Open main menu

Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/November 2008


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


Contents

Image:Pont de Brooklyn de nuit - Octobre 2008.jpg, Edit1 featuredEdit

Original, not featuredEdit

 

  •   Info created, uploaded and nominated by User:S23678. Please keep in mind the picture is at the maximum resolution as per the guidelines. Consider the size (55.8 Mpx) before judging the quality at 100% zoom. Thank you. --S23678 (talk) 05:19, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --S23678 (talk) 05:19, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support What can I say, this is amazing photography. Anonymous101 talk 08:07, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Full size is no mitigation for lack of noise reduction or glaring lights. Sorry. Lycaon (talk) 11:03, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support I like it, needs an english description though. -- Gorgo (talk) 11:45, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
    •   Comment I will add one, but commons is multilingual, it doesn't need one ;) --S23678 (talk) 16:24, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
      • yes it is, but I think a picture that is amongst the finest on commons should have an english description. -- Gorgo (talk) 16:28, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
      • And without a second language the image would not have been multilingual :) /Daniel78 (talk) 23:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support -- I like (Giligone (talk) 14:38, 18 October 2008 (UTC))
  •   Oppose Per Lycaon. I think it would benefit greatly from some down sampling. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 15:15, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
    •   Comment I'll refer you to the first point in the guidelines. Please also look here where there was a clear support to an imperfect-but-full-resolution-FPC, over a sharper-but-smaller-FPC. Thank you. (My comment applies to downsampling) --S23678 (talk) 16:15, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
      • Down sampling is allowed if it doesn't delete information and the picture isn't down sampled to an extended degree. Or do you think, that every panorama shown here is at its maximum resolution? As for the example..I didn't vote for that one, but I'm voting for this one. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 16:52, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Karelj (talk) 22:59, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Wow! -- DarkAp89  Commons 10:39, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Awesome. --Aktron (talk) 11:25, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Though I must admit that it looks better in the preview than in full res. --MarPac (talk) 11:45, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Very good composition. Strong noise visible at preview, very weak technical quality. Sharpened highlight edges with inappropriate radius. Chromatic Aberration visible. sorry. --Base64 (talk) 14:05, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support, but please downscale it to approximately 8000x* pixels. --Aqwis (talk) 20:31, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
    •   Done here (2 Mpx, 3.6 Mpx and 5000 px wide) --S23678 (talk) 01:48, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry - would have liked to support, but I would expect an effort to be made to reduce the noise and to deal with the very noticeable CA. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:57, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose great composition and a beautiful image at preview size but technical problems as highlighted by Base64, very sorry -- ianaré (talk) 01:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose A nice image, but it requires more post processing and maybe some downsizing to remove some technical flaws. -- Pixel8 11:12, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support A very nice (and a classic) image with nice colours and mood to me. A bit weak from technical point of view, but I guess camera is at fault mostly. Considering the large size, technical flaws are mitigated. What are the dots on the upper left part ? is it a result of blending three exposures ? Benh (talk) 19:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support--Avala (talk) 19:59, 27 October 2008 (UTC) too late - Benh (talk) 21:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
result: 10 supports, 6 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured (waiting for results on edit1). Benh (talk) 21:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Edit 1, featuredEdit

 

  •   Info Lycaon has done a great job at noise reduction. As well he removed some artifacts from the sky (airplane trails of light, flare). --S23678 (talk) 14:40, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --S23678 (talk) 14:40, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Florent Pécassou (talk) 09:00, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Good edit Snowwayout (talk) 03:19, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Crusier (talk) 07:35, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Aqwis (talk) 08:29, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support cool lights Muhammad 16:56, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Great pic. (also the one above) There is some extra ray of light above the building (that stands behind the middle of the bridge). Ufo? -:) One small light still remains on this image. Ziga (talk) 17:29, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support great work -- Gorgo (talk) 18:54, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support-- DarkAp89  Commons 14:52, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support--Avala (talk) 19:58, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Base64 (talk) 09:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support--Lmbuga gl, pt, es: contacta comigo 15:27, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support - Benh (talk) 21:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support /Daniel78 (talk) 23:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Probably in the minority but I would have liked some more noise in there :) It looks too glossy now. --Dori - Talk 03:06, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose It appears that noise reduction was applied indescriminately and without proper masking masking, there is zero fine detail when scaled to the minimum height of a panorama. The bridge looks like it has a smooth concrete render instead of blocks. Noodle snacks (talk) 08:27, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
result: 14 supports, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Benh (talk) 10:32, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Magnolia acuminata trunk.JPG, not featuredEdit

 

  •   Info created by Crusier - uploaded by Crusier - nominated by Crusier --Crusier (talk) 09:31, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Info Trunk of Magnolia acuminata in Marki, Poland
  •   Support --Crusier (talk) 09:31, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, the composition is not suitable for featuring. Lycaon (talk) 09:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
    I think you meant you don't like the composition?! --norro 16:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --norro 16:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nothing special, common image, no reason for FP. --Karelj (talk) 17:06, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Composition, lack of contrast, colours, common subject, lack of wow. The FPX should've just been left there. –Dilaudid 18:16, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Considering the general difficulty for FPCs to become FP, it becomes easy to determine the images who will obviously not make it to FP. The purpose of FPX is to quickly remove images that will accumulate 9 days of "Oppose". FPX should have been left there IMO, and "support" should not be used to make a point against FPX. I would like, norro, that you explain why you think this image should be recognized as "the best of the best of Commons" (currently: 1400 FP over 3400000 media files = 0.04%)? --S23678 (talk) 13:19, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Although I would like to express support for norro's right to support the image, I don't see anything very special. --che 14:38, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
    •   Comment I do not oppose the right to support a FPC, but I would like to know the justifications of norro to support this image ;) --S23678 (talk) 14:45, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Comment I think only obvious technical flaws should be a reason to use FPX, that image is not that bad and there is nothing extremely wrong with it. And even if it stays here for 9 days and only gets opposing votes .. so what. Composition is quite a subjective matter and everybody thinks different about that, please use the FPX-template with care, as it might seem quite offensive to someone new here. -- Gorgo (talk) 22:03, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose As above. How do you turn this on (talk) 19:36, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose It's just a tree trunk and no wow. --Mr. Mario (talk) 01:21, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
result: 2 supports, 7 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured. Benh (talk) 19:48, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:FraxernPano.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 31 Oct 2008 at 09:48:24
 

  •   Info A view over blooming cherry trees towards the centre of the austrian village Fraxern in Vorarlberg. Pano with 11 Pics.
  •   Info created,uploaded and nominated by -- Böhringer (talk) 09:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Böhringer (talk) 09:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Aqwis (talk) 17:07, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nice pic, would like to support, but there are quite visible stitching marks (vertical line approx. 1/4 from the right, where sharpness changes suddenly). Try using better stitching software! --MarPac (talk) 10:39, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Neutral My concerns here are subjective, but not enough to oppose. First, about the panorama: I don't think the left third of the image has anything valuable to be showned. Second is about the picture itself: I would expect a little more from this scenery: wheather, light condition, etc, to give a "mood" to the picture. It is a very good picture, but the scene has the potential for more I think. --S23678 (talk) 13:02, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Good image, but just large village, no WOW. --Karelj (talk) 17:14, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Great view, good composition, nice colours. Great picture. I would support it when the clearly visible and allready mentioned stiching error is corrected --Simonizer (talk) 18:44, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support How do you turn this on (talk) 19:33, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support--Avala (talk) 20:01, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
result: 4 supports, 2 opposes, 2 neutrals => not featured. Benh (talk) 19:49, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:1907 Panic.png, not featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Nov 2008 at 08:57:29
 

Comment - it was uploaded by JayHenry. I, Evian Pepper, enhanced the colour settings to remove the sepia tone. EvP (talk) 15:50, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

result: 2 supports, 2 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured. Benh (talk) 10:21, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Musée Massey (Tarbes, 65).JPG, not featuredEdit

result: 3 supports, 3 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured. Benh (talk) 10:22, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Chantilly1 tango7174.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Nov 2008 at 21:24:05
 

result: 5 supports, 3 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured. Benh (talk) 10:22, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Chantilly2 tango7174.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Nov 2008 at 21:26:01
 

result: 4 supports, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Benh (talk) 10:23, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Sunset near Salinas 3.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Nov 2008 at 04:20:57
 

  •   Comment please state reason for opposition as a courtesy to the author/uploader. Lycaon (talk) 19:44, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose nothing spectacular in this --Man On Mission 11:58, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 7 opposes, 1 neutral => not featured (could have been because of rule of 5th day). Benh (talk) 10:24, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:US Flag in Salinas.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 4 Nov 2008 at 04:42:55
 

 
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because of dull colours, composition and lack of wow. –Dilaudid 15:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC) Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
  • No American voters are voting yet... --Mr. Mario (talk) 01:16, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
  • What does this have to do with nationality? A good piture is a good picture is a good picture. Basta! --Heptagon (talk) 17:28, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Comment please state reason for opposition as a courtesy to the author/uploader. Lycaon (talk) 19:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose i see no composition. sorry --Heptagon (talk) 16:55, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per FPX --S23678 (talk) 04:44, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
not featured because of FPX - Benh (talk) 10:49, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Uprooted coconut tree.JPG, not featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 9 Nov 2008 at 11:36:42
 


 
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because it has blown highlights and chromatic aberration. MER-C 01:08, 1 November 2008 (UTC) Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

Image:Silvereye.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Nov 2008 at 07:29:18
 

result: 15 supports, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Benh (talk) 10:25, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Long Billed Corella Beak.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Nov 2008 at 07:49:23
 

  •   Info created by Noodle snacks - uploaded by Noodle snacks - nominated by Noodle snacks -- Noodle snacks (talk) 07:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Noodle snacks (talk) 07:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, it is too small (it is 1.9Mpx and 1:5 downsampling is not per guidelines). Lycaon (talk) 08:37, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Your maths is a bit of a joke... It is over two megapixels and I reserve the right to maintain the non-downsampled photographs for private sale. Noodle snacks (talk) 08:39, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
      • I'm no mathematician, but I was always taught >2 megapixels is not equal to 1.9 megapixel. Flying Freddy (talk) 08:46, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
        • 1415x1415 = 2002225 pixels. --Aqwis (talk) 08:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
          • 1 Mpx = 1024 kpx and 1kpx is 1024 px. Am I missing something? And BTW, guidelines state that downsampling should not be encouraged. You are perfectly welcome to upload small versions of your images, but don't expect them to be featured then. The private sale argument is a non-issue. If some want to use your picturse commercially and don't want to stick to the free licenses, they will pay anyway. Lycaon (talk) 09:01, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
            • 1 Mpx = 1000000 pixels not 1048576 pixels. Flying Freddy (talk) 09:10, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
              • Ok, maybe I confused with Mb ;-). Still the downsampling is 1 on 5, which is IMO unacceptable. Instead of uploading the largest possible size (as per guidelines), some users make it a game to upload the smallest possible size they can get away with and that is sad and pitiable. Lycaon (talk) 09:20, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
                • Actually the image is a square crop from the original rectancular frame, so 1:5 is an exagguration. The actual scaling means its more than 50% the size of the original on each dimension. If you have a look at some of my other current nominations there are some quite large ones there, so it varies from image to image. Noodle snacks (talk) 09:27, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Aqwis (talk) 08:31, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Donarreiskoffer (talk) 13:56, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Excessive downsampling --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 16:53, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support we have guidelines and if the image meets the guidelines, it should be supported. The author should have the right to downsample his images. Muhammad 06:37, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Maybe you should read the guidelines about downsampling... :( Lycaon (talk) 06:46, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
  • "Images should not be downsampled (sized down in order to appear of better quality)." Mentions nothing about downsampling to maintain a commercial license. FWIW, the example image on the guidelines page for downsampling is a FP. Muhammad 18:03, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose smallish resolution -- Gorgo (talk) 18:52, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support would prefer larger, but no big deal. How do you turn this on (talk) 19:27, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Size of image and composition. --Karelj (talk) 09:17, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Weak support -- DarkAp89  Commons 17:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
result: 6 supports, 4 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured. Benh (talk) 10:25, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Brown Tree Frog 2.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Nov 2008 at 07:52:14
 

  •   Info created by Noodle snacks - uploaded by Noodle snacks - nominated by Noodle snacks -- Noodle snacks (talk) 07:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Noodle snacks (talk) 07:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Aqwis (talk) 08:31, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Muhammad 06:36, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support How do you turn this on (talk) 19:26, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Good technique, decent quality but the white background kills it for me. I (almost) understand that in WP:FPC this kind of depiction in considered of good EV, but here, the so-called "wow factor" prevails. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:38, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose there is something missing - in think it's a natural background --Richard Bartz (talk) 11:46, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Twdragon (talk) 19:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose As Alvesgaspar. --Karelj (talk) 20:38, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Econt (talk) 23:31, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
result: 6 supports, 3 opposes, 0 neutral => featured. Benh (talk) 10:26, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Cercophonius squama.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Nov 2008 at 07:53:27
 

  •   Info created by Noodle snacks - uploaded by Noodle snacks - nominated by Noodle snacks -- Noodle snacks (talk) 07:53, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Noodle snacks (talk) 07:53, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Aqwis (talk) 08:31, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support good quality and composition Muhammad 06:36, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support And again. How do you turn this on (talk) 19:25, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Good technique, decent quality but the white background kills it for me. I (almost) understand that in WP:FPC this kind of depiction in considered of good EV, but here, the so-called "wow factor" prevails. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:36, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose 2 harsh details and reflection caused by flashlight kills it --Richard Bartz (talk) 11:43, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Twdragon (talk) 19:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose As Alvesgaspar. --Karelj (talk) 20:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
result: 6 5 supports, 3 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured. Benh (talk) 10:27, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Bridgewater Causeway.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Nov 2008 at 07:56:29
 

result: 21 supports, 2 opposes, 0 neutral => featured. Benh (talk) 10:28, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Narbonnemediatheque.jpg, not featuredEdit

 

It's done. Florent Pécassou (talk) 20:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose strongly. At below 2 megapixels it's too small, it's artefacty, it's noisy, it suffers from perspective & barrel distortion, it's overexposed, the light's not right, the composition's unbalanced and the wall in front harms the image. Supporters, could you please explain yourselves? –Dilaudid 14:05, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose User: Pierregunther
  •   Comment please state reason for opposition as a courtesy to the author/uploader. Lycaon (talk) 19:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too small for an easy shot like this. --S23678 (talk) 04:22, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
result: 3 supports, 5 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured. Benh (talk) 10:29, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Château de Montaner (64) 2.JPG, not featuredEdit

 

It's done. Florent Pécassou (talk) 20:06, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose --Not geocoded, tilt, perspective distortion --Twdragon (talk) 19:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Now geocoded. Florent Pécassou (talk) 20:08, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Comment please state reason for opposition as a courtesy to the author/uploader. Lycaon (talk) 19:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Crop too tight --S23678 (talk) 04:23, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
result:' 3 supports, 7 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured. Benh (talk) 21:16, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Rodin brama piekła detal.JPG, not featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Nov 2008 at 09:44:48
 

  •   Comment please state reason for opposition as a courtesy to the author/uploader. Lycaon (talk) 19:47, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose No wow --S23678 (talk) 04:24, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
result:' 2 supports, 5 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured. Benh (talk) 21:17, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Eurasian Coot.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Nov 2008 at 11:11:49
 

result:' 3 supports, 3 opposes, x neutral => not featured. Benh (talk) 21:17, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Mount Pleasant Radio Telescope.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Nov 2008 at 11:13:25
 

  •   Info created by Noodle snacks - uploaded by Noodle snacks - nominated by Noodle snacks -- Noodle snacks (talk) 11:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Noodle snacks (talk) 11:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Aqwis (talk) 12:35, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support impressive --norro 16:39, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Done well. --Aktron (talk) 08:59, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --B.navez (talk) 14:29, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Great composition. --Kosiarz-PL 14:57, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support mmm... Brooding landscape. --Elucidate (talk) 21:12, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Noodlesnacks, your pics are fantastic! How do you turn this on (talk) 19:18, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Comment - Fantastic mood but also some technical weakness: for this small size we would expect a razor sharp detail; colours in the foreground are washed out; geometric distortion of the building is disturbing. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
    • The base of the building is level, and it looks geometrically accurate to me. What is misleading is the sloped hillside. Noodle snacks (talk) 09:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Not 2 piky on the tech flaws, fantastic mood and good comp -- cool ! --Richard Bartz (talk) 11:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support-- DarkAp89  Commons 14:50, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Lycaon (talk) 15:01, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support I love how you get such amazing skies. Superbe use of wide angle and HDR (again shall I say) in my opinion. Benh (talk) 22:00, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose User: Pierregunther
  •   Comment please state reason for opposition as a courtesy to the author/uploader. Lycaon (talk) 19:47, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support plus: great encyclopaedic calue --Heptagon (talk) 17:26, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Lestat (talk) 23:14, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Don't like the HDR effect. --Dori - Talk 02:58, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --S23678 (talk) 04:26, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
result: 15 supports, 2 opposes, 0 neutral => featured. Benh (talk) 21:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support — Ferrer 09:29, 3 November 2008 (UTC) too late - Benh (talk) 21:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Bench Grinder Brush 1.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Nov 2008 at 11:14:26
 

  •   Comment please state reason for opposition as a courtesy to the author/uploader. Lycaon (talk) 19:48, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Comment please state reason for opposition as a courtesy to the author/uploader. Lycaon (talk) 19:48, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Javier ME (talk) 22:29, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I would have prefered a less "random" crop --S23678 (talk) 04:29, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 result: 11 supports, 4 opposes, 0 neutral => featured. Benh (talk) 21:20, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support nice work, at least it gives me a little "wow, nice work!" --Kanonkas(talk) 15:32, 3 November 2008 (UTC) too late - Benh (talk) 21:20, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Richmond Bridge Panorama Restitch.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Nov 2008 at 11:18:56
 

result: 13 supports, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Benh (talk) 21:24, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Domestic Goose.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Nov 2008 at 11:21:14
 

result: 12 supports, 4 opposes, 1 neutral => featured. Benh (talk) 21:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support — Ferrer 09:28, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Orchidacea Cymbidium.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Nov 2008 at 13:10:21
 

  •   Info created by Flying Freddy - uploaded by Flying Freddy - nominated by Flying Freddy -- Flying Freddy (talk) 13:10, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Flying Freddy (talk) 13:10, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too busy background and in need of a cultivar name. Lycaon (talk) 13:15, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Aqwis (talk) 14:58, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Very nice Muhammad 06:35, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose As a very common florist's flower, sharpness and light should be much much better. --B.navez (talk) 14:22, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
You surely mean DOF, not sharpness, right? The flower that is actually in focus (lowermost) is almost obscenely sharp. --Aqwis (talk) 21:13, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
I meant clearly sharpness cause I find the way it has been sharpened makes it odd. We could expect more details on the organs, not something whose colors seem to have been gently smoothed. --B.navez (talk) 14:11, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Elucidate (talk) 21:10, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice shot; opposing comments don't concern me. How do you turn this on (talk) 19:10, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Twitchy background --Richard Bartz (talk) 11:22, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support-- DarkAp89  Commons 14:48, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per previous opposers--Lmbuga gl, pt, es: contacta comigo 17:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per opposers. –Dilaudid 21:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
    •   Comment Could you try to be more specific with opposes, B.Navez's oppose I take is a issue with lighting as there is nothing wrong with sharpness although you could argue DOF. If you are agreeing with "twitchy background" could you please try to explain it a bit more precisely. Opposing comments should be an opportunity for a photographer to learn, but this is impossible if they don't understand the grounds of opposition.Flying Freddy (talk) 00:04, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Twdragon (talk) 16:10, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
result: 7 supports, 5 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured. Benh (talk) 21:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Vilagarcía 051008 39GDFL.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Nov 2008 at 15:27:29
 

result: 6 supports, 6 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured. Benh (talk) 21:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Oxya yezoensis 08Oct7.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Nov 2008 at 15:33:06
 

result: 7 supports, 4 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured. Benh (talk) 21:27, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Drill scheme.svg, not featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 3 Nov 2008 at 06:06:47
 

  •   Comment please state reason for opposition as a courtesy to the author/uploader. Lycaon (talk) 19:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support It's exceptionally valuable figure for illustrating, e.g. the verb wikt:ru:сверлить in Russian and other Wiktionaries. There is (I think) too little number of simple figures (without unnecessary details as in photo) for illustration usual actions. -- AKA MBG (talk) 21:41, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
  • EV is not questioned, but this rationale is fit for wikipedia, not necessarily here. Lycaon (talk) 00:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Comment please state reason for opposition as a courtesy to the author/uploader. Lycaon (talk) 19:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Valuable, way beyond my drawing talents, but no wow --S23678 (talk) 04:40, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
result: 3 support, 9 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 21:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose — Ferrer 09:27, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Bratislava, Staré Mesto, Slavín, socha rudoarmějce.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 3 Nov 2008 at 09:31:14
 

  •   Comment please state reason for opposition as a courtesy to the author/uploader. Lycaon (talk) 19:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too harsh contrast. --B.navez (talk) 14:17, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak support I like it, and don't find the contrast too harsh. How do you turn this on (talk) 19:05, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
    •   Info - No "weak" or "strong" support/oppose are considered here. All votes have the same value for the final count. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
    • And could you please use the template ? I was about to close this nom when I noticed your support. Templates help people closing noms to do it faster. Benh (talk) 10:48, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
  •   Comment Can you geocode it? --Kjetil_r 18:06, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose No wow --S23678 (talk) 04:43, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 22:00, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Thailand islandriver.JPGEdit

Voting period ends on 7 Nov 2008 at 14:12:48
 

  •   Comment please state reason for opposition as a courtesy to the author/uploader. Lycaon (talk) 19:52, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Disruptive tree on the bottom side, lower side of photo underexposed, poor composition (position of the skyline, for instance).   Diti (talk to the penguin) 23:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because of poor composition and overall lack of detail and sharpness -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:58, 1 November 2008 (UTC) Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
  •   Oppose Wrong geocoding, and per Alvesgaspar --S23678 (talk) 05:15, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
  • No wrong geocoding. --Mr. Mario (talk) 15:11, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Quite wrong indeed: the pointer ends up in the middle of the Anadaman Sea. Lycaon (talk) 16:02, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
It's an island off the Thailand coast. People don't expect to see small islands in a small world map. --Mr. Mario (talk) 14:33, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
My sources are from both Google Maps and Yahoo Maps. Where is your sources from? --S23678 (talk) 15:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Chantilly4 tango7174.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 7 Nov 2008 at 14:57:05
 

  •   Comment please state reason for opposition as a courtesy to the author/uploader. Lycaon (talk) 19:52, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Interesting composition, but CA, noise, stitch errors, and poorly done erasing of annoying details in the bottom (other stitch errors?) doesn't make it featurable material to me. Benh (talk) 22:20, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per BenH, the composition is good though. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 12:40, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Frame not complete --S23678 (talk) 05:20, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer (talk) 22:03, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:DusseldorfGermany.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 8 Nov 2008 at 13:24:09
 

It might not be an image of the most exciting subject on earth, but I think I've captured the square in a nice manner. I think the image possesses a dynamic composition and is worthy of becoming a FP.

  •   Support -- Massimo Catarinella (talk) 13:24, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Comment Crop pavement. Albertus teolog (talk) 14:25, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose -- the lamp isn't standing straight. its just a little bit, but i think for an fp it should be better. the same for the church tower. the horseman has some too bright parts. Manuel R. (talk) 16:23, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
The lamp is not leaning due to the perspective, otherwise I would have corrected it. The tower is not a church tower, but the tower of the town hall. As for the bright parts..I don't see them. I guess some people are just pickier than others. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 16:40, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose not the best view because the sculpture which dominates the location isn't in focus --Mbdortmund (talk) 20:40, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The fence is cut off to the right and too much ground in the lower part of the image. /Daniel78 (talk) 22:12, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Daniel78. - Till (talk) 22:24, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Poor composition, no WOW. --Karelj (talk) 17:01, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not bad, but missing a wow. --S23678 (talk) 20:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer (talk) 22:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Holly Serkis (tehran).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 8 Nov 2008 at 18:38:23
 

 
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because it is of very poor image quality, with extensive chromatic noise -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:56, 1 November 2008 (UTC) Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

Image:Colorium Duesseldorf.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 8 Nov 2008 at 22:08:14
 

  •   Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Till Niermann -- Till (talk) 22:08, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Till (talk) 22:08, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Quality is not good enough due to obvious noise and lack of detail. I would prefer a symmetrical composition and am not very found of the angle. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:52, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
    •   Comment In my view this picture does have a symmetrical composition: the center line is exactly perpendicular. - I don't see anything unsymmetrical apart from the distribution of the colored elements, but those are part of the building. - Till (talk) 19:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose — Ferrer 09:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Interesting perspective, but the crop is too tight and the top of the building is tilted. --S23678 (talk) 20:30, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
    •   Comment Sorry, I can't manage to see a tilt at the top of the building... - Till (talk) 19:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer (talk) 22:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Dictionary indents headon.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 8 Nov 2008 at 22:18:28
 

  •   Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Till Niermann -- Till (talk) 22:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Till (talk) 22:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nothing specialities --Twdragon (talk) 16:11, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Neutral I like it very much, but it is a bit narrow on the lower left and the lighting is not too good. --norro 17:13, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Good idea, but the lighting and sharpness (DOF too shallow) isn't very good. --Dori - Talk 02:44, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose No wow. --S23678 (talk) 20:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer (talk) 22:10, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Sample For Shadow.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 9 Nov 2008 at 21:30:06
 

 
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because subject is not clear and composition is poor - Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:41, 1 November 2008 (UTC) Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

Image:Blasting frankfurt.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 6 Nov 2008 at 00:58:27

The demolition of a chimney of a former brewery in Frankfurt/Germany. Between the first an last picture are approx 6 seconds, the time it took the chimney to collapse. There are 2 other bad quality versions in recent. This is a new compilation from the original files I´ve found on my harddrive. I am aware that the quality of the chimney is not superb - I needed to crop it out because I didn´t want to lose ist during the collapse due to too high zoom.
  •   Info created by Heptagon - uploaded by Heptagon - nominated by Heptagon -- Heptagon (talk) 00:58, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support The demolition of a chimney of a former brewery in Frankfurt/Germany. Between the first an last picture are approx 6 seconds, the time it took the chimney to collapse. There are 2 other bad quality versions in recent. This is a new compilation from the original files I´ve found on my harddrive. I am aware that the quality of the chimney is not superb - I needed to crop it out because I didn´t want to lose ist during the collapse due to too high zoom. --Heptagon (talk) 01:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Aqwis (talk) 06:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Crusier (talk) 06:31, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support MER-C 07:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Twdragon (talk) 10:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Karelj (talk) 13:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support-- DarkAp89  Commons 17:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Kjetil_r 18:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support wow ! Benh (talk) 21:58, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support A clear case of wow mitigating rather poor quality. Lycaon (talk) 14:56, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Lestat (talk) 16:57, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
  •    Amazing --D-Kuru (talk) 22:44, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Albertus teolog (talk) 14:27, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support   ■ MMXXtalk  07:33, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Farzaaaad2000 (talk) 08:26, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support FP JukoFF (talk) 13:42, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Sorry to row against the flood but the quality is quite poor. Maybe making it a gif animation would improve. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:01, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
    • A GIF animation would be worse because only 256 colors would be used. Diti (talk to the penguin) 15:15, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
      • 256 colours and some clever dithering algorithm would be just fine here. There are only blues and browns involved. Lycaon (talk) 10:28, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
  •   Question Can you describe the equipment you used, and possibly upload an original frame so we can judge the difficult conditions of the shot? --S23678 (talk) 04:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Diti. The quality is quite poor, and an animation would probably do better. diego_pmc (talk) 08:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
    • You can see the parable of the fall and see how the gravity acelerates it. I´m not really a friend of gif-animations. Not smooth enough. If I would have wanted that I´d have used a high-speed video camera.
  •   Support --Mr. Mario (talk) 15:13, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support — Ferrer 09:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Base64 (talk) 10:52, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Result: 19 Support, 2 Oppose --> featured --Mr. Mario (talk) 04:18, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Rila 7 lakes circus panorama edit1.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 5 Nov 2008 at 22:55:34
 

Result: 3 Support, 3 Oppose --> not featured --Mr. Mario (talk) 04:16, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:El pobaleko burdinola.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 5 Nov 2008 at 17:45:10
 

  •   Comment please state reason for opposition as a courtesy to the author/uploader. Lycaon (talk) 19:51, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose A strong image, but I wonder how much post-processing went into the creation of the light beam. I may be wrong, but it looks too parallel to be natural, and doesn't light up the brickwork where you would expect. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Karelj (talk) 22:29, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Weak support Good image, but (perhaps by necessity) rather noisy. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:48, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too noisy. Lycaon (talk) 00:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not good looking scene from this viewpoint --Twdragon (talk) 10:49, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support-- DarkAp89  Commons 17:50, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose User: Pierregunther
  •   Comment please state reason for opposition as a courtesy to the author/uploader. Lycaon (talk) 19:51, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support weak. Noise isn't annoying to me. Very nice picture. Benh (talk) 22:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support - Agree with Benh, the composition is super. Back to the old analog pictures with grain. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:04, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Per Benh, the graininess works for pictures like these --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 15:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not really much to it besides the beam, and the beam is not really highlighting anything special so as to make the composition. --Dori - Talk 20:27, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support I forgive technical downfalls. What a great ambiance! --S23678 (talk) 04:48, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Result: 8 Support, 6 Oppose --> not featured --Mr. Mario (talk) 04:14, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Église de Prat (09).JPG, not featuredEdit

 

  •   Comment please state reason for opposition as a courtesy to the author/uploader. Lycaon (talk) 19:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose perspective. --Lestat (talk) 23:15, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Overexposition, among other things --S23678 (talk) 04:45, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Result: 2 Support, 7 Oppose --> not featured --Mr. Mario (talk) 04:12, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Anthurium scherzerianum 2.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 5 Nov 2008 at 11:12:53
 

  •   Info created by Noodle snacks - uploaded by Noodle snacks - nominated by Noodle snacks -- Noodle snacks (talk) 11:12, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Noodle snacks (talk) 11:12, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Question The colours, DOF, composition and quality are on spot, but is this downsampled? –Dilaudid 15:33, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Yes, I wish to retain the ability to sell higher resolution copies for a small fee. Noodle snacks (talk) 22:07, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
      •   Oppose Downsampling. –Dilaudid 15:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
        • That really is not a valid reason to oppose ; size is above requirements. Many many people downsample their pictures here, and don't get opposed for that. Benh (talk) 22:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
          • In that case the guidelines should be rephrased, they currently say "it is important that nominated pictures have as high a resolution as possible" and to me that sounds as downsampling actually is a valid reason to oppose. /Daniel78 (talk) 23:33, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
            • Its time the guidelines be changed then. Muhammad 11:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
              • I think the guidelines should say something about downsampling, otherwise this discussion will arise again and again./Daniel78 (talk) 19:19, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
                •   Comment You might not get money for putting your pictures on Wikipedia, but you will get a whole lot of free publicity everyday. Millions of people use Wikipedia on a daily basis and see your work. Further more, every large editor who will be interested in your pictures wants a Tif-version of the photo. Since all files are jpg, large editors will probably not use them (correct me if I'm wrong here). I also sell my pictures and still make enough money with them. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 16:32, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Twdragon (talk) 10:50, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support great image, above the 2mp requirement Muhammad 11:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Downsampling. –- Lycaon (talk) 19:40, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Comment We really have got to rephrase that part of the guidelines about the size. To me the opposes aren't justified here because the picture is > 2mpix. No matter what hardware was used, the result is good. Had this picture been taken with a 2mpix camera, no one would have opposes. And if it's the best Commons can offer on the subject, why would we reject it ? I suggest Noodle Snack to buy a 2 mpix camera, to take the same pictures with it, and renominate them here to avoid these sorts of votes. Benh (talk) 22:29, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Downsampling ! I have no absolute religion against downsampling, but if you put a featurable downsampled version on Commons and keep another not downsampled version for selling, then you will get big confusion about published pictures. As featured images are to be widely scattered, we must do it very clear. Author rights apply to the work, not to the pixels. That's my opinion. --B.navez (talk) 03:33, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Your opinion is irrelevant as far as the law is concerned. There is a huge list of current downsampled featured pictures, oppositions based on downsampling are a case of bias more than anything else. Take a look at the top 10 photographs for the Commons Picture of the Year last year. Only one was clearly not downsampled, and one may have been a crop or a downsample. The remainder were clearly downsampled. Voting fairly against downsampling in all cases would knock out a majority of the best images on commons (including all of fir0002's contributions and I believe a majority of Diliff's). Noodle snacks (talk) 05:02, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
      • Maybe another way to look at "downsampling" opposes is that since 35 mm film can capture at ~10 MPix ( a guess for sure, but current digital cameras can) then a downsampled version, say ~2 Mpix, can easily be remade with better quality.--Commander Keane (talk) 06:46, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Comment Perhaps we can take the downsampling issue at the discussion page instead of having separate discussions on every image that get such votes ? /Daniel78 (talk) 22:05, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support I'm not a fan of downsampling, because it often obscures details in a picture, but that is not the case with this one. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 01:02, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Barabas (talk) 00:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Result: 5 Support, 3 Oppose --> not featured --Mr. Mario (talk) 04:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Flashlight clear.JPGEdit

Voting period ends on 15 Nov 2008 at 04:34:26
 

 
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because of an overall lack of quality (focus, details, over/underexposure) Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

--S23678 (talk) 05:06, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Perupelican.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 14 Nov 2008 at 11:55:47
 

 
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because the image is less than 2 megapixels and contains vignetting.Diti (talk to the penguin) 12:05, 5 November 2008 (UTC) Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

Image:Mairie Paris Luc Viatour.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 13 Nov 2008 at 21:02
 

  •   Info created, uploaded Luc Viatour - nominated by Paris 16 --Paris 16 (talk) 21:02, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
  •   Neutral I am not a fan of the effect caused by low focal length lenses, and their resulting chromatic aberration. Diti (talk to the penguin) 21:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Tilt!. The horizontal lines should at least be horizontal--Simonizer (talk) 22:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Too distorted to my taste. I like the sky though. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Merci pour le soutien de mes photos, mais celle-ci n'est pas ma meilleure et pas vraiment une bonne candidate à FP ;) --Luc Viatour (talk) 07:22, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because it is tilted, distorted and the subject is cut off unnecessarily. MER-C 01:02, 5 November 2008 (UTC) Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

Image:8-cell.gifEdit

Voting period ends on 13 Nov 2008 at 15:08:07
 


 
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because another version of this animation is already a FP -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC) Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
  •   Support and delist old - much more interesting than the old one. Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
  •   Comment FPX stands: Delist and replace should be done under Delisting. Please do not canvas your preferences this way. (see here). Lycaon (talk) 20:58, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
  •   Info - Also notice that another version of this same animation went through a nomination recentely and failed (by the way, that version was cleaner than the present one). -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:42, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Senlis NDame2 tango7174.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 13 Nov 2008 at 13:28:41
 

 
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because extensive noise -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC) Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

Image:Chantilly5 tango7174.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 13 Nov 2008 at 13:25:50
 

 
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because of extensive noise -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC) Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

Image:Wenecja wąskotorówka.JPGEdit

Voting period ends on 13 Nov 2008 at 01:28:38
 

 
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because the sky is blown out. MER-C 06:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC) Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

Image:1863 Meeting of Settlers and Maoris at Hawke's Bay, New Zealand.jpg, not featuredEdit

 

  •   Info created by M.Jackson - uploaded, restored, and nominated by Adam Cuerden. -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 06:58, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support I think this is one of the best historical illustrations of New Zealand we have, and I spent literally hours restoring it, to get it as good as I possibly could Adam Cuerden (talk) 07:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Twdragon (talk) 10:49, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Heptagon (talk) 13:55, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose User: Pierregunther
  •   Comment please state reason for opposition as a courtesy to the author/uploader. Lycaon (talk) 19:51, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
result: 4 supports, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Benh (talk) 22:35, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Thunder-like chaotic fireworks.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 6 Nov 2008 at 10:45:40
 

  •   Info created, uploaded, nominated by Twdragon -- Twdragon (talk) 10:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Twdragon (talk) 10:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Conditional support I can't support this if there's another FP with this type of firework, but otherwise think this is useful, despite the blown highlights (Pretty sure nothing could be done there) Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:10, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Handheld firework shot. Creates an artistic effect, but looks quite random --S23678 (talk) 04:58, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
    •   Info Sorry, but it isn't a handheld shot --Twdragon (talk) 17:59, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
result: 2 supports, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Benh (talk) 22:36, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Star Trek fans convent 2008 - Fireworks.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 6 Nov 2008 at 10:46:56
 

  •   Info created, uploaded, nominated by Twdragon -- Twdragon (talk) 10:46, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Twdragon (talk) 10:46, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Conditional support Conditional on no similar, better, pre-existing FPs being found. Wonderful detail, though some unavoidably blown highlights. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Conditional support   Support If you could fix the small light fragment which doesn't belong to the main bundle of light. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 12:42, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
    •   Done --Twdragon (talk) 13:27, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
      • Yuuh, not very well done ! Benh (talk) 20:45, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I'm sorry, but this has nothing extraordinary... It's not so hard to catch fireworks. So to me, the differentiating criteria is composition, and I don't like it here. Benh (talk) 20:45, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose ac Benh --Lestat (talk) 23:10, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support -- DarkAp89  Commons 17:03, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Way better than the other one, but I must oppose for the crop and for the subject itself : more fireworks color would have given a better effect IMO --S23678 (talk) 05:05, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose As Benh. --Karelj (talk) 19:56, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
result: 4 supports, 4 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured. Benh (talk) 22:37, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Paryż inwalidzi ludwik.JPG, not featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 6 Nov 2008 at 12:48:18
 

  •   Comment please state reason for opposition as a courtesy to the author/uploader. Lycaon (talk) 19:51, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --B.navez (talk) 14:06, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too wide angle to be a picture about the elements in the front of the church, to tight angle to be about the architecture of the church. As well, I would apply some perspective correction, since the side of the frame is intersecting vertical elements. --S23678 (talk) 05:09, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
result: 2 supports, 4 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured. Benh (talk) 22:38, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Rosa na kapustě.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 6 Nov 2008 at 13:34:26
 

  •   Info created by Karelj - uploaded by Karelj - nominated by Karelj -- Karelj (talk) 13:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Info Dew on leaves of brussels sprout
  •   Support -- Karelj (talk) 13:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Rosa na kapuście, zrozumiałem :) Crusier (talk) 15:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The leaf in the upper right corner and centric composition make me to oppose. It still is a nice image, certainly QI. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 16:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose User: Pierregunther
  •   Comment please state reason for opposition as a courtesy to the author/uploader. Lycaon (talk) 19:51, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose --Lestat (talk) 16:56, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Idea is very good to me, and mood is nice. Miss something though (perhaps composition is a bit messy), so I don't support ; sadly :( Benh (talk) 22:21, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support-- DarkAp89  Commons 19:37, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nothing special in this image for FI --Twdragon (talk) 18:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
result: 3 supports, 4 opposes, 1 neutral => not featured. Benh (talk) 22:39, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Thomas Keene in Othello 1884 Poster.JPG, featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 6 Nov 2008 at 14:19:57
 

  •   Info created by W.J. Morgan & Co. Lith. - uploaded and nominated by Adam Cuerden (talk) -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:19, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support This is a lithograph. It might be a bit faded (though characteristically so), but I decided that I actually rather liked the more subtle colours when I started to go about adjusting them. But poke me if you disagree, and I'll make an alternate. -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:19, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Aqwis (talk) 14:30, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 16:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Twdragon (talk) 19:51, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Lošmi (talk) 17:55, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
result: 5 supports, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Benh (talk) 22:39, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Metro Letňany 1.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 9 Nov 2008 at 21:08:27
 

  •   Info created by Karelj - uploaded by Karelj - nominated by Karelj -- Karelj (talk) 21:08, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Info One of the last opened stations of Prague Metro (Underground railway)
  •   Support -- Karelj (talk) 21:08, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too much noise for a featured picture. Diti (talk to the penguin) 21:49, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Quite dark (tripod could make less noise and much lighter picture). --Aktron (talk) 12:32, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 2 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of the 5th day). Benh (talk) 22:47, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Gladiolus close up(0000086).JPG, not featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 10 Nov 2008 at 13:05:41
 

  •   Info created by Calvin yeung - uploaded by Calvin yeung - nominated by Calvin yeung -- Calvin yeung (talk) 13:05, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Good detalisation and interesting viewpoint --Twdragon (talk) 17:36, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not properly identified, CA visible even in thumbnail. Lycaon (talk) 10:17, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Some CA. --Mr. Mario (talk) 15:09, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
  •   Question What is "CA" any place I can find the meaning of "CA"? Maybe I can improved that?Calvin yeung(talk) 12:33, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
  •   Comment CA = Chromatic aberration --Simonizer (talk) 17:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
  •   CommentYes, I agree that there are little CA at some part of the edge of the petal. It appears where black background meets pink petal. However I do not agree that it is visible in thumbnail. The image appear sharp in normal size also. Only in enlarge view we can see the CA (purple fringe) merge into the black background.Calvin yeung(talk) 5:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 2 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of the 5th day). Benh (talk) 22:47, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Moon clouds.JPG, not featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 10 Nov 2008 at 17:29:53
 

result: 1 support, 2 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of the 5th day). Benh (talk) 22:48, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Memphis Brooks Museum of Art.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 10 Nov 2008 at 22:27:35
 

  •   Info created by Michael Gäbler - uploaded by Michael Gäbler - nominated by Michael Gäbler -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:27, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:27, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The shadows (in front) killing the otherwise good expression. --Niabot (talk) 20:16, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I agree with Niabot. /Daniel78 (talk) 21:10, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
  •   Info Thank you Niabot and Daniel78 for your helpful opinion. I uploadet a new version of this file with some fixes: I made a new cutting and took the shadows in front away, I brightened the sky up and I made little changes in the garden on the left side of the image. At this time the thumbnail did not show the new version. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 16:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC). - Now I can see the right thumbnail.--Michael Gäbler (talk) 18:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I guess you will need to shoot a new picture of the museum. Now the front figurine is cut in half. :-( --Niabot (talk) 18:31, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Have a look: here is the full figurine! No shadows are killing the good expression!--Michael Gäbler (talk) 23:29, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 2 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of the 5th day). Benh (talk) 22:48, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Crested Tern Tasmania.jpg, Edit 1 featuredEdit

Original, not featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Nov 2008 at 11:15:32
 

  •   Info created by Noodle snacks - uploaded by Noodle snacks - nominated by Noodle snacks -- Noodle snacks (talk) 11:15, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Noodle snacks (talk) 11:15, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Interesting subject and fantastic composition. -- Flying Freddy (talk) 11:39, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support, per above. --Aqwis (talk) 12:36, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Donarreiskoffer (talk) 13:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support wow! this guy looks like he flew from a cartoon:) --Lošmi (talk) 16:01, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support fantastic --norro 16:39, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose A very nice composition, but excessive levels of noise especially present on the wings. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 16:48, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --B.navez (talk) 14:24, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support--Lmbuga gl, pt, es: contacta comigo 01:34, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Lovely shot, can't see any noise myself. How do you turn this on (talk) 19:15, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ttox
  •   Oppose - As Maximo: excessive noise in the wings and beak. Also, I would like to see a larger photo with more detail. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:13, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose for this size it isn't sharp enough and as Alves mentioned the noise isn't advantageous here, otherwise i have the strange feeling that the BG is fake overprocessed --Richard Bartz (talk) 11:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support-- DarkAp89  Commons 14:49, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Size of image and some noisy parts. --Karelj (talk) 22:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per last three opposers. Lycaon (talk) 00:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Beautiful, but too noisy & unsharp :( –Dilaudid 21:53, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose beautiful, but not so sharp and noisy. By the way, if you could "spread" your nominations a little... I would appreciate, as it's likely I will close them, and it seems you are going to have a lot of them featured ! ;) Benh (talk) 22:06, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support It is pretty good, the bird is beautiful. Crapload (talk) 05:23, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Dori - Talk 02:54, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
result: 13 supports, 7 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured (waiting for results on edit1). Benh (talk) 21:23, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Edit 1, featuredEdit

 

  •   Info Noise reduced version which I mentioned. Noodle snacks (talk) 23:46, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support It is pretty good, the bird is beautiful. Crapload (talk) 05:22, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Aqwis (talk) 09:36, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Info The background is so blurred due to its large distance from the subject (have a look at the geocoding, its about 300 meters) Noodle snacks (talk) 09:40, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support-- DarkAp89  Commons 19:39, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Don't think the NR is doing any good here. Just removing detail. --Dori - Talk 02:55, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Interesting image, good for common users, surely can be featured --Twdragon (talk) 17:48, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Mr. Mario (talk) 14:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Still noises are there. But the image is spectacular --Man On Mission (talk) 9:30, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Lošmi (talk) 02:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support well done. —αἰτίας discussion 02:07, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support -- TanPhat Nguyen (talk) 04:12, 9 November 2008 (UTC).
result: 9 supports, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured — Lycaon (talk) 21:48, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Grand-Palace-in-Tsaritsyno-Moscow.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 7 Nov 2008 at 13:17:46
 

  •   Info created by Helen Filatova (talk) 13:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC) - uploaded by Helen Filatova (talk) 13:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC) - nominated by Helen Filatova (talk) 13:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC) -- Helen Filatova (talk) 13:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Helen Filatova (talk) 13:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, of strong distortion and obvious stitching errors. –Dilaudid 14:09, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose User: Pierregunther
  •   Support -- Florent Pécassou (talk) 20:06, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Stitching errors and variable quality from frame to frame --S23678 (talk) 05:13, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Tilted horizon, stitching errors, visible exposure difference between the source frames --Twdragon (talk) 18:30, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
result: 2 supports, 4 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured. Benh (talk) 22:40, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Chantilly3 tango7174.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 7 Nov 2008 at 14:53:05
 

  •   Comment please state reason for opposition as a courtesy to the author/uploader. Lycaon (talk) 19:52, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Karelj (talk) 22:06, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Nice composition but poor quality -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:29, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 09:09, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nice image with poor quality and great noise amount --Twdragon (talk) 16:13, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sadly, quality issues mentioned above. --S23678 (talk) 05:18, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
result: 3 supports, 4 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured. Benh (talk) 22:40, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Ronda panoramic view.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 7 Nov 2008 at 17:38:44
 

  •   Info created by Pom² - uploaded by Pom² - nominated by Pom² -- Pom² (talk) 17:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Pom² (talk) 17:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Stunning panorama. Elucidate (talk) 18:31, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Aqwis (talk) 20:02, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Excellent view of the Ronda region. -- MJJR (talk) 21:46, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Very well. I suppose the black points in the sky are flies?! Manuel R. (talk) 16:31, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
    •   Comment Only birds :) --Pom² (talk) 12:06, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support-- DarkAp89  Commons 19:37, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support JukoFF (talk) 13:42, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Karelj (talk) 16:58, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support big WOW factor --Lestat (talk) 23:08, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Great11 (talk) 01:30, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support though it conjures up feelings of an old image, can't figure out why. --Dori - Talk 02:48, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry about that, but, even with great quality (a lot of details) and color, there is better panoramas as for the subject itself. Very subjective for opposing. --S23678 (talk) 05:26, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support — Ferrer 09:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Wonderful.--Assar (talk) 21:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
result: 13 supports, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Benh (talk) 22:41, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Albi cathedral - choir and choir screen.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 7 Nov 2008 at 21:55:08
 

  •   Info created by Pom² - uploaded by Pom² - nominated by Pom² -- Pom² (talk) 21:55, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Pom² (talk) 21:55, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Albertus teolog (talk) 23:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Thank you for sharing this wonderful photo with us! --Caspian blue 03:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, but the colours are not very realistic ([1] [2]). Lycaon (talk) 07:30, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
    •   Comment Yes, I had a contrast because air wasn't pure and images looked a bit greyish, but I don't think it's that much unatural [3]. For your images I simply think it's the white balance. --Pom²
  •   Oppose Lens flare (upper right corner) and lack of detail (see sculptures) make me oppose. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 12:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support-- DarkAp89  Commons 19:35, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose High luminance noise amount, great color saturation, but bright colors distructs the details in view. --Twdragon (talk) 17:46, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
  •   Question Why the downsampling? --S23678 (talk) 05:32, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
    •   Comment Cause I think original size don't bring more details --Pom² (talk) 12:08, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Karelj (talk) 20:01, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support — Ferrer 09:20, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
result: 6 supports, 3 opposes, 0 neutral => featured. Benh (talk) 22:42, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Missing something, and not very detailed. Benh (talk) 22:34, 7 November 2008 (UTC) I came too late, luckily ;) - Benh (talk) 22:42, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Es.ntp (talk) 04:06, 9 November 2008 (UTC).

Image:Dresden-Landgericht-gp.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 7 Nov 2008 at 22:43:34
 

  •   Info created and uploaded by Kolossos - nominated by D-Kuru -- D-Kuru (talk) 22:43, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support even it looks a bit strange -- D-Kuru (talk) 22:43, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support very nice --Heptagon (talk) 00:03, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose This is a spherical projection. Rectilinear or cylindrical would be much less distorted. --Romwriter (talk) 08:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose, I assume the projection was intentionally chosen, but I can't say I like it. "Special" projections are fine for some artistic/landscape pictures, but not for a plain photo of a building. --Aqwis (talk) 09:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose by autor. I, the photograph, would also like to promote some other new images from me. The light is not optimal, I was too near with my gigapan-imager-bot on the building and I cut some steps of the stair. The resolution is only 1/9 of the original resolution. So too many things are not optimal. On the other side I want to use the features images process to make en:Gigapan more popular in the Commons Community. I would like to promote Image:Dresden-Wallpavillion-gp.jpg, Image:Dresden-Nymphenbad-gp.jpg or Image:Dresden-Semperoper-gp.jpg with better light and more natural perspective. Alternative I would like to promote Image:Dresden-Hauptbahnhof2.jpg in his original resolution of 520 Megapixel. :-D --Kolossos (talk) 15:27, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose High vertical distortion --Twdragon (talk) 17:45, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Projection issues --S23678 (talk) 20:23, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
result: 2 supports, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. --D-Kuru (talk) 19:23, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Anime Girl.svg, featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 8 Nov 2008 at 20:18:23
   

  •   Info created, uploaded and nominated by Niabot -- Niabot (talk) 20:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Info Note that i provided also an PNG-Version (right image) of this drawing, because the current renderer of Wikipedia (librsvg) makes some errors while rendering SVG-Images. -- Niabot (talk) 20:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support see the KEB talk at german wikipedia for the reasons, too tired to translate :p HardDisk (talk) 22:44, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support very nice.   ■ MMXXtalk  07:29, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support G.A.S 07:51, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support WOW (SVG version). --libertad0 ॐ (talk) 13:10, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose -- it seems that the wow factor is very high here. but its much below 2 mp and the value isn't clear for me. to illustrate the manga style, you could nearly take any manga picture. Manuel R. (talk) 18:25, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
    •   Comment SVG files are resizable to infinity. Transform it to a 100,000,000px-wide PNG picture if you want. Diti (talk to the penguin) 18:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
    •   Comment As already noted, this file is resolution independent. Look at the exported PNG file it exceeds your limit at ease (>6 mp). An you cant use any picture. Other language versions need free pictures, because they cant use "fair use". --Niabot (talk) 18:56, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
  •    Amazing SVG file and beautiful result for Inkscape! Diti (talk to the penguin) 18:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support very nice, I also like the fact that it's svg (even though wikipedia doesn't render it correctly) -- Gorgo (talk) 00:53, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
  •   Comment - Please make a different section for each version. This way it is impossible to decide which one is being supported or opposed -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:54, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Both are the same Pictures, that should be ideally equal. The only difference is storage format. The better and more valuable file is the SVG version (left image), even if the renderer of wikipedia sucks in displaying it. This is the real work. A with Inkscape exported version is the better looking PNG-File. So all votes count for the first (left) image, even if you may use the PNG-Version for an article, because the wp renderer sucks (but maybe improved over time). --Niabot (talk) 13:27, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
      • If, as you claim, the Wiki renderer sucks, then how can we assess objectively that the SVG version was properly constructed? My own SVG's (which, I admit, are far less complex) render just fine. Lycaon (talk) 10:23, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
        • You can use any newer Version of Opera, Firefox or Inkscape to verify the result of the SVG-File. But be patient, the renderingspeed of Firefox and Opera is not very good. The results are just fine, even if Firefox does only implement about 50% of the SVG standard. --Niabot (talk) 17:47, 2 November 2008 (UTC) PS: We have many images that are showing bugs with librsvg. So take a look inside Category:Pictures showing a librsvg bug.
  •   Support Wow factor -- DarkAp89  Commons 17:01, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Lošmi (talk) 00:11, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Romwriter (talk) 18:15, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --D-Kuru (talk) 14:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support very nice, must be quite hard to make such an image! --Kanonkas(talk) 15:28, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Great quality for SVG work --Twdragon (talk) 18:28, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Econt (talk) 21:50, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Can't load it, can't support it, sorry (Firefox 3.03). Lycaon (talk) 22:44, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Dont know why, but im running Firefox 3.0.1 (Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; de; rv:1.9.0.1) Gecko/2008070206 Firefox/3.0.1) and it works just fine. But it takes a while until the image is displayed. Btw. cant load, cant support? cant load, cant vote? --Niabot (talk) 00:46, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
    •   Comment If you couldn't load the image, how did you vote ?!   ■ MMXXtalk  07:07, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
    •   Comment If the SVG would rendering anything like the png version, I'd support happily. But this will (likely) be on the front page and if only 10% of users or casual visitors cannot access the file properly, then it is bad publicity for Commons, and hence not the best of the best we can offer. Lycaon (talk) 07:34, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
      •   Comment This applies to any SVG-Image, since internet explorer can't handle SVG at all and it's market share is over 50%. But i modified and Uploaded the SVG-Version again. Now it passes the strict SVG validator, that ensures that the file itself has no errors. If your version of Firefox isn't able to display it, then somthing is messed up with your software. --Niabot (talk) 09:36, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Beautiful, I use Firefox as well and am able to open it. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 11:14, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Tintero (talk) 20:16, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support nice --Richard Bartz (talk) 22:59, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support too good to be true --Grootmoe (talk) 17:01, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
result: 17 supports, 2 oppose, 0 neutral =>  featured. Benh (talk) 08:34, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Kluft-photo-CSXT-2004-amateur-space-launch.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 9 Nov 2008 at 03:31:24
 

  •   Info created by Ikluft - uploaded by Ikluft - nominated by Ikluft -- Ikluft (talk) 03:31, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
    •   Info photo caption: The "CSXT Space Shot 2004" by the Civilian Space eXploration Team (CSXT) was the first amateur rocket launch to space. The rocket launched at 11:12AM US Pacific Time on May 17, 2004 at the Black Rock Desert in northwestern Nevada. The rocket reached an altitude of 72 miles (115km), the first amateur rocket to exceed the Karman Line of 62 miles (100km) required to claim a space flight. Ikluft (talk) 11:38, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support as nominator -- Ikluft (talk) 03:31, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
  •    Amazing YES! Crusier (talk) 06:33, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Comment Photo is watermarked, a pity for a featured picture. Diti (talk to the penguin) 08:23, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Should've been FPX. Picture is not eligible (size, watermark). Lycaon (talk) 08:40, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Info The watermark was inadvertent - sorry about that. It was automatically inserted by the web site where I first posted it, and was small enough that I didn't see it in the scaled-down review copy. A non-watermark image will be uploaded immediately following this comment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ikluft (talk • contribs) 09:22, 31 October 2008) (UTC)
  •   Comment Main issue remains: size << 2Mpx. Lycaon (talk) 09:37, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Done Watermark removed. Size cannot be improved - this is the resolution my camera was set for at the time of the launch. There is no public image of better resolution. Didn't have a chance to check the resolution setting because I was operating a radio up to T minus one minute (ending with me saying "Range Safety is GO for launch") and then another volunteer handled the radio so I could get a picture. Ikluft (talk) 09:51, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Info I should clarify about "no public image of better resolution": I have no better image. There was a still photo taken by a professional photographer which was zoomed in tight on the rocket lifting off while still at the launch pad. This view framed with the sky and mountains is unique - no one else got any view similar to this shot. This is the best resolution available on this view. Ikluft (talk) 10:57, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support - It is a really nice photo of a historic event. The 2 mpx rule is not absolute (one can disregard it if there are “strong mitigating reasons”, and I believe there are). --Kjetil_r 09:59, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Info FYI - though we'd all have preferred to have an image in higher resolution, this is the same image and resolution that is posted framed in the lobby of the headquarters of the American Radio Relay League (ARRL, US national Amateur Radio organization) in Newington CT. Ikluft (talk) 10:03, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Comment - maybe you should geocode it? --Kjetil_r 10:01, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Done OK, I've now added a location tag to the page. Ikluft (talk) 10:12, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too small, insufficient mitigating reasons. MER-C 10:41, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support, even though file is under the required 2 megapixels. This is an unique photo. Diti (talk to the penguin) 11:03, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Strong mitigating reason. --Mr. Mario (talk) 14:19, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - As above -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:09, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Weak, for me it should be little bit more darker and more contrast, size ... but il looks great. --Karelj (talk) 17:12, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Even under two MPX, the quality is bad. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 17:23, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support  Support  Support i think i just fall in love :) Sterkebaktalk 17:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose -- I think the fact that the picture has only 1.5 mp is too bad. more deatils should be visible on the rocket. i think the picture is very valuable. therefore i would nominate it as a valued image, but for an fp, the quality is too low. Manuel R. (talk) 18:09, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support -- This is the best picture available of this unique historic event. Owen DeLong 18:31, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support As comment above. --Lošmi (talk) 19:51, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose, I feel it is too small. --Aqwis (talk) 20:21, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose low res -- Gorgo (talk) 21:42, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support /Daniel78 (talk) 00:05, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Valuable, not FP quality. Too bad they didn't think of getting a better shot of it. --Dori - Talk 02:38, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support -- DarkAp89  Commons 16:58, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Very wide vertical viewfield, so the rocket is not truly recognizable, no WOW --Twdragon (talk) 17:43, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
    •   Info I think (and hope I can convince enough others) that there's "wow" in the event and experience it conveys. That wide field of view was actually an intentional part of the presentation, the way I hoped the shot would turn out. My experience from photographing high-power (hobby) rocket launches was that you don't zoom in too much on a supersonic rocket's launch without highly increased risk of getting a picture of the smoke at the pad with the rocket long gone. Here's an example. And even when you get some of those close-ups, you get better variety of the views with wider shots if you can get the rocket near the top of the frame. It's a tough shot to get, because these kinds of rockets are nearly or already supersonic by that point. But it's a more rewarding view. (I did also get a shot of the CSXT launch at liftoff still at the pad as shown in the photo presentation of the launch.) A benefit of a wider shot like this is that it also shares with the viewer what it was like to be there at the historic moment. Ikluft (talk) 19:20, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --B.navez (talk) 08:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support I am ready to forgive the technical flaws because of the nature of this picture and as well because I like it. --S23678 (talk) 20:45, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Resolution too low, and rocket very small in frame which makes it worse. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support impressive picture of unique event, low resolution can be tolerated --che 02:38, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support WoW, --Tintero (talk) 20:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I'm really frustrated by not being able to magnify it more ! Benh (talk) 23:29, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
    •   Info Yeah, that's generally why there's a 2 megapixel guideline. Some votes here could see past that and accept the history it records as a mitigating factor, which the rules do allow. I wish some had considered more favorably that this is a good shot of a very difficult subject since the rocket was around transonic speed (breaking the sound barrier) at the time of the photo. The event is nothing short of "WOW" - that is the value of this photo and the reason why I offered it. But right now it's falling well short of the 2/3 mark and will fail if there aren't a lot of support votes in the last day of voting. I was advised on my talk page to take this to Wikipedia where it exceeds the minimum resolution there. And the topic area is also given more weight. So that's probably what I'll do. Thanks for considering it. Ikluft (talk) 02:59, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Enough wow and value for migitating reasons. -- Klaus with K (talk) 15:17, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose too small (but exciting)--Grootmoe (talk) 17:00, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Weak technical quality, however still a stunning picture. —αἰτίας discussion 02:04, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
result: 17 supports, 12 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured. Benh (talk) 08:39, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support per "main goal" ~ R.T.G 04:00, 9 November 2008 (UTC) too late ! - Benh (talk) 08:39, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

It's nevver too late Benny. :( first amateur rocket in space, free pics, worthy? na... (RASBURRY) ~ R.T.G 09:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Image:Statue in Oppeln.JPG, not featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 9 Nov 2008 at 10:39:36
 

  •   Info created, uploaded by and nominated by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 10:39, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Pudelek (talk) 10:39, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 20:27, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Poor light, washed-out colours, unfortunate background and crop too tight on subject. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:48, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per previous opposer --S23678 (talk) 20:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Alvesgaspar. —αἰτίας discussion 02:03, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 result: 2 supports, 3 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured. Benh (talk) 08:40, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:ConcertgebouwMuseumpleinAmsterdam.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 9 Nov 2008 at 17:29:38