred background and foreground. /Ö 09:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support Good selective DOF, nice dynamic lines. --Thermos 14:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  •   Neutral I think the line ascending from left to right shouldn't go directly through the corners and it is in general a bit too steep. The fly should look in the other direction...not "outside the photo". I give neutral bcs i always appreciate it when people experiment with compositions - i would love to see more such experiments here. --AngMoKio 14:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Cropped, I support. Because the rest is good -- Walké 14:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  •   Oppose, a similar image with the fly at the top instead of at the bottom i would have supported. This i can not support. --Aqwis 19:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  •   Comment I thought a lot about the comments regarding the composition. Not that i have planned/calculated this before but even a golden spiral fits perfectly onto this composition (showing that i dont unlearned my sense of proportion) ... just to show up that this picture is not trivial. It's a matter of opinion if the fly is moving upward or downward, is the journey the reward ? Is it christianity that you have always the feeling something should go upwards, like jesus was going on the Mount of Olives ? Or is it the feeling of the conqueror who want to be the king of the hill. The truth is that i have taken 120 pictures where no flies moved upwards, they all came along from the top of the treestump, dont ask me why and I as a nature-photographer tried to ban this on my sensor with my own style of symbolic speech. --Richard Bartz 20:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  •   Comment I would like to see the not-pshopped original. -- carol 22:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  •   Comment I think a roughly 20 degree clockwise rotation and a tighter crop would make this a better picture, something like   but without the horrible clone-stamp job. Of course, this may be impossible to do keeping it over 2 million pixels. Calibas 23:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  •   Info @ Carol'n'Calibas ;-) Find the uncropped, uninterpolated 10mp version here --Richard Bartz 01:42, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

  I withdraw my nomination Iam convinced now that this is not the right place to nominate such pictures, thank you very much for your constructive comments --Richard Bartz 09:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

hmm...what do u mean by "such pictures"? The picture is no far away from a picture i would support. I would regret not to see more "such pictures" here. --AngMoKio 10:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Polietes lardarius sideview 2 Richard Bartz.jpg, not featuredEdit


  •   Info created & uploaded & nominated by   Richard Bartz talk 19:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  •   Info Polietes lardarius of family Muscidae. How about a new benchmark in Dof, plasticity, separation and sharpness ?
  •   Support Its my masterpiece so far because it's totally reduced on the object in a great technical excellence. No flowers needed!   Richard Bartz talk 19:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  •   Info If you ask yourself what caused this orange background, you should click on this.
  •   Neutral for now for the same reason as above. The added blur is very obvious and displeasing to me.  Support However, this photo is PHENOMENAL (I'm sorry, I meant PHENOMENAL) otherwise. Doodle-doo Ħ 20:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Are you familiar with the techniques and resulting limitations in macro photography ? :) --Richard Bartz 20:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
You're right, I suppose. I've changed my vote. Doodle-doo Ħ 21:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support It is indeed a good picture, however, I would crop out the orange section, as it "weights" on top without adding value to the image, it is a distracting element. As for the DOF, it is as it is, inherent to macro photography, no problem there. Congrats. --Tomascastelazo 20:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I see it like BOB ROSS (rest in peace, buddy), a hill in the background with a surreal sky which gives a lot of space (works as a landscape). But if you view at 100% the background disapears :) As i hold it with creative commons this picture can be later cutted, rotated or whatsoever. Here is the raw material where everything is possible --Richard Bartz 20:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Nothing special, you have much better than this (for example this one, this one and this one, just to mention some of the first in your gallery). Technically it is a correct picture, though not exceptional. I think it would barely pass the QIC barrier. In aesthetical terms, it is a risky business to nominate this kind of critter, without a flower to soften its ugliness. Yes, that side could be also exploited but only with a better resolution/detail and sharpness -- Alvesgaspar 21:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I find this fly beautiful and probably iam more courageous than you. Regarding my old pictures you listed, I dont like to repeat myself but rather try new scopes for design. This picture has a much better quality than my old ones because they're all crappy flashlight pics. C'est la vie, i'am more large hearted in reviewing macro pictures than you ;-)) --Richard Bartz 21:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support Incredible details, sharp...I have to buy a macro lens... ;) Acarpentier 22:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Buy a Sigma 150mm which is not that expensive and join the club of true macrofreaks ... if you do macro shots similar to your last great contributions then it would be a hot winter :-) Join the freaks ! --Richard Bartz 22:34, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Hey I realy apreciate the tips, I'm going to ebay that right now and start shopping it. Thanks ;) Acarpentier 23:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support Excellent details. --Karelj 22:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  • There is a edit line in the orange part of the bg in the top right, easy fix Benjamint 11:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Composition not on the fly, detail is average at this zoom. --Beyond silence 20:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

  I withdraw my nomination Iam convinced now that this is not the right place to nominate such pictures, thank you very much for your constructive comments --Richard Bartz 09:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

  •   Comment This one seemed to have a chance to make its way through to FP ! I liked both actually (with a preference for the one above), maybe you shouldn't have withdrawn them so quickly so more people can review it :) Benh 10:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Dear Benh, i take this withdraw with a pinch of salt ;) Its a approach to test possibilities. The tendency is a decreasing admiration for a whole spamflood of insect macros. So i should come along with something outstanding, because my attempt for the return to essence in insect macros failed. Maybe because iam not surrounded with like-minded people, where finally said this list cannot be the place for this, and such great shots should be better contributed here or there for reviewing and promotion. Last sarcastic but precise joke: Why you dont place this Image:EM Spectrum Properties.svg on a flower to soften its ugliness ? CU back in spring 2008, Regards--Richard Bartz 12:50, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
  • It may not be appropriate, but it may be too :), but if you don't ask/try, you never know. This one was on a good way to being promoted, so the admiration hasn't "decreased" as much as you said. Hadn't you close the nomination, you could have had even more feedbacks, I don't think that would have bothered people here. Benh 17:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Its a tendency where i dont feel comfortable with   Richard Bartz talk 18:52, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Lascar summit.jpg, featuredEdit


  •   Info 360° view from (almost) the summit of the Lascar volcano, the most active volcano of the northern Chilean Andes. This was taken at an altitude of 5500m. It's a downscaled version made from 11 photos.
  •   Comment Special note for Beyond Silence: don't even think of complaining about sharpness or detail.
      Comment I do not approve of such comments. Every registered user is entitled to have an opinion. Above all, be polite. You may disagree on opinion of a reviewr, in which case you can start arguing why you do not agree or just ignore it. In the end anomalous opinions are normally averaged out by the opinions of several users. -- Slaunger 20:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
    This was on a (somewhat) humoristic stance, making reference to the fact that he has repeatedly complained about sharpness or detail on some of my shots that appear perfectly fine, and never bother to add any precision to his initial comment. --Nattfodd 21:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
    If you suspect that a particular reviewer systematically is opposing your nominations and ignoring questions, I suggest that you first address this on the particular users talk page and try to settle things there. -- Slaunger 06:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
    Really, Slaunger, you go try having a civilized interaction with beyond silence and reading their comments and see how much hair you pull out :) --Pumpmeup 07:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
    I do think constructive criticism about observed behaviors are better to discuss on the particular users talk page, than stating sarcastic comments about a user while nominating an FP, see here for an example. -- Slaunger 23:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Info created, uploaded and nominated by Nattfodd --Nattfodd 22:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support --Nattfodd 22:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support very well done. Dori - Talk 01:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support walké 06:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Unfortunate crop. Lycaon 06:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes, the crop could have been better. But don't you think it has mitigating qualities that more than compensate for it? --Nattfodd 07:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Oppose As Lycaon. And the guy standing there is also disturbing. --Jeses 10:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, it is extremely good but to be a FP it has to be one of the best we have. I can't overlook the crop. --MichaelMaggs 11:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Comment I pondered for a long time whether to upload this photo or not. Turns out I shouldn't have. I'm sick and tired of seeing great photos (not only mine) being dragged in the mud because the background looks a bit unsharp at 300%. I get the impression that (almost) no one really cares about the photo, only about technical nitpicking. Never does the value of the image, the difficulty involved in taking it or its beauty enter as factors in your decisions to oppose.
    This is the last image I nominate for FP (and probably contribute to commons, for that matter). Have fun promoting the 25678th image of a bee on a flower. --Nattfodd 11:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Well said. This is exactly what I've been thinking about too. Usually, someone submits a picture, one of the insiders finds some nitpicking reason to dislike it, and the rest follow. And like you said, nothing trumps the tech details (remember people disliking this war picture because the private who snapped the shot hadn't used a tripod? Sure, it's an amazingly powerful photo taken over 60 years ago during a war, but it just isn't sharp enough. That's plain ridiculous.) What's worse, only the people OUTSIDE the clique are subject to the nitpicking - the insiders receive a much lower level of scrutiny. I'll bet Commons loses a lot of photographic talent to the politics of FP.
    Nominations/authorship should be anonymous, and votes unseen until the result is decided, to stop this group voting; but that seems impossible, and sometimes people's comments are helpful in evaluating a pic (like pointing out noise or ghosting that I hadn't noticed or something like that).
    So it does seem very discouraging. I don't blame you for withdrawing; it's hard to put your own work out there and watch it get stomped by people who seem to take pleasure in it. But you should stick around to fight back.
    LOLed on the bee comment BTW. --JaGa 18:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your support. As for fighting back, I wouldn't really know how to do it except than keeping uploading and getting rejected over stupid reasons (and the mere thought of Beyond silence leaving a critic on another photo of mine is making me want to kill kittens...). Honestly, since it's 'only' FP on wikipedia, I just don't see it as worth all the frustration it brings me. On the other hand, if you find some other way to lobby for e.g. anonymous voting (which seems to be a great idea), I'd be glad to help. --Nattfodd 20:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I much much agree with Jaga (and Nattfodd). I remember I felt very dissapointed that this pic of mine got declined for perspective reasons when it was the desired effect... and was thinking that it only has to be an insect on flower to succeed. I was also wondering if the earliest votes didn't have an influence on the following ones. But I also agree with Michael Maggs, I have the feeling the process is good, generaly, the pictures featured are very good. Probably my dissapointment was because I took me lot of work and time to produce the pano. As I seen somewhere (Ram-Man's page ?), this process shouldn't be taken too seriously, there's a lot of subjectivity involved, there isn't any competition or whatever and nothing to win but pride, recognition by other people (at least to me), hearing other opinions, and learning (I learnt a lot from Diliff's panos). Benh 17:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I think it is a bit sad that you do not want to contribute more to commons, because this FP section has nothing to do whether an image is valuable or not. Even if I never get a picture promoted I will not see that as a reason to stop contributing to commons. It's important to remember that a rejected FP is not a rejected commons image in any way. /Daniel78 21:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Don't take this too personally. Loads of us have had what we believe to be unreasonable objections to our FP candidates, but in the end the results seems to work out fairly well. What bothers one person a lot (the upper crop in this case was the very first thing that drew my eye, and to me significantly affects the image's beauty) bothers others not at all. There are already several support votes and, who knows, this picture may well succeed. Please don't stop nominating or, worse, contributing. Your images are always of very high quality and are of great usefulness to Commons. Nobody wins every time, though. (ps I think we may recently have raised the bar for bees). --MichaelMaggs 16:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
At this time we don't riding on minor tech. problems! I think if your composition is more concentrate on the vulcan it can be really great. --Beyond silence 16:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Who's citing any technical problems in your picture? It's an aesthetic issue this time. I disagree with the people here all the time, but this is to be expected since art is subjective. You're picture is of what looks to be a volcano summit, people expect to see one of two things, either the view from the summit or a good shot into the volcano. This picture is at least 50% rocks on the ground. Also "the 25678th image of a bee on a flower" (actually a fly) is currently doing worse than your picture and it's from our best macro photographer. Calibas 18:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Ohh I've got special note :). So the detail so good, but the composition really useless. Sorry --Beyond silence 16:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
This comes off as downright cruel. --JaGa 18:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
So was the initial comment regarding the reviewer. -- Slaunger 21:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
No, the initial comment was tongue-in-cheek. Calling a picture "really useless" is just mean. --JaGa 23:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Bull. Didn't you see the mitigating smiley? Lycaon 23:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support It is a great picture! Unless, of course, all the chairborne commandos around here have a better one... I've been in and out of this forum for a few months and sadly, I believe it has been hijacked by know nothing nitpicks, who of course, pride themselves in believing to be photography critics. A camera does not make a photographer nor language a critic. Nattfodd is a generous photograher that brings into this forum or effort great images from afar, from places most of us will only know from his pictures, and to knock them down with silly pseudo teckie arguments does a disservice to the Wikipeda effort, and to boot, only exhibits ignorance of the worst kind, contrary to the spirit of the Encyclopedia, in its true extension of the word. By knocking this photograh of Nattfodd and at the same time promote, for example the Neon picture to FP what shows is the vastness of stupidity. Sorry to put it that way... and if the shoe fits, wear it.--Tomascastelazo 18:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support Excellent sharpness (even in the mountains in the background) - I get vertigo on behalf of that guy. --JaGa 18:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support --Digitaldreamer 18:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support The crop is very tight indeed, but for a 360° this doesn't bother me really. Breath-taking view and excellent sharpness. -- MJJR 19:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support That crop is a bit of an eyesore - it is immediately noticed, but I find it is overcompensated by the otherwise exceptional quality of the photo taken at an unusual place at very high altitude. -- Slaunger 20:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Comment We're all here to try an improve Wikipedia (I hope), let's try to treat each other with respect. Disagreement is healthy, but resorting to personal insults is rather immature. We're here to judge the images, not the other users. If you have a problem with another user, tell them on their talk page. If you have a problem with the FP requirements, there's a talk page for that too. Calibas 22:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Question Who is insulting who? Aren't the conditions, whatever they may be, that make Nattfodd and his talent leave this encyclopedic effort the real insult? --Tomascastelazo 22:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  • To quote you, "I believe it has been hijacked by know nothing nitpicks, who of course, pride themselves in believing to be photography critics" and "By knocking this photograh of Nattfodd and at the same time promote, for example the Neon picture to FP what shows is the vastness of stupidity". Know nothing nitpicks isn't an insult? If you or the other editors here have a problem with the way FPs are chosen there's a forum where we discuss these things, Commons talk:Featured picture candidates. Starting a flame war because individuals have different opinions is nothing but detrimental to the people here and Wikipedia as a whole. Calibas 03:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  • *  Question Does the shoe fit you? --Tomascastelazo 15:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Technically outstanding, sharpness, light and stitching seem flawless but the crop is such an essential element of the effect on the viewer that the missing hilltop spoils the otherwise wonderful image. Wwcsig 23:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Comment. Maybe can you try to cut the right part of the picture to make the crop disappear. Whatever the length may be, it will remain a great picture, won't it? Thierry Caro 02:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
    Something like the one I've uploaded, or even shorter.
  •   Oppose For the crop. Not only the mountain on the right but also the smoking hole that is hidden... Sanchezn 07:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support the original image as presented - rhs - bulk presence, rhc volcanic gassed entryway surmounted by clouds, lhc presence and scale feature, lhs distance feature showing true scale of the photo and the accomplishment (high-altitude blue with cloud haze under). IFFF this sequence is contemporaneous, a masterful composite work, if separate timed shots, a very impressive montage. Either way a rich and worthy image. Franamax 13:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support Extraordinary image. Keep up the great work. Jespinos 00:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support First you gotta get there. The contrastyness is what it looks like, isn't it? I appreciate seeing the panorama without having to go there myself. It was stitched together by someone who had a lot of respect for the situation as well, I think. I found one place where the stitching is not so good, I would volunteer to fix this if none of the other more experienced stitchers are available. I think the bickering about the crop is kind of moot, too bad there is no way to vote on the voters. -- carol 05:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your comment. Where have you seen a bad stitch? --Nattfodd 07:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I have done what I can to over-document that little error here.-- carol 07:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC) Also, it is a clone error (I think) and not a stitch error. I think I fixed my error as much as I can while sitting here on this chair critisizing the system. -- carol 11:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Too bad, there is no way to vote on nominators... :-) Sanchezn 15:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support seriously, anyone who raises points as valid as those under the 3rd comment point and still produces great pictures is a legend --Pumpmeup 07:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I feel a bit sad to oppose because I believe this is a very good shot. But why is the horizon straight on the left part, and curved on the right part ? Could it be restitched ? Also, crop is really tight but I understand that Alexandre may have not left enough margins on the source pictures when taking them (which is often a problem to me). Great picture otherwise... Benh 17:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support An exceptional picture --Tony Wills 21:42, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support Ben Aveling 11:07, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support The difficulty and inaccessibility of the shot definetly compensate for its technical flaws. Freedom to share 21:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
result: 15 supports, 7 opposes, 0 neutral => featured. Benh 11:15, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Lascar summit edit.jpg, not featuredEdit


  •   Info Crop by Calibas 04:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support I'm tempted to take more off the right... Calibas 04:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
    So am I. I think it is best if cropped such that the rock/sky boundary just meets in the upper right corner of the image, see this for example (where it is done (a little careless on close inspection) in the upper left corner). -- Slaunger 06:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Comment But we've lost those nice mountains on the left! --JaGa 06:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support I really prefer the composition of this image. Nice. There is just something good in this version. --Thermos 16:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Comment Maybe, if Natt can do the same crop from the original pictures, he can get more on the bottom (to see more of the smoking hole) and correct the horizon (it's curved) ? Sanchezn 16:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support Lycaon 19:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Verticaly too narrow composition. Sorry --Beyond silence 07:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support --Bergwolf 17:08, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Loses the view over Argentina, Laguna Leija and the bits of the Atacama desert. Plus less interesting if it's not 360°. --Nattfodd 17:56, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support IMO if one gets promoted, it should be this one. The guy's presence has a sense here (on the above picture, I find he spoils the composition) and helps improving the composition. Also, the -what I believe to be a- stitching flaw, inconsistency of the horizon, can't be seen here. -- Benh 17:05, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Oppose With this crop the image loses a great part of its encyclopedic value. Jespinos 23:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
result: 5 supports, 3 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured. Benh 09:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Lipostructure-Saint-Vincent-2.jpg, not featuredEdit


  •   Info created, uploaded and nominated by Thierry Caro --Thierry Caro 01:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support --Thierry Caro 01:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Comment. Another version of this file failed because the subject was potentially identifiable. It is not the case here, but is it as good? I give it a try, since I think human fat is a pretty interesting object. Thierry Caro 01:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support I'm a sucker for gross pictures. Calibas 04:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nothing special (composition, colours, etc.) inspite of the object. --Herrick 06:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Comment I can remember that we had this picture before -- 12:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The composition and subject doesn't do it for me, if it were a beating heart or something maybe. Dori - Talk 17:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support Maybe not quite such a good composition as the identifiable image, but still a rare and unusual picture. It's well lit and exposed, and works well as a photographic image. --MichaelMaggs 06:42, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support For informative reasons. --Thermos 16:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support mainly for reasons of value. The photo is also of good technical quality. -- Slaunger 23:13, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Horrible. --Karelj 19:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support --Composition, lightning, sharpness : I think it's really good regarding the quiet difficult condition for shooting. Not a tasty subject but an encyclopaedic picture. Sting 03:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Oppose --Lestat 13:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
result: 6 supports, 4 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured. Benh 09:59, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Qualcomm11.jpg, not featuredEdit


  •   Info created, uploaded, and self-nominated by Durova --Durova 07:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support FYI: I shot this at Qualcomm Stadium today in San Diego. The child is waiting for permission to return to her neighborhood and does not know whether she still has a home. --Durova 07:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Very noisy. Yzmo 14:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Oppose noisy, subject way too small. --Jeses 16:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
    • If this were purely on its merits as photography I wouldn't even nominate. This is basically a piece of photojournalism about a major current event, not a posed photograph. Durova 16:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, but not enough of a mitigating reason. It's a relatively easy shot and the quality is pretty bad (almost looks upsampled), maybe just outside of the camera's capabilities or different settings could have been used. Dori - Talk 17:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Comment The picture itself just shows a girl in a stadium. I don't see any special meaning in this pic without having background information. By the way, does the girl know that she has found a new home in the world wide web now? --Flicka 17:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC) After having read my comment again, I'd like to apologize for the sarcasm. But I'm still not happy about the picture. --Flicka 18:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Child too small in comparison with rest of field, and if idea was to have child dwarfed by field size, more of the field should have been shown. -- Avi 14:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 4 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured. Benh 10:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Street children.jpg, not featuredEdit


  •   Info created by Tomascastelazo - cropped, reuploaded, and nominated by Dori --Dori - Talk 18:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Info This image was previously nominated here, but I don't think it got a fair assessment. I cropped it a bit to emphasize the subjects, and changed the file name. It's a bit on the small size, but still within guidelines. The expression of that little girl is impressive, she looks so resigned. Dori - Talk 18:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support --Dori - Talk 18:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - I agree that the previous review wasn't fair, the image got refused for the wrong reasons. I like the theme and the composition and will support the nomination if a decent copy (with no artifacts or significant noise) is uploaded. Alvesgaspar 19:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
    • I already tried noise reduction. It's the grain of the image, so you lose detail (skin becomes too smooth and unreal) even at low levels. Dori - Talk 00:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  • DORI, thanks for the gesture, I appreciate the spirit of the editing and the name change, and most of all, the critique and the time you took. I can go with no problem on the editing, however, the name change I do take issue with, for it is part of the picture, its meaning, its message. These are not street children, they are farm children, below poor, children of migrant workers who risk their life crossing the border to work the US fields, where they are not wanted, but needed, to put those nice, wholesome vegetables on US plates, displaced from their own fields due to the economic conditions created, in part, by agribusiness… But of course, none of that matters…. Bees and flowers definitely have a deeper, more sublime purpose… and they do!--Tomascastelazo 15:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  • The first thing we learned at my old graphic school was: "Children, Animals and Erotic" when they're talking about what motif is the best to sell. Here on your nice picture we have children which are normaly most-favored as you can see here, here, here, here and here and .... :) --Richard Bartz 19:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (should have been rule of the 5th day). Benh 22:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Escudo Sheffieldarms.svg, not featuredEdit


Mαяcιи n ® 15:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The original have many gradients --libertad0 ॐ 16:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I agree with MARCIN N: the surrounding figures can have gradients, but the escutcheon itself can definitely not have gradients! BTW, this coat of arms is heraldically speaking rather bad, but that's not the responsability of The Photographer, who did a good job - except the gradients in the escutcheon: if you change them to flat colors, I'll support. -- MJJR 18:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 2 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured (should have been rule of the 5th day). Benh 22:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:EM Spectrum Properties.svg, not featuredEdit



  •   Info A diagram of the EM spectrum, showing the type, wavelength, frequency and black body emission temperature. Adapted from EM_Spectrum3-new.jpg, which is a NASA image. Created and uploaded by Inductiveload, nominated by Alvesgaspar --Alvesgaspar 07:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support --Alvesgaspar 07:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support Lycaon 11:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC) to edit. Lycaon 22:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support --Jarekt 13:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support --Thermos 14:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support very nice work -- walké 14:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Very nice indeed. There is just one thing that bothers me: All such diagrams I have seen resp. noticed yet go from lower to higher wavelength (resp. from higher to lower frequency) from left to right. This was irritating at first view. Since this is an SVG it should be easy to edit. No reason to oppose though since I reall like this diagram. --norro 15:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
    It is not always so. I can add that all such diagrams I remember seeing has used the same convention of starting at the long wavelengths. Si it seems like there is not a fixed convention regarding this. -- Slaunger 20:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support I like this a lot. Very clear. --MichaelMaggs 15:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC). Now supporting edited version. --MichaelMaggs 07:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support I love a good, informative diagram. --JaGa 18:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support -- MJJR 19:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support One comment though. I do not think peak wavelength is the best way of stating the equivalent black-body temperature as it could give the impression that it is the maximum wavelength emitted in the black-body wvae-length spectrum (which it is not). I have not found the perfect formulation, but I guess characteristic or most probable is more correct somehow. -- Slaunger 20:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC). Support moved to edited version. -- Slaunger 09:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Comment - There is a slight improvement to make: instead of "Wavelenght /m" and "Frequency /Hz", it should read "Wavelenght (m)" and "Frequency (H)z". To Slaunger: none of the formulations is good enough because it is not possible to describe energy distribution(over frequency) with a single number. - Alvesgaspar 08:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
    ..unless you indicate descriptions of the distribution such as the mean of, the maximum of or the median of. The problem is it gets too technical for the targeted viewers. My suggestion to use "characteristic" is an attempt to use a more everyday word than the descriptive statistics terms. Peak is a pretty bad coice unless it is something like the wavelength of radiation with peak (or maximum) intensity. But it just gets too involved and long. Hmm...tough one. Did you not intend to write "Frequency (Hz)" by the way? I would say that "Frequency [Hz]" is equally good as it is an often used convention to enclose units in brackets. Actually I think the original notation "Frequency/Hz" is good notation too as it explicitly indicates that what you see is a number divided by its physical unit. But we are getting awfully nitty-gritty here I think. -- Slaunger 08:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
    I personally quite like " the emitted wavelength with peak intensity", but thats still pretty long. "Characteristic" is OK, but I don't particularly like it as it sounds technical but isn't the standard phrase used to describe it. Unless it is and I don't know it, in which case I'm wrong and that's the best option.
    As for the units, if you write frequency (Hz), then it could mean that frequency is a function of Hz, or that it's multiplied. By dividing, you get a dimensionless quantity which is actually what is on the diagram (how do you place a Hertz on a piece of paper?) Maybe I could have Frequency / [Hz], as this emphasises division by units, rather than a variable.Inductiveload 15:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Comment There's some objections over at the en candidacy. 09:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Oppose --WarX 09:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC) Scale, scale, scale!!!
    Can you elaboare on what you mean? If it is the size of the image shown, it can be of any size as it is in the scalable vector graphics format. You can magnify it as much as you want. Or maybe it is something different you are referring to? -- Slaunger 09:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
    There is same distance on scale between 10^15 and 10^16 as 10^16 and 10^18. This should be made as proper logarithmic distance (10^18-10^16 should be twice as 10^16-10^15). --WarX 12:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
    The problem with that is that the cutoffs for accepted frequency ranges (radio, microwave) etc, are NOT logarithmic. Sure I could make it on a log scale, but then all the diagram would be unevenly spaced. This diagram puts them all together and gives each band approximately equal weight. The scale is not supposed to be linear or logarithmic or anything other than in order of increasing frequency, showing the major divisions and their approximate size of wavelength. Inductiveload 15:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Oppose A ripoff is one thing, but a bad ripoff is another. This purports to be scientific - choosing arbitrary scales, Wavelength is measured in meters, thus wavelength / m = dimensionless = means what? Frequency is cycles/second, which is Hertz, divided by Hertz - doesn't that always equal one? Stick to emphasizing that pretty butterfly and the neat way you took the button away from the needle. Give the kudos to the NASA image - what single thing did you contribute? Franamax 11:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I am new here and I apologize if this is what is considered as a feature candidate. I also note that on the temperature bulb it appears that the colour line in the "mercury" don't align with the scale lines. Also, leaving aside the approximate Celsius equivalents which aren't consistent in their rounding, why does Celsius get a degree symbol, whereas the Kelvin does not? Aren't they both degree scales? Maybe that's what Warx means? I'm at three scale-scale-scale's now too! Nice butterfly, way better than the honeybee. Franamax 11:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Concerning units: Take microwaves for instance: Here the wavelength is approximately 10-2 m. If you divide that by m you get 10-2. Which is exactly what it says. This is a perfectly accepted way of notation. Likewise 1012 Hz is the frequency of radiation somewhere between microwave and infrared radiation, and if you divide that by Hz you get the diemnsionless number 1012 exactly as written. There are other notational ways to state the physial dimension as discussed above, but the divide by unit convention used is formally OK. When it comes to Kelvin and Celsius, the degree symbol is not used for Kelvin only for Celsius, so that is formally correct notation too. Finally the rounding. Well is does state an approximate symbol in front of the 10,000,000 K, and quite frankly reducing that number by 273 to get 9,999,727 K does not make much sense considering it is an order of magnitude figure. The scale lines on the thermometer is not supposed to align with the other scale lines. They do not coincide. Hope that clarified some of your concerns. -- Slaunger 15:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Slaunger is correct. This is a perfectly normal and commonplace method of displaying units on a graph. Physicists do it this way all the time. Degree symbols are never used with Kelvin (as it's an absolute scale, the concept of 'degree' is not appropriate). --MichaelMaggs 07:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support --Karelj 21:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
result: 7 supports, 2 opposes, 1 neutral => waiting for other nomination to be closed Benh 09:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
=> not featured (the other one has same count of support but less oppose) -- Cecil 01:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:EM Spectrum Properties edit.svg, featuredEdit

Edited versionEdit


  • Hi guys! Due to comments over at en, I've put in a continuous colour spectrum for the temperatures that (very approximately) show the colour (but not relative intensity except right down in radio) at that wavelength. Again, it's not supposed to be 100% accurate, as this just isn't possible in this drawing due to the non-linearity of the scale. Also corrected a rounding error in the temp scale. Also changed temperature caption. What do you think? Inductiveload 23:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support Even better now! ps You should support your own edit.--MichaelMaggs 07:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support - This one is better. But I still don't sympathize with the "/unit" thing in this particular picture. Yes, it is used in Physics but this is a simple diagram aimed at common people. On the contrary, "(unit)" is clear to everyone. Alvesgaspar 08:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support - The temperature caption is more concise now, still a bit long, but I can't come up with a better solution. Concerning the units. Having established that your convention for the physical units is formally correct I do suggest changing the notation as Alves suggests as I think the (unit) notation is understood better among the broader audience. Your concern above that such a notation could indicate somehow a function which depends on the unit as an argument is a little far fetched. The (unit) notation is widely accepted as well (although us physicists freaks may have slight preferences for the more concise notation). -- Slaunger 10:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
    • I know it's far fetched, I was just commenting that if you use brackets it has the same notation and is therefore (very slightly) imprescise. I don't think anyone would actually do it. At least I hope not, becuase someone who could realistically make that mistake surely wouldn't know about the concept of a function anyway... xD. Inductiveload 10:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support - Changed to (units) under all the pressure ;). My physics teacher would turn in his tweed jacket but it seems like a pretty unaminous opinion here and over at en. Not something worth digging any heels in over, is it? Inductiveload 10:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
      Comment Just don't tell your physics teacher about the great work you are doing at commons ;-) -- Slaunger 10:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support Good work - Noumenon talk 16:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support Either one will do. Both are good. --Thermos 16:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support Better. Lycaon 22:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
result: 7 supports, 0 opposes, 0 neutral => featured. Cecil 01:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Leucanthemum-vulgare.jpg, not featuredEdit


If the petals are over exposured, it's because of the regular sun of noon : picture is not retouched yet. This is regular nature without PhotoShop alteration! Give me hints to make it better, I'll work on it... or feel free to work on it if you have a second! Thanks a lot for your help guys!.. Benoit Rochon 05:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
There is nearly nothing you can do when a picture is overexposed. The detail in the pedals is lost forever. You have to be careful when you take the picture. --Simonizer 08:32, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Simonizer about this. It would be hard do much about it in Photoshop without "cheating". The fundamental problem is that your camera sensor has clipped off the brightest parts due to a too long exposure time and/or a too large aperture. It is hard to avoid this on white flowers. If you would like more detailed feedback and hints on how to improve your photography, I suggest posting your images at Photography critiques. I have used that several times myself and it has helped me improving on certain aspects of photography, although I still have a lot to learn. -- Slaunger 07:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (rule of the 5th day) Cecil 01:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Metalmania 2007 - Entombed - Alex Hellid 03.jpg, not featuredEdit


  •   Info created by Lilly M - uploaded by Lilly M - nominated by --WarX 17:07, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support --WarX 17:07, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Question WarX, could you explain to me why you think this photo is exceptionally good and has sufficient wow for you to nominate it to FPC? -- Slaunger 22:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
    Because I do not use the wow factor (it's very strange unit for physician). I divide images into two categories: images I like, and images I don't like (eventually 3rd - images i don't matter). This one I like very much, maybe cause this guy doesn't look like heavymetalist :P --WarX 22:56, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
    Thank you for explaining me that. So, as I understand, you think this photo qualifies for becoming FP because it depicts a heavymetalist who does not look like a heavymetalist? I am sorry if I am a little slow here, I am just trying to understand... -- Slaunger 23:08, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
    Something like, but thanks to this photo you can recognize him on the street ;) --WarX 23:27, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Oppose don't like it. Lycaon 12:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Oppose no wow--Beyond silence 16:03, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Oppose It's a decent portrait but it is mostly in the "don't like it" category for me, sorry. -- Slaunger 22:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Oppose It's a backstage photo & the pose is not the best. Would see him on stage.   Richard Bartz talk 19:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of the 5th day). Cecil 01:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Bush Stone-curlew444.jpg, not featuredEdit


  •   Info Benjamint 10:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support --Benjamint 10:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Oppose DOF, flash.

Sorry, you should try Commons:Quality images candidates first!--Beyond silence 12:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

  •   Oppose ack Beyond silence + unsharp beak tip. Lycaon 13:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Question Is this a wild-life shot? Just curious. Could you fill in the date field in the image page?-- Slaunger 20:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Date's in the EXIF, it was taken at a wildlife sanctuary/rescue center.Benjamint 02:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  • That information should be on the image's page (and not only this once). Lycaon 05:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of the 5th day). Cecil 01:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Rhone-Valley2.jpg, not featuredEdit


  •   Info created and nominated by Simonizer 22:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support --Simonizer 22:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Comment Not a bad picture but the rocks on the bottom are rather bright and distract from the much more beautiful valley. Perhaps a different crop or darkening the rocks in the front? Calibas 03:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Very Simonizer-like colours... a bit dark and sad... Good technically. You caught the clouds well, but I think the rocks spoils it a little (maybe too much of them) and I believe a panoramic format would have fit this scenery better. Benh 00:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of the 5th day). Cecil 01:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Kestrel444.jpg, not featuredEdit


  •   Info Benjamint 02:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support --Benjamint 02:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Unfortunate crop (shoulder) and DOF. Slight overexposure on the beak. No location info. Lycaon 05:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Oppose expose --Beyond silence 14:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Unfortunately, the frame is too small / Le cadre est hélas trop petit . -- Walké 07:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Oppose ac Lycaon --Lestat 13:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Lack of location info is not a valid reason to oppose.Benjamint 03:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  • It is not the main reason it is a corroborating factor. Lycaon 18:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured (rule of the 5th day). Cecil 01:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Viola x wittrockiana002.jpg, not featuredEdit


  •   Oppose ac Richard Bartz --Lestat 13:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of the 5th day). Cecil 01:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC) 

Image:Autumn leaves VT1.jpg, not featuredEdit


  •   Info created by Fcb981 - nominated by Self-nom --Fcb981 22:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support --Fcb981 22:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Shadows too harsh, wrong time of day. If possible, you should have taken it earlier in the morning or later in the evening when the sun was not that strong. If you have a polarizing or graduated ND filter, you need to use it in such situations. Freedom to share 07:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Not bad, but no wow.

Sorry, you should try Commons:Quality images candidates first! --Beyond silence 17:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured (rule of the 5th day). Cecil 01:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Buick mid 50's hood ornaments.jpg, not featuredEdit


  •   Info created by Acarpentier - uploaded by Acarpentier - nominated by Acarpentier --Acarpentier 02:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support --Acarpentier 02:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Question Isn't that a trunk ornament? If it is, I don't know what the real word for that is but a hood ornament has a very different position and placement for its life. -- carol 20:29, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of the 5th day). Cecil 02:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC)



  •   Info created by Evstafiev - uploaded by Rama - nominated by Rama --Rama 15:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support The resolution is low by today's standards, but the image is from pre-digital-camera era, is a valuable historical document, and is photographically very strong. --Rama 15:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
    •   Comment, all that needs to be done is to rescan the image with a higher resolution scanner. This photo is from 1995, not 1905, and the original on paper that this picture was scanned from should contain a lot more information than is in this low-resolution scan. --Aqwis 19:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because too small and very noisy Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

Lycaon 20:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)



  •   Info created by Evstafiev - uploaded by Rama - nominated by Rama --Rama 15:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support The resolution is low by today's standards, but the image is from pre-digital-camera era, is a valuable historical document, and is photographically very strong. --Rama 15:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
  •   Oppose, while this picture has an interesting subject, i can't support it as it is far too small, even if it has some historical value. Also, see my comment to Image:Evstafiev-chechnya-boy-house-burns.jpg above. --Aqwis 19:50, 5 November 2007 (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 20:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)



  •   Info created by Evstafiev - uploaded by Rama - nominated by Rama --Rama 15:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support The resolution is low by today's standards, but the image is from pre-digital-camera era, is a valuable historical document, and is photographically very strong. --Rama 15:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
  •   Comment Could you please fill out the information-template (description, date) at the image-page, because right now I can't see the context to the valuable historical document. Just the picture-name tells that this man is in Sarajevo and thus gives a clue to the meaning of the picture. -- Cecil 16:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
  •   Oppose, while this picture has an interesting subject, i can't support it as it is far too small, even if it has some historical value. Also, see my comment to the Image:Evstafiev-chechnya-boy-house-burns.jpg above. --Aqwis 19:50, 5 November 2007 (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 20:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Azaleia II.JPGEdit


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 10:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Mandrillus sphinx 092007 Zoo Brazil.jpgEdit


  •   Info created by Carlosar - uploaded by Carlosar - nominated by Carlosar --Carlosar 13:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support --Carlosar 13:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  •   Oppose background and forground -- Walké 15:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because full of artefacts Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

Lycaon 17:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Metalmania 2007 TYR Terji Skibenas 001.jpg, featuredEdit


  •   Info created by Lilly M - uploaded by Lilly M - nominated by --WarX 17:01, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support --WarX 17:01, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support Given the conditions the noise/blur is unavoidable and a flash would have ruined the colors. The bar for action shots like these is rather low here, this is one of the best I've seen. Calibas 18:39, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
    Using flash on large concerts is strictly forbidden (guards remove photographers, who abuses it) --WarX 18:56, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support -- MJJR 21:32, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Oppose composition is too tight for me --che 23:49, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support Dori - Talk 05:54, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Very low quality, I don't know why the bar has to be that low for this type of pictures and high for others. Lycaon 10:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Probably because we don't get too many of these. Supply and demand and all that. Dori - Talk 17:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
    • I think because of the "moving subject under very low light" conditions. But maybe hardware wasn't optimal here (narrow aperture and I don't believe Nikon D50 is a good performer at high ISO) -- Benh 17:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Low guality, poor composition. --Karelj 20:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support I think that the composition (colors, ...) is good for this subject (Metalmania 2007 festival) -- Walké 20:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support composition --Jeses 10:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support especially since I know how difficult it is to make those kind of pics. -- Cecil 05:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support for the same reasons as Walké and Cecil. Vassil 13:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - cut the guittar, poor composition. Alex Pereiradisc 22:05, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
result: 8 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Acarpentier 14:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Sorting quicksort anim.gif, featuredEdit


  •   Info created by en:User:RolandH - uploaded by Howcheng - nominated by Calibas --Calibas 02:54, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support --Calibas 02:54, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support Lovely. --carol 05:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support This animation illustrates the concept of a quicksort, which is complex for many, perfectly. Freedom to share 13:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support --Beyond silence 14:10, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Neutral great animation, but I will support it if it is slowed down....--Tomascastelazo 15:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support --Bergwolf 17:07, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support. <3 -- Cat ちぃ? 17:23, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Neutral - Agree with Tomascastelazo: great animation but too fast, even for those who already know the algorithm - Alvesgaspar 18:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
    • I think it goes too slow from something called quicksort but I see your point. Calibas 18:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support --Böhringer 22:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Comment This is a very good idea, but it is way too fast to understand, even when you know the quicksort algoritm. However, if you slow it down the animation it will take too long I fear. The audience would be bored. Could the same point not be made with half as many bins while still getting the point? I think I would support such a version. It would by the way be very cool to see the same downscaled animation illustrating the more straightforward but way more inefficient Bubblesort alorithm. Just seeing that the animation takes longer time would be a clear illustration of the different efficiencies of those two algorithms. The (as far as I recall) equally efficient Heapsort algorithm could also be interesting to illustrate. -- Slaunger 22:33, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
A computer animation like this is not like so many things that you might only see one time and perhaps never see it again or see it again decades later. I watched it run through its routine a few times before I voted. Consider that the speed of this animation might be perfect as it it because of the nature of the format to replay. -- carol 05:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support The speed is good: the first watching does not get boring and the animation can be watched again (likely after reading a description of the algorithm) for better understanding. --Ronja 18:48, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support Very good.A beautiful picture is worth a thousand words/Un beau dessin vaut mieux qu'un long discours -- Walké 20:16, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support extra ! DocteurCosmos 13:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support Good.   Richard Bartz [[*  Support - User_talk:Richard Bartz|talk]] 20:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Noumenon talk 00:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

  •   Support It is good. Lycaon 05:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Oppose unnecessarily large and therefore complicated for me to understand. I never really got the idea behind quick sort in programming class and this doesn't help me. Maybe a bit too fast, too. Samulili 08:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
result: 12 support, 1 oppose, 2 neutral => featured. Cecil 03:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Eristalinus October 2007-6.jpg, featuredEdit


  •   Info Detail on the head of a male hoverfly (Eristalinus taeniops), collecting nectar from a hawkweed flower. Note the gorgeous compound eyes. On the top of the head the three red occeli are visible (see also "other versions" for a better depiction of those). Created and nominated by Alvesgaspar 17:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support --Alvesgaspar 17:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support Arghhhh! another bloody bee ;-) But I'm sucker for good syrphid pics. Lycaon 21:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support Even if its the 10.000th this is going to be for MACROFREAKS only. I mean people who can share this truly fascination --Richard Bartz 21:17, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
    • I came to the conclusion that the author is a poser, because author finds insects ugly. Macro-support goes strictly to Macrofreaks --Richard Bartz 21:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
    •   Comment - That was an ugly thing to do (and to say), much uglier than the ugliest of your flies. But don't worry, I'll abstain from reviewing your pictures from now on :(( - Alvesgaspar 17:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support -- MJJR 21:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support great picture, I personally would prefer a more ample crop --Simonizer 09:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support Composition, detail. --Beyond silence 12:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support Level of details is amazing... - Noumenon talk 00:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support Acarpentier 00:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support --LucaG 19:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support Amazing ! Benh 00:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support --MichaelMaggs 22:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
result: 10 supports, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Acarpentier 14:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Foggy woods.jpeg, not featuredEdit


  •   Info created by Freedom to share - uploaded by Freedom to share - nominated by Freedom to share --Freedom to share 22:05, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   InfoA panoramic image of a foggy forest in Pennsylvania. What you might see as noise is in fact often dense fog comprised of small particles. Taken using an EOS 350D with the EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 lens at f/7.1 and f/8 and at shutter speeds of 1/100 sec and 1/125 sec. Created from three images using Hugin. Freedom to share 22:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support --Freedom to share 22:05, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Comment. You should indicate which specific forest it was. Thierry Caro 06:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Misty forests don't tickle my WOW-button. Needs geo-location too. Lycaon 13:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support Works for me. --startaq 15:03, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Oppose As Lycaon --Karelj 19:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I know that it was beautiful to be there and i can smell the fresh forrest air. A shot like this would be more nicer in the morning when you see sunrays bursting throught the fog (causes fogshadow, too) which would give the picture more deph and a nicer play of colors. I tried this so many times and i always failed   Richard Bartz talk 19:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Technically a very nice image. The stitching is very good (I cannot figure out where they are, which is a good sign). I agree with Richard though and besides that it does not give a sizeable enough reading on my value-o-meter. I hope you enjoyed being in the forest though. -- Slaunger 20:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Neutral I really like this, but overall it seems overexposed (not any burnt out areas, just very bright). Some geogoding would be nice too. --Digon3 talk 16:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support We need such pictures just for illustrating what are actually temperate forests (without exaggerated scenery like sun rays or other esthetic effects) and this one is a very good one . You might be more accurate : what is the exact location, what are the tree species ? --B.navez 04:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support I think this is really nice :) /Daniel78 21:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support I think this is a good composition, the fog adds to the effect, and it has enough technical quality and value for me. - Relic38 02:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

result: 5 supports, 4 opposes, 1 neutral => not featured. Acarpentier 16:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Corfu topographic map-en.svg, featuredEdit


  •   Info created & uploaded by Sting - nominated by Korrigan --le Korrigan bla 09:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support --le Korrigan bla 09:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice, Specifically, ... perfect ! -- Walké 10:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support detail --Beyond silence 12:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Reluctantly   Oppose see above. Lycaon 13:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Comment The river in southern Albania should be Pavllo not Pavlio. Dori - Talk 14:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Ahh a local specialist ;-)) . Lycaon 14:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Pavllo river name corrected (in all versions). Thanks. Sting 17:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Oppose for now. First of all this is a nicely done map. The reason I'm opposing is because I would like to see it improved before supporting. Here are some suggestions: (i) The level of cartographic generalization is too high, meaning that for this scale the detail is not enough. If we look at the map in the 1:1 size, it looks quite empty; (ii) only a few symbols are explained in the legend; (iii) no need to put the units in every number of the elevation/depth scale. Better to have a title like "Elevation/depth(m)"; (iv) rivers have no names; (v) in the image file the nominal scale of the map (corresponding to the 1:1 size); (v) The map projection should be indicated in the map. Sorry to be so hard to please. - Alvesgaspar 15:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
    •   Support - After the changes, though I still insist that this is not the normal (or the best) way to present an elevation/depth svale - Alvesgaspar 16:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  • How do you think it should be ? Sting 21:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Just remove all "m's" and put "Meters" on top of the scale - Alvesgaspar 09:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Ahh a map specialist ;-)) . Lycaon 16:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I added the few creek names I had and completed the key. About the elevation/depths scale, I made the choice to show it this way as it is more international and doesn't need a translation for each language. The map looks empty ? For the continent, yes, as it is a map of Corfu island so I concentrated on it (many times, the maps through the Web don't even represent the continent). Also, the data I was able to get about Albania is very poor. I also added on the description page the approximate scale for an equivalent accuracy compared to the commercial official maps. Sting 19:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support But Alve has some points (although I'd say that map would get cluttered if you labeled every river) --JaGa 18:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support   Richard Bartz talk 19:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support Dori - Talk 22:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Amazing work, same comment that previously : If the 3 topographic maps are nominated, we just have to delay their display of 2 weeks each. Yug (talk) 13:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support Very well done! -- Avi 14:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support Great work. --Digon3 talk 16:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support I tried to put a dot on a simple map once in an svg.... -- carol 16:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support. Sémhur 20:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support --Rémih 09:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support Per my other supports. ; ) Doodle-doo Ħ 15:05, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
result: 14 supports, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Benh 20:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Easter Island map-en.svg, featuredEdit


  •   Info Original map created in French by Sting, translated & uploaded by Bamse - nominated by Korrigan --le Korrigan bla 09:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support --le Korrigan bla 09:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Walké 10:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support detail --Beyond silence 12:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Oppose see above. Lycaon 13:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)   Support per Slaunger -- Lycaon 22:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Happily   Support see above. --JaGa 18:03, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support   Richard Bartz talk 19:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose Posterization...j/k :)   Support Dori - Talk 19:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support As above. I do not have a problem of supporting several outstanding maps. We have other examples of topics (I dare not say which), where many photos have acheived FP status over time. The difference here is that the nominations are clustered. -- Slaunger 20:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support -- If the 3 are nominated, we just have to delay their display of 2 weeks each. Yug (talk) 13:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support Same as the other two. --Digon3 talk 17:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support There is this icky feeling about contributing images -- not knowing cartography; I like to think that the contributor/nominator of such an image would him or herself rely on its accuracy. It is very beautiful. -- carol 16:34, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support --Rémih 09:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support --Tomascastelazo 16:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support Quality and fascinating subject. Doodle-doo Ħ 15:05, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
result: 14 supports, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Benh 20:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Isle of Man topographic map-en.svg, featuredEdit


  •   Info created & uploaded by Sting - nominated by Korrigan --le Korrigan bla 09:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support --le Korrigan bla 09:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support very high quality works -- Walké 10:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support detail --Beyond silence 12:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support Sting has hundreds (or at least a great lot!) of very good map in SVG format. All can't be featured or we would have a map of the day every other day. So I will (gladly) support only this one (random pick). Lycaon 13:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
    Well, I've seen about 3-4 other maps which could deserve a FP status, but I chose to only nominate these three. There aren't that many maps from Sting which have this level, as they seem to take long to produce (see User:Sting). le Korrigan bla 13:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  Info The link you give Lycaon doesn't show the maps I created but the ones where my name is mentioned, because of the re-use of one of my maps or even for other reasons. An example is the map of Easter Island in English below from which I only created the version in French ; at this time there are four other ones translated by other contributors. I made by myself a little bit more than 50 maps in over one and half year ; seems my productivity isn't so big at all. For information, some maps can take up to one week to be created, depending on the complexity of the additional data (like Image:Pyrenees_map_shaded_relief-fr.svg). Sting 22:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Being a prolific quality producer is definitely a good thing. I could only advice you to spread the nominations a bit, lest people get bored or scrutinize on small details of the 'least' of the bunch :). Lycaon 23:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, the nominations are not from my fact, I discovered them through a discussion in French speaking Graphic Lab. Btw, I have for principle not to nominate my own pictures, neither vote for them. Sting 00:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support These are all excellent maps. And like Korrigan says, he couldn't possibly crank them out that quickly. --JaGa 18:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support   Richard Bartz talk 19:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support This looks very professional and must have been very hard work making. -- Slaunger 20:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support Dori - Talk 22:03, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support great map... - Noumenon talk 23:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support clear and useful. Sémhur 16:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support Detailed and clear. -- Avi 20:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support Same as the other two. --Digon3 talk 17:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support I don't know if this is a vote for the vectorized image or the browser that drew it -- that was something! -- carol 16:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support A phenomenal contribution on the behalf of Sting : ) Doodle-doo Ħ 20:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support --Rémih 09:29, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support --Tomascastelazo 16:50, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
result: 16 supports, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Benh 20:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Vulcanian Eruption-numbers.svg, featuredEdit


  •   Info created & uploaded by Sémhur - nominated by Korrigan --le Korrigan bla 09:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support --le Korrigan bla 09:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support - a legend should be welcome, of course. Yug (talk) 09:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
    Well, there is one. What is missing ? le Korrigan bla 09:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support --WarX 10:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC) but please remove unnessesary margins!
    Which margins? Circles around numbers? Sémhur 14:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Walké 10:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Question Very very nice illustration. One pedantic question: The labels you use goes like this: 1, 2, 3, ... 8, 9, 0. That last zero looks a bit ackward. I realize it is because it would ruin the equal sized label circles if you were to use 10 in the end. Could you circumvent the problem by using A, B, C,..., I, J (or some other labeling scheme) instead or would that ruin internationalization or other delicacies about embedded text in the svg file (which I admit I do not know anything about)? -- Slaunger 20:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Very nice illustration but not informative or special enough to become FP. For example, what is the meaning of the various colour tones? - Alvesgaspar 20:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
    •   Support - After improvements - Alvesgaspar 09:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
I have removed the circles around the numbers, it wasn't a good idea. I added two keys, about the layers which Alvesgaspar speak (there are stratum and layers). If you think this scheme is better like that, I will do the same to the others. About the colours of the strata, there is no real meaning (except in this one), it's just to show that it exists several layers. Sémhur 12:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  Support due to the revised, improved labelling. -- Slaunger 13:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support --Very nice creation like the other ones, the labelling is clear for me. Sting 13:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support Better now. Lycaon 14:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support --Digon3 talk 17:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support --Rémih 09:26, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support - Noumenon talk 04:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
result: 11 supports, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Benh 20:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Ab food 06.jpg, not featuredEdit


  •   Info created by Butko - uploaded by Butko - nominated by Butko --Butko 14:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support --Butko 14:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support --che 17:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Oppose This kind of shot should be razorsharp to see every tiniest detail. The lighting is so so with some areas of OE   Richard Bartz talk 19:34, 29 October 2007


  •   Oppose I agree with Richard Bartz. The lighting angle casts some unelegant shadows. QI, but not FP for me. --JDrewes 20:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Really good composition, but need more tech detail. --Beyond silence 14:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
result: 2 supports, 3 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured. Benh 20:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Drews Juergen-2007-09-21-by-steschke.jpg, not featuredEdit


  •   Info created by Steschke - uploaded by Steschke - nominated by Tintagel --Tintagel 19:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support --Tintagel 19:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC) Dieses Bild von Jürgen Drews, einem deutschen Sänger, ist einmalig und genial. Es zeigt einen dynamischen Drews trotz seiner 62 Jahre. Seine Leidenschaft für die Musik kommt voll zum Ausdruck. Die Position des Arms und die Bewegungsunschärfe betonen dies nachdrücklich. Durch die schwache Belichtung des Arms drängt sich dieser nicht in den Vordergrund. Bei genauer Betrachtung zeigt der Arm jedoch die unausweichlichen Spuren des Alters. Das macht den besonderen Reiz dieses Bildes aus. Die spannungsgeladene Diskrepanz zwischen Alter und Jugendlichkeit, zwischen Vergänglichkeit und Energie. Das Bild sagt mehr über Drews, als der ganze Artikel. Das ist kein blasses Portrait, sondern ein Bild mit Charakter.
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 20:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Novo mesto Breg 2.JPG, not delistedEdit


  •   Info size (Original nomination)
  •   Delist --Beyond silence 11:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Keep That is not enough reason at this point in time (I might think differently in a year or so). Lycaon 13:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Keep -- Alvesgaspar 16:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Keep I heavily oppose delisting FPs just because their size has gone out of our interests. That is as if we would say that that a Ford Model T was crap as a DB9 has a better 0-60. Open your eyes (look up to the skies and see :D ) and see that we cannot delist an image just because the technology is better now. If a higher resolution version is obtainable, you are acting as if the efforts of the original artist are all simply null and void. They are not. He took an FP and just because we have moved on does not mean that his photographic skills are losing quality, does it? What you are basically saying here, Beyond Silence, is that images have a 'best before' date - they do not. Freedom to share 22:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
  •   Comment - Strongly agree with Freedom to share, delisting an old FP is usually a useless task only serving to kill the FP memory. But I'm afraid this is not the prevailing feeling. -- Alvesgaspar 13:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
  •   Keep 800 x 600 is my limit for delisting if size is the only reason. --Digon3 talk 15:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
  •   Keep Still a beautiful picture despite the size. Calibas 01:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  •   Keep Still good enough and large enough to resist delisting. --MichaelMaggs 22:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
result: 6 keep, 1 delist, 0 neutral => not delisted. Cecil 23:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Byrcecanyon.jpg, delistedEdit


  •   Info Big stitching error down the middle, and we have three other featured pictures of bryce canyon, this being the most similar.(Original nomination)
  •   Delist --Digon3 talk 15:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Delist per nom (stitching error) Lycaon 16:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Delist Unacceptable stitching error which no-one has put an effort in to correct. Freedom to share 22:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Delist per nom --Beyond silence 12:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Delist Can't stand it the way panoramas like this get promoted, Benjamint 10:23, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Yeah, isn't it just disgusting how photographers with no talent or post processing abilities get their worthless pics promoted by idiot reviewers who care about nothing but pretty colors? I'm impressed with your ability to tolerate such widespread inferiority. --JaGa 17:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Oh, fiddle-de-dee. Didn't you ever learn to respect other people's opinions? Lycaon 21:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Ha, I knew you wouldn't like not being taken seriously. It's not his opinion I dislike, it's the snide delivery of it. I wonder, why are you not bothered by a sneering comment like his, but when someone calls him on it, you feel a need to defend him? Didn't you learn to respect other people's opinions? ;) --JaGa 23:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
result: 0 keep, 5 delist, 0 neutral => delisted. Cecil 23:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC) 

Image:I could get to like baths.jpg, not featuredEdit


Asa's Dad]- uploaded by FlickrLickr - nominated by Astrogeek -- 17:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

  •   Support (no anonymous votes. Lycaon 18:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)) --It is cute and self-explanatory!-- 17:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose A cute baby does not a Featured Picture make. Calibas 00:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  •   Oppose, per Calibas, sorry. --Aqwis 16:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  •   Oppose If this were a once in a lifetime opportunity, I would consider. You, however, are presented with this scene every day (probably). Try a few different combinations, try to make this image a bit more special if you see what I mean. Try to eliminate the distracting foreground, take the photo when a toyboat or rubber duck is present as well, make it interesting. Freedom to share 17:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  •   Oppose quite ugly (the picture, I mean). DocteurCosmos 19:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
result: 0 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of the 5th day). Cecil 03:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Christ and Judas.jpg, not featuredEdit


  •   Info created, uploaded and nominated by --Tomascastelazo 18:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Comment Painting at the ceiling of Atotonilco church, a 18th century church in the state of Guanajuato, Mexico. The ceiling depicts the passion of Christ, with this section showing the betrayal of Judas and the role of the devil. Notice the interpretation of the Roman soldiers. The artists, for lack of reference, utilized the model of the Spanish soldiers, a recourse used in art for lack of visual reference. The real credit goes to the artists that created this painting....
  •   Support --Tomascastelazo 18:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Oppose While I think that the image has good per-pixel quality, I find it poorly centered. --JDrewes 19:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Comment This is a section of a ceiling, and as a section, one is bound to leave something out, as it is the case here. This is a synthesis of a subject. As far as "centering", well, in photograhy one of the first things one does is unlearn to center, for centering is almostnever good photograhic composition (see rule of thirds), for one centers that which calls our attention (eyes, in case of a face, for example) at the expense of either leaving something out or having too much of of something else that is irrelevant to the image. In this particular case I tried to leave in place the elements relevant to the section of the panting without cutting abruptly the other partial elements. The elements, furthermore, face four different directions. The is no single right side up to the image. Please see [1] to se a complete ceiling. --Tomascastelazo 19:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I think the whole painting would be more interesting. /Ö 09:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of the 5th day). Cecil 03:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC) 

Image:Versailles-Chateau-Jardins.jpg, not featuredEdit


  •   Info created by Jean-Christophe BENOIST - uploaded by Jean-Christophe BENOIST - nominated by Jean-Christophe BENOIST --Jean-Christophe BENOIST 00:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support --Jean-Christophe BENOIST 00:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  •   Comment Good composition, but the distorsion is disturbing. Vassil 13:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  •   Oppose, poor composition, very distorted. --Aqwis 16:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  •   Oppose, I don't see any distorsion (straight edges are straight on the picture), but think the perspective/composition could be better. The large parts of the castle being renovated spoil it to me. Benh 00:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
    •   Comment, look at the left/right extremes of the building - you will notice that the lines aren't as vertical as they should be. --Aqwis 19:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
      •   Comment They are not vertical, but they are straight, (or am I seeing things ?) So to me there aren't (or few) distorsion. But I agree about the verticals issue here, it's annoying to me. Benh 11:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of the 5th day). Cecil 03:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Świerklaniec - Rzeźba 01.JPG, not featuredEdit


  •   Info created, uploaded and nominated by Lestat --Lestat 14:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support --Lestat 14:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  •   Oppose, sorry, the background is disturbing (in focus) and the picture is unsharp. --Aqwis 16:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  •   Oppose, As above --Karelj 22:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of the 5th day). Cecil 22:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Digital cameras.jpg, not featuredEdit


  •   Info created, uploaded and nominated by --Tomascastelazo 17:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  •   Comment A thousand pictures are worth a single word...
  • Or a single picture is worth a thousand words ? ;) Benh 10:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support --Tomascastelazo 17:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  •   Comment What would be happen if the model was a man with hairy feet ? :-) --Richard Bartz 19:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  •   Question Could you add geo location so we can locate this species? ;) Acarpentier 21:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Would support except that the buttocks are not in focus (and don't try to tell me that's not the main object, I've got a few photographers who would disagree). Dori - Talk 23:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I've examined the buttocks closely and found it too noisy. --che 00:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC)