Open main menu

Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/October 2006

< Commons:Featured picture candidates‎ | Log


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


Contents

Image:Agra_Itimad-ud-Daula_1.jpg - not featuredEdit

   

  •   Info created by Flicka - uploaded by Flicka - nominated by Flicka 18:58, 16 September 2006 (UTC)]]
  •   Support --Flicka 18:58, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support --Erina 07:29, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Edit is better, IMO. Erina 16:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support Kprateek88 07:47, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Neutral the underexposed column disturb. --Jacopo86 11:01, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support but rotate it just slightly... --Tomascastelazo 15:08, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support K!roman | ☺‼♫♥☻ 18:26, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose — Framing is really nice, but inspecting to its full size, noise is really bad. Purple fringing is clearly visible. Light quality is very bad, as shadow is too harsh. Indon 22:13, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
    •   Comment I'm still opposing the Edit1. Please inspect a look to its fullsize. Noise is still terrible, esp. in the gate of Agra, where the two people are chatting. Fringing is still everywhere visible. What's the different between the original & edit1? Indon 08:54, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support Lestat 10:39, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose ack Indon -- Lycaon 18:56, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support Prefer Edit1. Olegivvit 15:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
But Edit1 (means the second picture) is not nominated (and seems to be a little dark). Do you also support the orginal picture? Flicka --84.165.91.102 17:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, that's how it works. You nominate, people spot a problem, someone uploads an edit which he thinks fixes it, and the edit is on the table as well. --Dschwen 06:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I really like the composition but I don't like the exposure. If I would have done this shot I would have used a flash to enlighten the columns in the foreground and enable one step smaller aperture to make the background darker thus keeping the contrast between foreground an background lower. Andreas Tille 06:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose full ack tillea. --Dschwen 06:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
    • It would be boring, IMO. The contrast makes it better. --Erina 08:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I agree with Erina --Simonizer (UTC)
  •   Oppose ack Andreas Tille -- Lycaon 21:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice composition, I would crop a little bit on the sites, but overall very nice! --Simonizer (UTC)
  •   Oppose --Digon3 22:03, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support eirisa
  •   Oppose Mainly due exposition, for me main subject is overexposed. This problem is more noticiable on the trees of background which colors are too less saturated. On the other hand I found the composition really GOOD, but it does not compensate the exposition matter enough for me. Francisco M. Marzoa 13:24, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
9 support, 7 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured Roger McLassus 05:03, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Image:152043main s121e06199-L111.jpg - not featuredEdit

 

  •   Info created by NASA — uploaded by João Felipe C.S — nominated by João Felipe C.S
  •   Support João Felipe C.S 16:01, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose composition: one hiding and one beheaded astronaut. Lycaon 17:48, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose As above. Snowwayout 05:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose distracting composition --Jacopo86 11:03, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support Extraordinary circumstances!!!... This is not a weekend photo outing. Or maybe the local critics can just go on up there and take a better one??? Or maybe NASA should train the austronauts to turn to the camera and say cheese???--Tomascastelazo 15:19, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
    So one should only oppose, if he can do it better? I think, that is not the point. It's just the question, if it's good enough for FP or not. norro 21:32, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose norro 21:32, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Composition all wrong. It's not that the photo was not worth taking, but this is certainly not THE photograph. Rama 17:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Crowded, lacking a central subject or composition. An astronaut with a camera is bound to produce some good and some lousy shots even on such magnificent surroundings; in my opinion this is not FP material. Roadmr 23:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Roadmr SOADLuver 23:59, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
2 support, 7 oppose → not featured Roger McLassus 05:02, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Image:Yonne river Armeau.jpg - not featuredEdit

 

  •   Info created by Pabix — uploaded by Xibot — nominated by   Pabix 
  •   Support   Pabix  08:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I would say it's the lighting conditions and the field in the middle. --Adamantios 18:34, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
    Concerning lighting conditions, yes, I was there 5 minutes before and it was magnificent, but AAAAA! I didn't have my camera! And you're right, this field is not very pretty in this set, but in reality, it was charming :)  Pabix  19:34, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
    Oh well, we cant move the sun or make trees grow in an instant, can we? ;) --Adamantios 07:28, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support i still like it, we should qualify pictures from what they are and not what they could have been. -LadyofHats 23:11, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support I love water reflections eirissa
3 support, 1 oppose → not featured Roger McLassus 05:01, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Image:Citratcyclus.svg - not featuredEdit

 

  •   Info created by User Minutemen on de.wikipedia — uploaded by Gia.cossa — nominated by Erina
  •   Support SVG, therefore it's not a nomination for cuteness or emotional impact, but mainly for lots of good work (less than the ant, but still much) and great informational value. And it looks nice, too. Just one problem: I don't know whether it is correct, I don't know German, nor biochemistry. I'm nominating supposing that it is correct. Erina 20:57, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I do know German, and I found a minor flaw: After an abbreviation-point there must always be a blank. So "u. v. m." (meaning "and many more") would be correct instead of "u.v.m.". Roger McLassus 07:38, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Comment -- actually I am sure "u.v.m." is no official German abbreviation. There is one that is close: u.v.a. (und viele andere = and many more) where there is NO blank in between the individual letters. -- Boereck 09:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • If there is a point of abbreviation, it is always followed by a blank - or at least it should be :) Roger McLassus 10:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I think you are right. The online-version of the Duden [1] lists it WITH the blanks while my printed version "Der große Duden - 14th Edition" (sorry, I'm old school) has it without. I think the online-source is more recent but I usually prefer to rely on printed material so that is where I checked first. I grant you to be completely right in this case, though! -- Boereck 11:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Comment Could someone translate it into english, so I could translate it into polish? Ss181292 09:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Comment orientation/justification on the labels around the centre of the yellow circle, notiable between 9-12 o'clock looks unbalance, compared to the rest of that sequence. Gnangarra 08:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support -- I think it is a good and very helpful illustration! I have not checked it yet because I cannot find my old biology notes but if I do, I will do so. For now you got my support! -- Boereck 09:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support Nützliches Bild im praktischen svg-Format, einzig Citronensäure sollte wie bei Citrat mit C geschrieben werden. Usefull picture, usefull file format. --Andel 10:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I think in order to qualify for FP-status in the Commons no local languages (like German) should be used but an international one (English or Latin). I know, this is not an established rule, but I suggest we should make it up. (By the way, in spite of being German, the English word Cholesterol is used instead of the German Cholesterin.) Roger McLassus 10:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Cholesterol is just as german. It actually is the smarter name, since cholesterol is a sterol. And by the way I completely disagree about the language ban you proposed. Latin? The german WP is the second largest, so expect lots of german media. FP status should be language independent anyways, if a picture is featured it'll only be additional motivation to translate it to other languages. --Dschwen 22:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Maybe I was misunderstood. Which language is used for naming a picture is of course irrelevant. But text-oriented graphics like this one are a different matter. Would you dare to vote if it were Chinese? Only few people participating here know German, but everyone knows English. (I admit, Latin was not so good an idea either.) Roger McLassus 06:16, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
      • I see your point, but I still disagree. In this discussion alone I see four people who know german. It seems like a no brainer that you should only vote if you comprehend the illustration, so, no, of course I wouldn't dare to vote on a chinese diagram. The point is as long as there are enough competent voters why shouldn't it be featured? This is a self regulating process, and I don't see a need to further regulate/restrict it. And let me elaborate on competent and comprehend, language is not the only barrier here, subject matter is as or even more important so ultimately every voter has to judge for herself/himself weather she or he is fit to judge the picture. Why should language skills be treated any different than let's say knowledge of biochemistry? --Dschwen 08:33, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
        • I see your point too, which made me change my vote to   Neutral. Roger McLassus 09:33, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Strong oppose - The text is too small on the image description page. If I then click on the image to see it full size, it throws up an error box "Do you want to save this file. Name: Citratcyclus.svg. Type: Unknown File Type. Save. Cancel. Warning, some files can potentially harm your computer (etc.)". Well, I don't particularly want to save something that might harm my computer, but I would like to see it full size. As it is, it's useless. - MPF 11:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • It didn't do it to me even once of the eight times I opened the image. are you sure you did it right? why are you blaming the picture for it? I am sure all voters above would have complained if the image did not open. you better try it again. -- Boereck 12:11, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Wow, this is as if someone who used lynx would oppose on all nominations because the pictures didn't show up... --Dschwen 16:31, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
3 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured Roger McLassus 07:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Lutour valley, Pyrenees - not featuredEdit

 

  •   Info created by Miguel303xm — uploaded by Miguel303xm — nominated by Miguel303xm
  •   Info Very nice picture. Good image quality. It hasv got a river, stones, forests, grass, peaks, snow, sky... I think this photo is not boring.
  •   Neutral Yes, very good technical quality, but the composition is, in my opinion, boring. When I look at this pic I feel like I was there... but it's just a mountainside. Something is missing, but I don't know what. :( --Erina 20:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose ditto Erina with an accent on boring. Ss181292 09:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose its well presented valley picture but it needs a point of interest to draw the eye in Gnangarra 08:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Neutral - I like it, but the pic is tilted and needs rotating about 2° or 3° CCW - MPF 20:18, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • How did you measure this angle? Roger McLassus 10:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
From the trees, which all lean that amount CW - MPF 00:48, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I took the photo standing on a bridge. I recommend you to visit this valley because is fantastic! Miguelín 14:38, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support Ah, the tranquil mood and beautiful palette REALLY appeal to me. J'voudrais tellement y aller.. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 22:49, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support--Fanghong 03:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support Lumijaguaari Francisco M. Marzoa 14:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Hmmmm... in fact I like enough the picture, but after read objections and thinking a bit more, it's good but not to be FP. Francisco M. Marzoa 18:26, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose A nice picture, but for me it's not got the 'wow factor' needed to be featured. I agree with the comments concerning the lack of a good point of interest, to draw the eye in.--MichaelMaggs 16:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support perhaps it's not a 'wow' picture but it presents the tranquil atmosphere of the mountains very well and it definitely encourages to visit those areas, a nice travelling photo eirissa
  •   Neutral Composition is good, but for me the point on the i is missing Simonizer 09:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose ack MichaelMaggs and too many stones are overexposed. --Grombo 14:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
3 support, 5 oppose, 3 neutral → not featured Roger McLassus 07:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Image:Metal movable type.jpg - featuredEdit

 

 
Note: This edit is not due for approval yet
  •   Info created by Wilfried Heider (stock.xchng user) — uploaded by Lupin — nominated by Ss181292
  •   Info Great illustration of a set of metal types. High encyclopedic value. Good image quality.
  •   Support Ss181292 09:43, 17 September 2006 (UTC) - (nominator)
  •   Support Erina 09:58, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Would like it to be rotated 180 degrees and a little bit cropped like the one on the right norro 12:28, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
    I believe this is proper orientation (I mean not rotated). Ss181292 13:27, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
    And (IMHO) the font full of types is a main subject, so you propose to crop off the important part of the picture. This already typeset paragraph is (IMHO) only addition. Ss181292 13:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
    Maybe you're right, but for me its a matter of composition. The flat plan view on the types may be the main subject but is not very interesting for me. Kindly, norro 14:31, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Neutral and comment: The picture should be rotated 180 degrees, the type is upside-down, besides, the shadow is cast from the bottom to the upper part. IMO it would have been a better image if the type in the boxes were visible. To people who do not know metal type, they are just pieces of metal. --Tomascastelazo 15:01, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Comment After a longer while I'm sure that this image should not be rotated.:
    1. font (set of types) lies on the table,
    2. observer stands in front of this table,
    3. light comes from left side (proper for right handed person),
    4. I believe it is normal to typeset paragraph upside-down (faces of types are mirrored anyway). Ss181292 20:22, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support Technically strong, and an effective illustration. You can infer a great deal of the typesetting process just from looking at this photo. K.lee 06:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support A very informative high-quality picture. It shouldn't be significatly cropped (at least one box should be left completely open to the viewer); and probably it's no reason to rotate it: Ss181292's words sound convincing. Dr Bug (Vladimir V. Medeyko) 14:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support Rama 17:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support - but only the original unrotated and uncropped version --Leclerc 12:39, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support - original version -LadyofHats 23:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support - original version. Looks good at full resolution.--MichaelMaggs 15:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Agree --Prevert(talk) 21:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support - One of the nicest technical shots of movable type I've ever seen. --Quartermaster 20:30, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support I slightly prefer the rotated version, but both are interesting and informative. QuartierLatin1968 19:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support Simonizer 09:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support original -- Solipsist 20:28, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
13 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured Roger McLassus 07:05, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Image:Flower with water droplets 2.JPG - not featuredEdit

 

  •   Info created by Kprateek88 — uploaded by Kprateek88 — nominated by Kprateek88
  •   Info A hollyhock flower Kprateek88 04:23, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support Kprateek88 04:23, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose background is not fitting norro 14:06, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support -LadyofHats 23:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - ditto to norro, the background of Tagetes does not fit well - MPF 00:51, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support--Fanghong 03:34, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - The background colours distractingly clash with the colour of the main subject--MichaelMaggs 10:23, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support Oonagh 12:18, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
4 support, 3 oppose → not featured Roger McLassus 07:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Image:Uria Lomvia 1 9.jpg - not featuredEdit

 

  •   Info created by Michael Haferkamp — uploaded by himself — nominated by Gabi (IP)
  •   Support please log in to vote -- Lycaon 22:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC) Bjørnøya, Barent's Sea: Impressive and nearly perfect shot of Brünnich's Guillemot (= Thick-billed Murre, Uria lomvia), just the horizon is a bit crooked. Gabi 20:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Neutral noisy and a bit leaning, but I like it very much norro 16:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Neutral - they're actually Uria aalge (Common Guillemot), not U. lomvia. The image should ideally be re-named. Also needs rotating about half a degree or a degree CCW. - MPF 15:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Day 7: 0 support, 0 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured Roger McLassus 10:48, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Image:Times Square New York At Dusk.jpg - not featuredEdit

 

  •   Info created by John Kolter — uploaded by User:JohnKolter — nominated by JohnKolter
  •   Support JohnKolter
  •   Oppose crop framing Lycaon 19:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Info For the record, no crop - 2272x1704 is camera default. The bottom is raised since photo was taken while standing on an 6 foot meter box with NYPD officers steadying assistance to shoot over the hundreds of pedestrians below. Wider angle shots pulled in street lights, signs and construction. John
  •   Comment In my opinion, there are exactly two ways to take interesting images of a place like Times Square: 1) Concentrate on some interesting detail or an unusual, stunning point of view/crop. 2) Use very wide angle equipment and/or very clean postprocessing (stitching) to get in as much of the place as possible, either horizontally, vertically, or both. The approach taken in this picture doesn't really do it for me. Mstroeck 15:37, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose agree with Lycaon norro 16:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I agree with Mstroeck --Wikimol 08:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose cluttered. - MPF 16:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose an ordinary tourist picture, not interesting enough eirissa
  •   Oppose as above Roger McLassus 13:43, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose as above Erina 06:21, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support I like this picture, but it may be because i have never seen this place before... please log in to vote Lycaon 20:56, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Day 7: 1 support (nominator), 7 oppose → not featured Roger McLassus 10:47, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Image:Grand Canyon South Rim at Sunrise.jpg - not featuredEdit

 

  •   Info created by Digon3 — uploaded by Digon3 — nominated by Digon3
  •   Support I know there are a lot of Grand Canyon FP's, so just tell me if you like it and how I can make it better Digon3 17:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose. Nah, I don't feel it. The break of a new day, sun glaring above the horizon, the whole canyon filled with a golden light. With all the thousands of pictures taken at GC each day there must be a better one depicting that new day feeling. Oh right, there is ;-). --Dschwen 07:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Wow, the Blown-Out-Highlight-Police nearly got you there, Dschwen ;-) Mstroeck 15:45, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Yeah, they sent a SWAT-team... :-) --Dschwen 17:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose. Ack Dschwen Francisco M. Marzoa 12:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
    •   Comment What does ack mean? Or what does it stand for? Simonizer 09:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
      • ACK. And I don't think he means Anti-Capitalist Kananaskis... --Dschwen 10:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
        • So it means the same as I agree? Simonizer 11:36, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
          • I think hope so... otherwise excuse my english. Francisco M. Marzoa 18:20, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I agree with Dschwen norro 16:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose. I agree with Dschwen Romary 15:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Grand Canyon is great, but this picture makes it look boring. Roger McLassus 13:41, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose--Hi-tacks 08:35, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Day 7: 1 support (nominator), 6 oppose → not featured Roger McLassus 10:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Image:Tour Eiffel Special.jpg - not featuredEdit

300px

  •   Info created, uploaded and nominated by Serendipity
  •   Info - this image is a clear Derivative work and has been tagged as a copyvio.--Nilfanion 23:00, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support Serendipity 15:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  • What are we seeing here? And overexposed, shaky, cut and tilted pic of the eifeltower? I know the light design is copyrighted, so is this peculiar photo technique supposed to be a way around that restriction? --Dschwen 16:18, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Do they actually claim you can't take a picture of a 300 meter high landmark because of copyright? I didn't even know that... Mstroeck 22:14, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Yes, at least at night. There is no Panoramafreiheit in france if I recall correctly. --Dschwen 18:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Very weird, very unclear. Not FPM --Digon3 17:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
And the Eiffel Tower looks like its floating on nothing --Digon3 17:09, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I see no point in favour of this picture. Roger McLassus 18:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Because I see just a big, shaky blob of light. Mstroeck 22:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose only overhead for the page. Darkone 08:55, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Ss181292 09:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC) - slightly tilted
  •   Oppose--Jacopo86 14:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose for quality reasons, and also because light design is copyrighted (yes, sound silly...) CyrilB 18:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Neutral  Oppose Nice... it's like a painting work of art. WikiArtGalery does it exist ? Usefulness in WP, Wiktionary... ? Information : Publishing Eiffel Tower's photographies (by night), isn't free Société Nouvelle d’exploitation de la Tour Eiffel. Stephane8888 20:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Romary 15:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   InfoSome thoughts... (Serendipity)
    • Dschwen - What are we seeing here? And overexposed, shaky, cut and tilted pic of the eifeltower?
  1. The overexposition is deliberately wanted. It's the only way you can capture the game of lights, which are alternately light up and off. (Shutter in B position).
  2. The shakiness is a consequence of shutter position. In that case I think it adds to the picture a soft, doughty character that gave the object (tower) an ethereal unreal "aura".
  3. The cut & tilted pic (?) The picture is tilted less than 5° and 90% present in the frame. Notice that even if taken uncut, by the particular exposure given, the bottom of the tower won't be seen because of the less number of lights, instead you'll obtain a picture with less area of the most interesting part: the top with the game of lights.
  4. The light design is copyrighted: this picture is a result of a particular shot technique, it shows something that your eyes can't never see because this effect is virtual and not specially designed in that manner.
  1. you failed to capture the game of lights, it's just a blurry mess.
  2. it doesn't add, and use a tripod, this is not a lomo club.
  3. 5° and 90% = tilted and cut
  4. particular shot technique? --Dschwen 12:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Digon3 - Very weird, very unclear. Not FPM, and the Eiffel Tower looks like its floating on nothing
  1. Very weird, very unclear: Weird is your opinion, I think you should gave an argument instead. The "unclear" effect is wanted.(see above)
  2. the Eiffel Tower looks like its floating on nothing: YES! and that's beautiful I think, this kind of light flaming object that lives in the dark...
    • Jacopo86 - for quality reasons, and also because light design is copyrighted (yes, sound silly...)
  1. for quality reasons: the quality is a consequence of the shutter position. (see above)
The "quality" is a consequence of camera-shake, bad framing, tilt, and your wish do capture alternating lightpatterns in a single image, which almost by definition won't result in a FP-worthy picture 99,9% of the time. It's a fun snapshot and I understand what you like about it, but it does not conform in any way to the guidelines given at the top of this page. Mstroeck 21:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  1. light design is copyrighted: the shot is taken on something that in the reality isn't shown, only with the overexposition you can see it. (see above)
  1. Art, pictures, paintings, statues, etc... are useful? They are a way of expression, they excite the mind... :).
  •   Comment Still not changing my vote, FP should not be blurry, and I dont think its for shot technique only. Still dont like the picture. --Digon3 16:25, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Comment A good picture worth to be featured does not need a lengthy defence. I am not impressed by this apologetic explanation. My opposition holds. Roger McLassus 14:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Comment This photograph probably cannot be put on Commons anyway: the lightning of the Eiffel Tower are considered to be works of art per se in French law, and there is a copright on these (and do not start, I did not write the law, it's just like that, period). Rama 02:02, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I'am french and I've seen the Tour Eiffel by night before, and I can say this picture doesn't give a good idea the fantastic beauty of this building. It's just an easy special effect... About the copyright... it's right. If you want to shot a film in Paris with the tour Eiffel, you will have to pay 6000€ (i think)for one minute. But there is a reason, of course : the lights of the tour eiffel has been created by an artist. So there is a copyright as there is for a picture or a statue or whatever... So it's not a stupid law ! Even if we have a lot of stupid and useless laws in France (but it's the same in the US, no ? :)
Day 7: 1 support (nominator), 9 oppose → not featured Roger McLassus 10:44, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Image:Mangusta.JPG - not featuredEdit

 

  •   Info created, uploaded and nominated by Serendipity
  •   Support Serendipity 09:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose. Several reasons:
    • A bit overexposed
    • Cut subject
    • red and white chain in the foreground is disturbing.  Pabix  10:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose. Fairly random shot. Agree with Pabix, plus background is also distracting. --Dschwen 11:26, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose as above Roger McLassus 15:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose ack Pabix -- Lycaon 15:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Agree with Pabix. Romary 15:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Day 7: 1 support (nominator), 5 oppose → not featured Roger McLassus 10:43, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Image:Marx_engels.png - not featuredEdit

Karl Marx & Friedrich Engels working on the Communist Manifesto (Painting)

  •   Info created by V. Polyakov (1961) - uploaded by Tets - nominated by Tets 12:53, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support --Tets 12:53, 23 September 2006 (UTC) "Karl Marx & Friedrich Engels working on the Communist Manifesto (Painting)"; alltough its not historical correct; its a beautiful painting relating to a historical moment
  •   Oppose low res, bad quality, wrong format Lycaon 07:57, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose for Lycaon reasons, plus its not historical[ly] correct --Dschwen 08:09, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose ack Lycaon and Dschwen Roger McLassus 15:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The original work should be colorful.--Fanghong 03:10, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Day 7: 1 support (nominator), 4 oppose → not featured Roger McLassus 10:42, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Image:Helmeted guineafowl kruger.jpg - not featuredEdit

 

  •   Info created by eboy — uploaded by eboy — nominated by eboy
  •   Support eboy 16:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Strong oppose It's far too blurry. --Erina 16:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose. For FP too blurry, subject obstructed, lighting leaves most of the bird shadowy, and the cropping is a tad too tight for my liking. Otherwise nice shot :-|. --Dschwen 17:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support - though I would have preferred a slightly less tight cropping - MPF 20:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose not sharp, tight crop, high ISO artefacts. -- Lycaon 21:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
    • The original photo was less cropped; I cropped it manually to make it better suitable for Wikipedia (Helmeted guineafowl), where it is scaled down to 250px width. BTW I have to admit the sharpness isn't that great: a running animal one hour before sunset... -- eboy 09:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Was the grass also running? I agree with the opposers. Roger McLassus 18:16, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Yep :-) eboy 07:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
    • ROTFL! Can I put this conversation into my sig? Oh, Commons don't use sigs. My user page, or anywhere? --Erina 18:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose as above -LadyofHats 23:16, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
2 support, 5 oppose → not featured Roger McLassus 05:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Image:Danaus plexippus croped.JPG - not featuredEdit

 

  •   Info created by Simonizer — uploaded by Simonizer — nominated by Simonizer
  •   Support Simonizer 10:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nice, but unfortunatly that red flower in background at the left is disturbing. Francisco M. Marzoa 11:50, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Way oversaturated, blown-out red channel. --Dschwen 13:21, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Ss181292 15:36, 2 October 2006 (UTC) - ditto Francisco M. Marzoa
  •   Oppose per Francisco. Save for that red blob (flower) it's not a bad picture, however monarch butterflies are not that uncommon so there's no excuse not to get a perfect shot. Find another one and give it another shot! Roadmr 16:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
    • For a german guy like me it is an uncommom butterfly. Ill think in europe you can only find monarchs on Teneriffa and in the South of spain. So when i have enough money to travel back to the US i´ll try another shot. Thanks for the advice. :-) Simonizer 23:38, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Are the flowers up there really that red? wow! I'll trade you a few butterflies for a bunch of flowers! Roadmr 23:49, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support Are you guys for real??! This is a great photo! --Fir0002 www 22:29, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support Beautiful photo. Definitely meets featured picture criteria. Cary "Bastiqe" Bass demandez 01:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support Tets 02:09, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support Just beautiful. Dori | Talk 03:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support Lucash 7:26, 3 october 2006 (utc)
  •   Oppose I agree with the opposers. Furthermore head and abdomen of the butterfly are difficult to see, and even the wings are only partly sharp. Roger McLassus 06:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Yes, it is beautiful picture, but the red blob blurry flower in the background really distracts object too much. Thus it is not for FP. Indon 07:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Lerdsuwa 13:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The very badly blown reds wreck an otherwise fantastic picture. --DonES 21:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per above Vanillatea 23:14, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Info I withdraw the picture because of the blown red Simonizer 07:32, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
7 support, 8 oppose, nomination withdrawn → not featured Roger McLassus 18:15, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Image:Girl and cat.jpg - not featuredEdit

 

  •   Info created by Joaquim Gaspar— uploaded by Alvesgaspar — nominated by Alvesgaspar 18:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support Alvesgaspar 18:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Comment Did the girl's parents give permission ? Lycaon 21:08, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support Lycaon 22:01, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nice and cute, but... it's a bit noisy on dark parts, has jpeg artifacts too evidents and that white thing on the left (a switch?) is disturbing. Francisco M. Marzoa 23:56, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Strong oppose Neither nice nor cute. Very boring home snapshot. - MPF 00:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Strong oppose Indon 10:23, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Strong oppose Ss181292 10:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC) - another this is my pet photo. No value, low quality, bad composition, boring. Please read and understand Guidelines for nominators above before your next nomination.
    •   Comment No need to be arrogant. The history of Art (and of Photography, in particular) is full of themes as banal as this one. Also, and as you should know, "beauty" is essentially a question of taste, in its various components: theme, composition, colours, excitment... To call attention to the "guidelines" because you think the photo is boring is ungraceful Alvesgaspar 14:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
      • But Commons is not a collection of art. This is not a collection of personal photos also. I call to guidelines because you apparently dont understand what is the purpose of FPC (this page). Ss181292 15:42, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
        • Once again you are extrapolating wildly (and seem confused) about what Commons is. Surely, it is also a collection of art as well as of personal photos (whatever a personal photo might be), including the “this is my pet” type. Please understand that I’m not defending the merits of my picture (you are right, it is not a very good one), only the right to have bad taste, to participate in FPC and (even so) to be treated with courtesy. Of course, you also have the right to be blatant, although I suspect that is not the normal way with Wikipedia.Alvesgaspar 18:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
      •   Comment This site (FPC) was created for finding such pictures from all pictures on Commons that are somewhat special. I think everybody should understand that after reading the title (newcomers to). If not, we have delivered some guidelines. Now we vote; everybody reveals what they are thinking about the picture; in form of short informations like: bad composition, low resolution or high value. It has nothing about offending or being arrogant - it is common and convenient way (no need to write a lot and read a lot, cause everybody understands). The fact are that Commons is not the place for every picture or every piece of art, but for that that has some value (in many ways); and Featured picture is such picture from Commons (so it is already valuable) that is special. I wouldn't be writing this if you hadn't said that you have been offended or mistreated. Mistake was on your site. If you are guest somewhere, you shouldn't complain on rules Vulpecula 23:06, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
        •   Comment Expresions like bad composition or low resolution has no emotional load, but "another "this is my pet photo" sounds rude and arrogant, and since it doesn't contribute with nothing possitive there's no need to use it. There are million ways to say the things without being offensive. Francisco M. Marzoa 01:01, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
          • It might be rude, but not in this context. We are here, not anywhere. Beside every week some new wikipedian, who didn't wish to read the rules, wants his sunset featured. Half of the votes are: "yet another sunset" and nobody complains. Vulpecula 19:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose also considerably leaning to the left Roger McLassus 10:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Neutral got carried away... Lycaon 13:20, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
You mean you got carried away by oppose votes and didnt want to stick with your guns? --Fir0002 www 22:31, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
nope. by the cute face, still don't want to oppose (stick, guns etc..) ;-) Lycaon 23:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Strong oppose No educational value, no encyclopedic value, no historical value, etc... Ordinary subject. And definitely not a piece of art. Vulpecula 23:06, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Info I withdraw the photo, agree with the comments of Francisco M. Marzoa, Roger McLassus and Lycaon. The truth is it does not justify all this noise... Alvesgaspar 13:25, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
1 support, 6 oppose, 1 neutral, nomination withdrawn → not featured Roger McLassus 18:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Image:Male kodiak bear face.JPG - not featuredEdit

 

  •   Info created by LadyofHats — uploaded by LadyofHats — nominated by LadyofHats
  •   Neutral LadyofHats 22:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support Erina 07:20, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose too obvious zoo pic Lycaon 08:07, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose boring composition and in no way outstanding Roger McLassus 10:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support I like it, nice color. Jelly50
  •   Oppose --Tomascastelazo 14:11, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - ditto to Lycaon - MPF 00:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
2 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured Roger McLassus 05:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Image:Petrified Forest National Park Wood.jpg - not featuredEdit

 

  •   Info created by Digon3 — uploaded by Digon3 — nominated by Digon3
  •   Support Digon3 22:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Unsharp at the right, and boring composition. Erina 07:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The subject is interesting but the picture is boring. Roger McLassus 10:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support Urban 18:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support Same image with a black HTML-Frame looks nice --Ikiwaner 11:40, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Ack opositors. Francisco M. Marzoa 12:36, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Contrast is low and it looks flat. Indon 08:16, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
3 support, 4 oppose → not featured Roger McLassus 05:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Image:Dolichotis patagonum head.JPG - not featuredEdit

 

  •   Info created by LadyofHats — uploaded by LadyofHats — nominated by LadyofHats
  •   Neutral LadyofHats 21:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose : subject is cut, central composition. Rama 07:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support Erina 07:19, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose too obvious zoo pic, bad crop Lycaon 08:07, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose cut ears and boring composition Roger McLassus 10:18, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - ditto to Lycaon - MPF 00:41, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose ack Roger McLassus Francisco M. Marzoa 12:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
1 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured Roger McLassus 05:46, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Image:Eating Male Papio hamadryas.JPG - not featuredEdit

 

  •   Info created by LadyofHats — uploaded by LadyofHats — nominated by LadyofHats
  •   Neutral LadyofHats 21:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support Colours are a little bit dull and there is a slightly disturbing yellow thing behind the ape ; on the other hand, composition is correct, the image is sharp, background is blured appropriately ; what makes the thrill is the ape looking right in your eyes. Rama 07:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support Erina 07:19, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose too obvious zoo pic Lycaon 08:07, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
    • can you explain me what do you have against zoo pics? does the poor animal looses a hair, has a bone more or changes species? it is a pic of a Papio hamadryas Male monkey. -LadyofHats 08:54, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
      • It is eating an apple and the background is concrete :-( Some zoo pics are not obviously pictures of animals taken in captivity (See Image:Papio hamadryas (aka).jpg). -- Lycaon 09:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
      • still i dont understand why that an animal is in captivity is a reason for not being a good picture. and on your example the author only just deleted the background. obvious or not that it is a zoo pic, if the picture is good enough it should be featured ...-LadyofHats 10:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
        • Sorry to jump in. IMO, the picture in Image:Papio hamadryas (aka).jpg is not a post-processing picture by background removal. If you look at the pic's metadata, it was taken with 300mm lens, f/5.6 1/320s and a speedlight. It creates a burst of flashlight to the subject. This is the so-called fill-in subject technique. The result, background intensity is dropped. And to get a complete black background like this, the distance between the subject with the background must be far away to avoid background light captured by the lens. Hence, the picture is less likely to be taken in a zoo, as background objects will be visible. Indon 12:16, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
        • IMO it's definitely edited (background is uniform 100% black, borders of the monkey look weird) and looks just bad. And it's an FP. I don't understand it... --Erina 18:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
        • The German explanation gives a very plausible reason as to how the background is black. Lycaon 20:02, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
        • Would you be so kind and tell my that reason? I don't understand German. :( --Erina 20:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC) BabelFish did. OK, I guess getting 100% black this way is possible, I don't know much about photography. It looks weird to me anyway. --Erina 20:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
          • Sorry, should have translated. Lycaon 20:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I agree with Lycaon. A zoo is not the natural environment of an animal, a fact that severely diminishes the value of a zoo-shot in comparison to a wildlife photo. Furthermore it is a very simple job to photograph an animal in captivity, so the threshold for excellence is much higher in this case. Roger McLassus 10:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - ditto to Lycaon and Roger McLassus - MPF 00:43, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support. To me the photo example with dark background isn't look natural either - more like the monkey was photographed in studio. :) -- Lerdsuwa 09:09, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support Zoo or not that animal has to live in it. Dori | Talk 03:44, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - ack opositors. Francisco M. Marzoa 14:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
4 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured Roger McLassus 05:45, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Image:Vatican StPaul Statue.jpg - featuredEdit

 

  •   Info created by AngMoKio — uploaded by AngMoKio — nominated by AngMoKio
  •   Support AngMoKio 21:11, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Neutral It's interesting and sharp, but cut in half, and I would not center it on the subject (1/3 at left could be a better position for it). Erina 08:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
->The composition is meant to be like that. I placed St Pauls head 1/3 from the left border and Jesus unsharp in the background, representing somehow a constant presence. Well that it is cut in half is also part of the composition as i wanted to focus the view on the face. Also the clouds are important as they make the photo somehow more heavenly..you see i had many thoughts about that photo, btw i am not that religious as you might think now :-) --AngMoKio 09:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
    • What I meant is that he's rather 1/2 than 1/3, and it's bad. I agree with the rest. --Erina 12:16, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Sorry, but for me it doesn't work as intended :( My eyes are somehow drawn to some point near his elbow. --Wikimol 21:42, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support --Tomascastelazo 14:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - I vatican't vote for this - MPF 00:57, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Can you explain that please?--AngMoKio 13:16, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, just an awful pun . . . vatican, vatican't - MPF 20:02, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - composition Lycaon 07:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose ack lycaon.--Fanghong 03:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Comment, do you happen to have a picture of the same subject but with a different composition? maybe one where the statue is complete. I believe that would hit better with the crowds, as the main reason for opposition is a weird composition. I'd certainly support a "body shot" of the statue; like most people here I feel the composition is a bit weird.--Roadmr 00:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support - it works for me, the focus is on the statue's eyes and the hand which bid the visitors to come closer and confess their sins;)the sky and the background underline the contrast between tiny people and huge statues just as it is was intended by the designers of the church and the square --eirissa 17:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  •    Support What the hell heaven?! It's near perfect. Composition is not good, but excelent. It seems like that hippy with the cross on the right were alive and blessing that Gandalf!!! And I must say that I'm a kind of those whose thinks that the only church that illuminates is that one which burns, so I'm not easily excited with religious subjects. Francisco M. Marzoa 00:18, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support ack Francisco M. Marzoa and the cloud is a good diagonal line through the picture Simonizer 09:29, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose With the subject that can be taken millions of times, lighting can be improved much more than this. Lighting is too strong and creates harsh shadow. Indon 08:14, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I hope your monitor is calibrated. In my oppinion the contrast is not harsh at all. The light is also good and a cloud like that you dont have all the time --AngMoKio 12:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
My monitor is well-calibrated, don't worry. And it is not the contrast that is harsh, but the shadow. The contrast is quite okay - I hope you understand the difference between contrast and lighting. Lighting is too strong as it was taken in a day light, the most uninteresting moment to take a picture. Look at the face, you'll see harsh shadow. Cloud? It's a dull textureless cloud, and sure you can wait for more interesting cloud. Indon 15:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support ack Francisco M. Marzoa and Simonizer Cary "Bastiqe" Bass demandez 20:09, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support Nothing really wrong with this picture.All critcisms of this image are not very conviencing. Vanillatea 03:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support the stone is quite bright (maybe it can be improved); but the scenery is nice--SimONE 15:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
8 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → featured Roger McLassus 07:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Image:Tired brown bear 050701 01.JPG - not featuredEdit

 

  •   Info Created by Zaphod, uploaded and nominated by Zaphod
  •   Oppose Low resolution, very unsharp, zoo shot. Francisco M. Marzoa 16:14, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I agree with Francisco Simonizer 18:05, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I have no problems with zoo pictures, but the fence does distract and detract, resolution is low (is this a crop from a larger shot?), the subject is obstructed and composition is confusing (took me a while to realize there were other bears in the picture). The pose itself is good, but better pictures of this subject can be taken. Roadmr 18:31, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Roadmr SOADLuver 21:50, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose zoo pic, and this is sad--Hi-tacks 08:33, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose low quality, zoo pic -- eboy 13:50, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose as above. Erina 06:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Strong oppose ultra-low res (only 32kB!), blurred, ugly caged zoo pic - MPF 10:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Day 7: 1 support (nominator), 8 oppose → not featured Roger McLassus 05:29, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Image:Los Angeles Pollution.jpg - featuredEdit

 

  •   Info created by Diliff — uploaded by Diliff — nominated by Pluke
  •   Support -- no idea why this isn't already featured, it's awesome Pluke 13:55, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
    • It is already featured in the English Wikipedia -   Support Roger McLassus 15:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support Erina 15:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support--AngMoKio 22:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Full   Support! Original and informative. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 22:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support. Great pic. --Dschwen 08:17, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support so much for my plans of moving to Los Angeles -- eboy 08:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support  Pabix  12:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support Francisco M. Marzoa 14:25, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support Simonizer 12:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support --Grombo 14:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support GREAT! Oonagh 12:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support SOADLuver 21:52, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support per above. Great one. Indon 08:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support pileon. ++Lar: t/c 19:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
15 support, 0 oppose → featured Roger McLassus 07:19, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Comment By mistake I finished this nomination today instead of tomorrow, but voting is still possible until the end of this day. Roger McLassus 07:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Van Gogh Final View - Window by Attic Room Deathbed.jpg

Image:Arge Bam Arad edit.jpg - not featuredEdit

 

  •   Info created by Arad — uploaded by Arad — nominated by Arad
  •   Support Amazing photo of Arge Bam which was partly destroyed by the 2003 earthquake. It has a very good quality and it's pretty rare. Thanks if advance for your votes. Arad 22:13, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Neutral It looks as if it was heavily edited (Duplicate layer, blur it, set it to "overlay" or normal with some transparency and you get sth like that. I'm not saying that you did that, probably it's fault of unsharp original.) --Erina 07:23, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose too small, overexposed. Lycaon 07:51, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose 50:50 composition (too much sky), exposure and glow. --Dschwen 08:13, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The quality of the picture is not very good. You say pictures of Bam are really rare. Why? (I haven't searched, but if I remember correctly it is a relatively big city, isn't it?) CyrilB 20:58, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Comment - the edit is half the size of the original - hardly an improvement. The objects disturbing the sky in the original image look more like noise filtering artifacts / JPEG compresion artifacts than noise. Overall even the original looks overprocessed, not noisy. If possible, could you please upload the "real original" as produced by the camera? IMO with different filtering techniques better image quality can be obtained, and the original is large enough so part of the sky could be cropped, making it more pleasing 2/3 compostion. --Wikimol 21:32, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Composition and especially technical quality are quite bad. Only if this building had been destroyed by the earthquake this picture would have some historical value in case it were really rare, which I rather doubt. Roger McLassus 15:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Looks like a fake or miniture model --Digon3 17:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support Ss181292 09:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC) - composition might be better, what is very good in this picture is taht it shows the power of the Sun at this latitudes. Little overexposure is ok.
  •   Oppose Composition. Highly overexposed, perhaps this is the reason the textures looks unnatural as Digon3 says. Francisco M. Marzoa 11:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support Dreamlike... like a picture of cartoon. Stephane8888 21:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support Haunting. Beautiful. Cary "Bastiqe"

Bass demandez 20:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

  •   Comment - I think the picture is so good that people think it looks fake. Arad 22:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support Spoken 23:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Poor quality, overexposed and over-processed. Historical value is small as the building was only destroyed in 2003 and prior to that was much photographed as a tourist attraction. --Yummifruitbat 01:18, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
5 support, 7@ oppose, 1 neutral → not featured Roger McLassus 07:36, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Image:Marx_drawing.jpg - not featuredEdit

Karl Marx, drawing

  •   Info creator unknown - uploaded by Tets - nominated by Tets 13:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)]]
  •   Support --Tets 13:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support FML   hi 04:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Comment This image is grayscale. Would it not be more efficient to store it in gif?
    • No. --Dschwen 14:55, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I can hardly imagine an artist creating a portrait with part of the head cut off. I suppose this is not the whole picture - and I'd like to see what is missing. Roger McLassus 15:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support I think that is a sketch, a kind of art.--Fanghong 02:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Strong oppose - ack Roger McLassus. And meaningful info about author or source is completely missing.--Wikimol 08:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
    • OMG. Just check the source. --84.177.100.95 09:33, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Thats exactly what I did. It's possible marxists don't care about copyright or authors, but Commons should. On the webpage given as a source is only stated the images are taken from http://www.sunpoint.net/~solidkom/kuvia/kuvia.htm, which doesn't work (at least now). In case of art I would expect who drawn it & when as a bare minimum. Without it, its even difficult to claim PD-old license. --Wikimol 09:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose ack Wikimol. -- Lycaon 07:23, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Lerdsuwa 08:57, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I rarely oppose featured, but the legality of this image is in question per Wikimol. Nice to have a source website, but that doesn't tell us who did it. Cary "Bastiqe" Bass demandez 20:11, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose -- needs deleting for lacking proper sourcing. Jkelly 18:19, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
4 support, 5 oppose → not featured Roger McLassus 07:35, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Image:BirdNBoatHelsinki.jpg - not featuredEdit

 

  •   Info created, uploaded and nominated by Francisco M. Marzoa
  •   Support Francisco M. Marzoa 14:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose — What is the picture telling about? Indon 14:37, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I really wanted to like this picture. Photographically the picture is flawless; I think the photographer has good command of DoF and interesting if unconventional composition. I find the composition a bit funny however (no emphasis on either subject). Also I fail to find its encyclopedic value (per Indon, what's it a picture of?), while a great artistic shot I don't feel it illustrates anything in it particularly well. Roadmrs
    • I think composition is a very conservative one based on rule of thirds: both the bird and the top of the ship are near interest points. The "Guidelines for Evaluating Photographs" in this same page does not say nothing about encyclopaedic value, on the contrary below "Featured picture candidate policy" explicitly says: "This is not simply a depository for wikipedia images, so images should not be judged here on their suitability for that project." Francisco M. Marzoa 15:02, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Lestat 18:29, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support Erina 19:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - ditto to Indon & Roadmr. Bird is Sterna hirundo. - MPF 00:20, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the bird's name, I've updated description to add it. Francisco M. Marzoa 00:30, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I like the composition very much, but i would like it maybe better when the background consist only of water and i find the picture not interesting enough to be a FP Simonizer 09:44, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose. Sorry, just boring. --Dschwen 13:25, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose not good enough Metoc 18:18, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Neutral i like the composition but the photo is in general a bit dark - especially in the upper right corner....maybe sth can be done about that --SimONE 15:13, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Agree with --SimONE. There is some sadness in this picture probably due to lack of light and colour. Alvesgaspar 21:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
    • That was my last day on Finland, just two hours later I was in the airport to take an airplane to return home and end my holidays, so it's normal that there's a lot of sadness... ;-D Francisco M. Marzoa 14:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Indon   ––odder 07:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Info I withdraw my nomination, since there's no real chance of support. Francisco M. Marzoa 14:31, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
2 support, 8 oppose, 2 neutral, nomination withdrawn → not featured Roger McLassus 15:27, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Image:Sa lacewing.jpg - not featuredEdit

 

  •   Info created by Sanjay Acharya — uploaded by User:Sanjay ach — nominated by User:Sanjay ach
  •   Support Sanjay ach 17:16, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sharpness. Erina 19:56, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Conditional   Support, provided photo location added - MPF 20:05, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose composition is not appealing, the all-white background is strange, and the sharpness is not perfect CyrilB 20:53, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose ack Erina -- Lycaon 22:11, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose because of sharpness, composition, background and cropping. Roger McLassus 06:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Same as Roger McLassus --Digon3 17:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose ack previous objections. Francisco M. Marzoa 21:39, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
2 support, 6 oppose → not featured Roger McLassus 12:21, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Image:Senescence.JPG - featuredEdit

 

  •   Info created by Michael Ströck (mstroeck) — uploaded by mstroeck — nominated by mstroeck
  •   Support A portrait of a 93-years-old woman, showing the profound effects old age has on the human body. mstroeck 14:30, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The technical quality of this portrait is really good, but I think it would be better to see her face, instead of this "scientificly cold" profile CyrilB 20:56, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the comment. I took pictures from several angles, I just think this one is by far the most striking. It's less of a personal portrait and more of a meditation on what kinds of transformation might await all of us if we make it that far into life. That's on purpose, so I'll not upload any of the other photographs I took. Mstroeck 13:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support Roger McLassus 06:31, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I wanted to say more but was interrupted. This picture is impressive by its subject, technically well done, and medically informative. Only the bright area in the upper left (probabely a window) is a bit disturbing. Roger McLassus 15:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Thank you for your comments! Yes, the bright area in the upper left is indeed a window. It's there because the image was originally just a snapshot, taken in a dim room with some daylight on her but without a flash or other artificial lighting. I took it during a conversation, without a tripod. Optical image stabilization sure helps, but I was very pleasantly surprised when I first saw it. Sometimes you just get lucky. Mstroeck 21:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support  Pabix  12:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose ack CyrilB. Darkone 12:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support, yeah I remember this one from en:FPC quite a while ago. Very tasteful, and I agree that the full profile is better than a frontal angle. --Dschwen 13:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes, I submitted it there too, almost a year ago I think. While it is arguably not encyclopedic enough for a Wikipedia FP, I thought people here might like it. Thanks for the support, Dschwen! Mstroeck 14:20, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support Lycaon 15:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support would love to see the other photos though Pluke 19:00, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support Shry tales 22:25, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support Dori | Talk 03:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support Cary "Bastiqe" Bass demandez 20:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
9 support, 2 oppose → featured Roger McLassus 12:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Image:Tower Bridge London Feb 2006.jpg - featuredEdit

 

  •   Info created by Diliff — uploaded by Diliff — nominated by Kprateek88
  •   Support Beautiful picture and superb resolution Kprateek88 17:04, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support Good res, nice night picture --Digon3 17:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support focus well achieved, the resolution is stunning, just a shame you couldn't get the other bridge tower in (there is one right?) Pluke 18:58, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  •    Support K!roman | ☺‼♫♥☻ 19:26, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support I'm very much against night pics... but this one has it almost all... Lycaon 19:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support a beautiful work --Linda 21:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Comment Huh? I'm confused. norro, are you the same person as Wikipedia's Diliff? I'm asking because I'm pretty sure this is one of Diliff's works. Mstroeck 21:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
    • OK, I'm certain it's by Diliff, norro doesn't seem to list it as one of his own images on his userpage, just as an upload. I changed the nomination text. Mstroeck 21:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
It was created and uploaded by Diliff, it says so in the links to section. --Digon3 21:49, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Extremely sorry about that. I came across the picture on norro's user page, and I somehow assumed it was uploaded by him, so I just checked the licensing which said "I, the author of...". Sorry again and thanks for pointing out. -- Kprateek88 04:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support Francisco M. Marzoa 12:34, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support--Jacopo86 14:20, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Neutral A marvellous picture, but the right end of the bridge is cut off. Roger McLassus 15:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Neutral ack Roger McLassus, I didn't notice it before. Francisco M. Marzoa 16:17, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support-- Romary 15:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - don't like night-time streetlight-lit pics with glare from lights; also cut-off end - MPF 16:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support --eirissa
  •   Support Really nice, not blurry, despite the long-time photo. Moralist 19:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
    • The middle of the bridge is blurred... -- eboy 14:03, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Comment Is it a DRI Picture? Would be nice to know, before i vote Simonizer 09:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
    • No, it is not. Darkone 11:00, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Comment just a question: if this picture will be featured, what do we do with that Image:Tower Bridge London Dusk Feb 2006.jpg ? --Grombo 14:33, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Good question. This one is better then Image:Tower Bridge London Dusk Feb 2006.jpg Simonizer 09:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Why can`t we just feature the new version and delete the featured-button of the old one? This one here is nearly the same but better. I think we don`t need two featured versions of the same picture. --Grombo 13:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
    • The previous featured picture will of course stay featured. There is no reason for unfeature it. There is no problem in having two or more excellent pictures of the same subject (See 1 2 and 1 2 for example). norro 16:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
    • OK, I don`t know the rules. But these are bad examples, because they are not taken at the same time, from the same place and the same person. That`s a bit different than showing just the same subject. But if you know that this is ok, it should be featured. --Grombo 16:29, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support--Ziga 15:20, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Solipsist 20:24, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support Although end of bridge is cut off, I like it much Simonizer 09:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Strong support great image. Cary "Bastiqe" Bass demandez 20:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support --SimONE 12:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support - great photo, must have been a lot of work --AngMoKio 22:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support--MichaelMaggs 08:50, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support--Gordo 20:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
18 support, 1 oppose, 2 neutral → featured Roger McLassus 06:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Image:Agassiz statue.jpg - featuredEdit

 

  •   Info created by W. C. Mendenhall — uploaded by Quartermaster — nominated by Quartermaster
  •   Support Picture of the statue of L. Agassiz toppled at Stanford University by the San Francisco earthquake of 1906 - Quartermaster 20:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Although is a good -and funny!- historic document, composition is not good and resolution is low. If you've another version with higher resolution I'll probably support it. Francisco M. Marzoa 21:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, to my knowledge there is no better resolution version available. When this was disseminated by the Dept. of the Interior on CD-ROM it was considered high resolution for the time (1992). This is a slightly cropped and jpegged version lifted straight from the original CD. -Quartermaster 12:13, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support on historic value and uniqueness grounds. I agree resolution is not optimal but I have no problems with composition. Roadmr 15:21, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose bad quality, low res -- Lycaon 20:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support I like the atmosphere of that photo. --AngMoKio 21:02, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support --Tomascastelazo 13:32, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support a funny historic picture, what else do you want? Ok, maybe better quality, but what can you expect from a picture from 1906. -- eboy 13:56, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support The technical quality-standards for historical featured pictures are of course much lower. Roger McLassus 16:07, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support Erina 06:21, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support - MPF 11:34, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support - Good quality, nice picture. Cary "Bastiqe" Bass demandez 20:21, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support SOADLuver 00:58, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
10 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured Roger McLassus 06:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Image:Morning Fog at GGB.JPG - featuredEdit

 

  •   Info created by Grombo - uploaded by Grombo - nominated by Grombo 12:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Neutral because I created it. Picture from INSIDE one of the most famous fogs in the world- the advection fog at the Golden Gate Bridge, San Francisco --Grombo 12:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support great picture! Roger McLassus 13:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support--Jacopo86 14:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Kprateek88 15:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support --MichaelMaggs 16:22, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support --Pachira 20:22, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support Francisco M. Marzoa 19:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support --Quartermaster 20:36, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support Romary 15:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support I like this bridge to nowhere, it's mysterious and intriguing eirissa
  •   Support Simonizer 09:10, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support Steampunk Harry Potter or something like this. Rama 01:59, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support Oonagh 12:14, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Neutral good picture, bad filename. GGB can be anywhere -- Lycaon 20:06, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Strong support — superb. Indon 14:49, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Strong support - excellent! Alves Gaspar 19:33, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support although the users here are crazy. The last GGB picture someone already complained that we had two featured images of the Golden Gate bridge. And filenames should never be consideration of people's votes! The information is there... Cary "Bastiqe" Bass demandez 20:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
    • sure :-( I will upload my next files as xx1.jpg, xx2.jpg and so on. File names not important???? Lycaon 18:07, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support It doesn't need any more supports, but it's just a wonderful image. Dori | Talk 03:31, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support nice angle, gives a good impression on the bridge--SimONE 15:49, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support Lovely. James F. (talk) 12:45, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
18 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured Roger McLassus 06:53, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Image:CrowHeadClosed.jpgEdit

   

  •   Info A crow (Corvus Cornix) in a park closed to Helsinki, Finland. Created, uploaded and nominated by Francisco M. Marzoa

original version (left) - not featuredEdit

  •   Info Just for the record because I've seen this comment at least two times: the picture is not "cropped", it's published as comes directly from the CCD of the camera at full resolution. The only change I do just for the second version was sharping it a bit with The Gimp. And there has been before featured pictures of birds heads without its bodies Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds, so I dont think being just a head to be a reasonable objection. Francisco M. Marzoa 01:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support Francisco M. Marzoa 21:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC) I'm about to move my vote to sharper version. Francisco M. Marzoa 15:26, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Need the name of the crow, and its just the head of the crow... Need to see the whole animal. --Digon3 21:46, 25 September

2006 (UTC)

  •   Comment He refuses to tell me its name... I do not know what kind of perversion makes you to need the whole animal. Francisco M. Marzoa 21:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
    •   CommentPerhaps it's a language issue, but I don't see why you'd have to be a pervert in order to want to get a complete picture of the bird, and not a random crop that, at least for me, adds zero to the image... Mstroeck 09:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Comment About the perversion it was a just a joke. About the picture its not a "random" crop, the subject its not the crow but the head-of-the-crow. Come on! Have you never take a picture of an interesting part of an animal? (or man... or woman...) Francisco M. Marzoa 09:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Comment he told me: Hooded Crow (Corvus cornix) ;-) -- Lycaon 22:31, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Comment I see it on the categories. BTW, How can I add this one to that category? Answer in my talk if you want. Thanks in advance. Francisco M. Marzoa 22:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  • please put the name on the picture in the description part as Hooded Crow Corvus cornix.
    P.S that wasn't very nice --Digon3 23:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support JAJAJA!!!! And best of all, the sense of humor!!!! Bienvenido Francisco!!!--Tomascastelazo 01:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support. Nice head shot, although it is a bit lacking in sharpness. But check out the reflection in the eye! Computer: Zoom in... ...enhance... ...identify shooter! --Dschwen 07:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose composition, cropping norro 16:23, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Comment I'm a bit concerned about the overall lack of sharpness. I'd be inclined to support if a unsharp masked version were to be posted. --MichaelMaggs 16:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Info Thanks to the guys of The Gimp and Gimp Guru tutorials, I've brought a sharper version, it's the one on the right called CrowHeadClosed1.jpg Francisco M. Marzoa 18:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support I actually don't like the artifacts of the sharpening. Dori | Talk 03:40, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
3 support, 1 oppose → not featured Roger McLassus 06:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

edited version (right) - featuredEdit

  •   Support sharper version. A good closeup.--MichaelMaggs 06:52, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support Romary 15:01, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support K!roman | ☺‼♫♥☻ 19:13, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support Francisco M. Marzoa 15:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support / tsca @ 16:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support Both versions --Tomascastelazo 01:55, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
    •   Comment ???? this is the place to vote for the edited version only ! -- Lycaon 20:10, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
      • It is okay to support both, but in case both qualify for FP only the more successful one will be featured. Roger McLassus 17:10, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
        • It is confusing to support both at both instances. thanks for correcting your vote Lycaon 20:48, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support Simonizer 09:29, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Lycaon 21:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support Either version but this one is best. Cary "Bastiqe" Bass demandez 20:06, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support This is better --Digon3 02:42, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
10 support, 0 oppose → featured Roger McLassus 12:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Image:Kreuzspinne front Sep06.jpgEdit

   

  •   Info European garden spider with prey. created, uploaded and nominated by Dschwen
  •   Comment. Like any other macro shot it has a limited depth of field. I focussed on the jaws and body, and despite parts of the legs having a fairly soft focus I think the picture provides sufficient detail (check full size).

original version (left) - not featuredEdit

  •   Support Dschwen 11:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support can we just have the scientific name too, please? -- Lycaon 15:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
    •   Comment. That would be Araneus diadematus. --Dschwen 16:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support Extremely detailed photograph. -- eboy 16:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose darkness, and why not f8? Darkone 08:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
    • f8 makes no difference, trust me, and exposure mandated 6.3 at that distance with flash. And the subject isn't dark. I wanted to create a non distracting background. --Dschwen 09:20, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Of course I wasn't there and do not know the circunstances in which the picture was taken and may be you cant do that, but I still think like Darkone that a lower aperture with larger exposition time had been better. Francisco M. Marzoa 12:24, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support Good detail. Although the background could be a bit lighter for perfect shot... --Leclerc 01:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nice picture, but the background is way too dark. --Grombo 14:33, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support great shot, nice colors. Dori | Talk 03:41, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I am sure that a lower aperture with longer exposition time and extern lighting instead of flash would have resulted in a better picture. Roger McLassus 06:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - dead pixels. Ad advisers: Unless you have actually tried it with the same camera, or computed the transfer function including diffraction, you should not give such advice. --Wikimol 14:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Comment so in summary the opposes are based on
  1. I dont't like dark blue
  2. I think a different apperture would have been better
  3. Dead pixels
The latter is surely fixable, but the rest strikes me as purely subjective and/or uninformed. Sorry! --Dschwen 09:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • In case I am wrong and you've made the best picture possible with your camera in this situaton, then you've done a commendable job, which I underestimated because I was "uninformed". But even this assumption would not enhance this picture's quality. It would still not reach FP-quality (in my subjective view, admittedly, but, alas, I have no other. Nor has anyone else.) Roger McLassus 14:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The problem is not the colour of the background but its effect on the constrast of the image. Also, some parts of the spider are not focused. Alvesgaspar 20:56, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Aha! Thank you, that's a comment which ich a lot more usefull for me. The bg looke fine to me on the screens I used (en:FPC has a paragraph on that). But I can see how the edit enhances the contrast. I can't do anything abt. focus at least not with my camera, and I seriously doubt that anyone here can create macro shots with significantly higher DOF. --Dschwen 09:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
    • With this (difficult)angle and light you don't have enough depth-of-field!... --Alvesgaspar 13:10, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Light was no limiting factor. The angle was choice, there are lots of boring top down pictures already, I wanted to add a different perspective. --Dschwen 17:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
5 support, 6 oppose → not featured Roger McLassus 06:34, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

edited version (right) - not featuredEdit

  •   Comment I added a new version. I tried to make the spider a bit more visible. In general i think the shot is really good and of a good quality.--AngMoKio 21:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose DoF problem persist and you've create a lot of new noise on this version. Francisco M. Marzoa 23:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Day 7: 0 support, 1 oppose → not featured Roger McLassus 12:26, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Image:Loket vid järnvägsolyckan i Getå 1918.jpg - not featuredEdit

 

  •   Info created by Gustav Lidberg — uploaded by Thuresson — nominated by *Zaphod
  •   Support *Zaphod 11:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose too tiny Lycaon 13:17, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose size. --Dschwen 13:22, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose res + not that special -- Gorgo 14:43, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I agree with Gorgo norro 16:30, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose small =( Vanillatea 23:12, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose too small   ––odder 07:36, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Spoken 23:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support For a modern picture the resolution would be too small, but for 1918 it is okay. Good composition and considerable historical value. Roger McLassus 15:46, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The resolution depends on the modern scanner resolution that's been used, and the quality of the print from which the scan was taken. A 1918 B&W film image, if well-printed, will have a higher resolution than virtually any standard digital camera. This image might be supportable on the basis of its historic value if re-scanned. --MichaelMaggs 21:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Neutral You are right, we should wait for a better print/scan. As soon as this is available I suggest a re-nomination. Roger McLassus 07:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Day 7: 1 support (nominator), 8 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured Roger McLassus 07:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Image:Kapellbrücke Bridge in the dust.JPG - not featuredEdit

 

  •   Info created by Simonizer — uploaded by Simonizer — nominated by Simonizer
  •   Neutral because I created it Simonizer 20:06, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose By trying to capture all three subjects (bridge, church and river) the shot gives emphasis to none. I feel the lighting also dulls the picture, altough others might disagree with me on this. As a casual shot it's not bad but it's also not compelling enough for a FP. Try to find an angle where the subjects stand out instead of being just a part of the landscape (the river), a building in the background (church) or an indeterminate structure (the bridge). Remember the picture has to speak for itself; I had to read the description to figure out what it was about. Don't be discouraged, composition can be tricky! - Roadmr 00:49, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
    •   Comment I found the composition great because of the rule of thirds and the diagonals you can see on the picture. There ist one diagonal in the front on the floor, the other diagonal is the fence and the people sitting at the river, another diagonal is the end of the bridge and the line of trees on the other side of the river, and the last diagonal are the roofs of the buildings. All the diagonals end near the church. So for me it was not the intention to bring all subjects on one photo, but making a picture under tricky conditions and letting the eye move over the picture by following the diagonals Simonizer 06:40, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose — per Roadmr. Indon 01:23, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The subject is interesting. But, I do not like the lighting. Romary 17:48, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - have to agree with Roadmr - MPF 10:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Roadmr Vanillatea 04:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support Like the light and the composition. Brings a feeling of peace Alvesgaspar 07:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support a nice picture. A nice scenery especially because the people are there. I am interested in the lense that was used for it?--SimONE 15:59, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support Spoken 23:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose. Too dark for mz taste and the bridge is only a sidenote in this pic. --Dschwen 12:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
3 support, 6 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured Roger McLassus 08:49, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Image:Abschlussdeich Blickrichtung Nord.jpg - not featuredEdit

 

  •   Info created by -jha- — uploaded by GeorgHH — nominated by TZM de:T/T C
  •   Support great shot, resolution high enough TZM de:T/T C 19:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose not that special -- Gorgo 21:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose — yup, there's nothing in this picture. Indon 01:24, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Romary 17:42, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose What is it about? Erina 06:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support - "What is it about?": it is the dam that separates the IJsselmeer from the North Sea, a substantial feat of engineering, so of good encyclopaedic value (yes I know some people think that doesn't matter, but I think it does) - MPF 10:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
    •   Comment That just does not match criteria to be FP described on the "Guidelines for Evaluating...". The picture does not need to be a featured one to be used by its good encyclopaedic value. Francisco M. Marzoa 10:46, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I'm rather impresed by the place, but not by the picture. Francisco M. Marzoa 10:46, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support As allready mentioned I´m a friend of diagonals in pictures. This one is a good example. The dam is nearly endless and this picture gives a good impression of that. Simonizer 11:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support - MartinD 13:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose it's hard to catch this giant lenght but this is just a snapshotMetoc 18:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
banned template replaced Roger McLassus 07:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support - I like it. Cary "Bastiqe" Bass demandez 20:05, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose just a snapshot --Digon3 18:26, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support nice photo, kinda "endless highway" :) --Leclerc 09:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
6 support, 7 oppose → not featured Roger McLassus 08:48, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Image:Lightning over Oradea Romania 2.jpgEdit

   

  •   Info Created by Mircea Madau, uploaded by Nelumadau and nominated by IP 84.236.89.208. norro 18:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

original version (left) - not featuredEdit

  •   Oppose The colour of the clouds and the bolts of lightning are great but let down by the messy foreground. Snowwayout 23:30, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support - I think that the foreground is not disturbing, and that colors are normal for lightning pics. IMHO the shot is very good.  Pabix  07:49, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Lack of sharpness and tilted. Francisco M. Marzoa 11:32, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support Really nice picture! Moralist 17:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - ditto to Snowwayout - MPF 10:11, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support But not to the cropped version. Cary "Bastiqe" Bass demandez 20:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support the uncropped version makes the lightnings look more impressive --SimONE 12:56, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support Spoken 23:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support Romary 21:02, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Lycaon 08:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support, should be slighty rotated, but not cropped. Dake 17:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Confusing foreground, not a good composition -- Alvesgaspar 21:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
7 support, 5 oppose → not featured Roger McLassus 08:00, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

edited version (right) - not featuredEdit

  •   Comment How about the cropped version? Roger McLassus 14:05, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support cropped version K!roman | ☺‼♫♥☻ 07:46, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose although the cropped version looks better, it is even more disturbing that the picture is tilted -- eboy 13:53, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Same problems than original version plus I disagree with eboy, this looks worse for me, perhaps by the square format. Francisco M. Marzoa 16:24, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose ditto to Francisco, the messy foreground extends to those ugly pylons, and cropping them would leave very little of the pic. - MPF 10:14, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support Spoken 23:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
2 support, 3 oppose → not featured Roger McLassus 08:47, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Image:Dunes-noires.jpg - not featuredEdit

 

  •   Info created by Pir6mon - uploaded by Pir6mon - nominated by Pir6mon 15:34, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support --Pir6mon 15:34, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Picture looks unbalanced, shapes of dunes don't help. I don't like the brown background -- Alvesgaspar 21:05, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose not a very successful cropping -- Lycaon 21:26, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose as above Roger McLassus 07:28, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose not an interesting object. Indon 13:02, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose i also think the cropping was a bit unsuccessful. Maybe sth can be done abt that...is the original uploaded to commons? --AngMoKio 15:11, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Good subject, light, bad cropping.  Pabix  08:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - top half of pic missing - MPF 21:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Day 7: 1 support (nominator), 6 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured Roger McLassus 09:05, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Image:PalmyraPanoramaZoom.jpg - not featuredEdit

 

  •   Info created by en:User:Zeledi — uploaded by Longbow4u — nominated by Bertilvidet
  •   Support Bertilvidet 19:38, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Comment Interesting idea, but I think the triming is excessive. Also needs better resolution. Maybe it can be corrected?- Alvesgaspar 20:57, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Resolution is the only thing keeping me from   Support, I feel a higher resolution should be uploaded. If the height of cropping was increased, I would support this picture. The preceding unsigned comment was added by Digon3 (talk • contribs) at 21:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
forgot that --Digon3 21:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
banned template replaced Roger McLassus 07:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose vertical resolution 170px ????? Lycaon 21:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose ack Digon3 -- Erina 21:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I think the image is unbalanced due to lack of a stronger first plan. Alvesgaspar 22:01, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose i have to oppose but only bcs of the resolution. In a much higher resolution it would be a great photo--AngMoKio 22:10, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose because only 30kb (is this the lowest ever submitted for FPC???). Needs to be 10-20 times that resolution to be worth considering - MPF 12:25, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose due to the low vertical resolution and the cut column Roger McLassus 16:20, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose low-res for panoramic picture. Indon 12:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose 170 px for height? Way too low resolution for FP ... --Leclerc 15:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Day 7: 1 support (nominator), 10 oppose → not featured Roger McLassus 09:07, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Image:Mały Jeziorak i Młyn Elektryczny.jpg - not featuredEdit

 

  •   Info Boulevard of John Paul II in Iława (Bulwar Jana Pałwa II w Iławie).
    Created by Marcin n®  — uploaded by Marcin n — nominated by Marcin n® .
  •   Support MARCIN N 13:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Confusing composition with conflicting elements. Banal picture. -- Alvesgaspar 14:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Sorry for the comment, maybe my English is not good enough. By "banal" I mean "common". -- Alvesgaspar 19:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose. Just a snapshot. howcheng {chat} 16:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry but it's a banal picture. Stephane8888 17:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Just a picture with very poor composition. Anyone could have taken it. --Digon3 18:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Would Bad be better? Poor is not entirely subjective, and is not insulting to the picture or the person. --Digon3 21:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Comment While this image may not be FPC quality, "banal" and "poor" are entirely subjective terms, and border on insulting. This is a practice that is continuously getting worse on FPC. Please make some attempt to be respectful of the uploaders and try to oppose with consideration rather than spite. Cary "Bastiqe" Bass demandez 18:35, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose composition not good enough for FP Lycaon 21:19, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose What is supposed to be the subject? Roger McLassus 16:13, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
This is electric mill (from XIX) on the left there is Jeziorak Lake and Boulevard (alley) of John Paul II Marcin n®  20:16, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Day 7: 1 support (nominator), 6 oppose → not featured Roger McLassus 09:08, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Image:HeptadecagonConstructionAni.gif - not featuredEdit

 

  •   Info created and uploaded by Jonathan48 — nominated by Kprateek88
  •   Support Kprateek88 15:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose confusing Roger McLassus 17:34, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Ss181292 17:46, 5 October 2006 (UTC) - too much mess on the animation
  •   Neutral Very interesting, but I suggest slowing it a bit (in later parts), maybe adding another color for currently made line, and/or a bit fading out of older lines. Now to understand I'll have to open it in GIMP and watch slowly frame by frame. Erina 18:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Yes, very interesting. I'd be inclined to support if Erina's suggestions could be taken up. Part way through, one vertical line appears darker than the others; not sure why. At the end, could the working lines fade away to leave the final shape?--MichaelMaggs 19:27, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Nice idea, confusing realization. Ideas of Erina and MichaelMaggs could work and should be explored. Alvesgaspar 19:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Nice idea, but same as neutrals --Digon3 02:15, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Roger McLassus, it's confusing. Is it really difficult to construct heptadecagon? Indon 11:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose needs way more colors to see what's going on -- Gorgo 18:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Comment - could 'of 64' be added after the changing frame number, please - it would help people know how long it has yet to run - MPF 13:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose confusing, especially in later parts. Also, the final result should stay a while, it's not a good idea to restart the animation immediately over. Basically, the construction seems to construct "1/17 length", then apply it on the circle .... maybe that two steps could be somehow spearated on the "paper" to avoid excessive cluttering with lines. But nice idea --Leclerc 09:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Day 7: 1 support (nominator), 5 oppose, 4 neutral → not featured Roger McLassus 09:09, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Image:sa mustard.jpg - not featuredEdit

 

  •   Info created by Sanjay Acharya — uploaded by sanjay_ach — nominated by Sanjay ach
  •   Support Sanjay ach 06:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose A nice image but I'm afraid it's rather small (pixels, not the subject-matter). The harsh lighting has also caused very dark areas in deep shadow. --MichaelMaggs 19:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose same as above. --Digon3 19:43, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose   ––odder 07:38, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The dark parts are too dark and the composition is trivial Roger McLassus 15:56, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Day 7: 1 support (nominator), 4 oppose → not featured Roger McLassus 09:11, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Image:Tree frog Fern Forest.jpg - featuredEdit

 

  •   Info created by Cary Bass — uploaded by Cary Bass — nominated by Nilfanion
  •   Support Nilfanion 19:08, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support as creator. (Thanks Nilf!) Cary "Bastiqe" Bass demandez 19:09, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support - good photo, named species, with location - MPF 00:14, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support ack MPF. -- Lycaon 05:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose — good photo, but not good enough for FP. I don't like the composition and background is really distracting. Indon 10:25, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose. frog too dark and too small, flower blown-out. --Dschwen 13:23, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
    Note; This frog is about 1.5 cm wide. The species doesn't get much bigger. Not sure what you mean by "blown-out", regarding the flower. Please clarify. Cary "Bastiqe" Bass demandez 13:39, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
    •   Support. Sorry, the display I viewed your pic on must have been terribly miscalibrated. And for such a tiny frog the picture is actually pretty good. --Dschwen 07:10, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support K!roman | ☺‼♫♥☻ 14:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support Even when it may be better if that flower not were cropped, the picture is very good. Francisco M. Marzoa 00:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support I like the texture Dori | Talk 03:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support texture good. Vanillatea 23:16, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support excellent picture, excellent composition. ++Lar: t/c 19:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
banned template replaced Roger McLassus 07:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support Sebcaen 10:10, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Tbc 11:20, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support Spoken 23:26, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support James F. (talk) 12:45, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support Roger McLassus 07:48, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
14 support, 2 oppoese → featured Roger McLassus 06:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Image:1954 sounding rocket image of a tropical cyclone.jpg - not featruedEdit

 

  •   Info created by Naval Research Laboratory / NOAA — uploaded by Nilfanion — nominated by Nilfanion
  •   Info Historical image: This is the first image of the Earth in natural color from rocket altitudes and the first image to show the large scale structure of a storm.
  •   Support Nilfanion 17:47, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose awfull quality, why don't you try wikipedia FP for encyclopedic value? -- Lycaon 21:06, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support Informative and historical. Cary "Bastiqe" Bass demandez 23:09, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose ack lycaon. --Dschwen 13:25, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Neutral/中立, leaning oppose. As an enwp tropical cyclone editor I can understand and appreciate the historical, ground-breaking nature of this picture, but this is far from being even close to featured. I can't even make out where land and sea meet - I can't even make out land! NSLE-Chacor 14:25, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support Spoken 23:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
3 support, 2 oppose → not featured Roger McLassus 06:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Image:BB-Bea.jpg - not featuredEdit

 

  •   Info created by Brian Boulos — uploaded by FlickrLickr — nominated by Robek
  •   Support Robek 13:57, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Indon 14:35, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
banned template replaced Roger McLassus 07:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nice picture, pretty subject but too noisy; it seems like a one bit per pixel picture dithered Francisco M. Marzoa 14:39, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose A decent picture with good, if a little by-the-book technique, but what does it illustrate? also, regardless of how good it is photographically, it's of a far too ordinary subject to qualify as FP. Roadmr 15:21, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
    • It can ilustrate make-up, but this is fully irrelevant according to guidelines for evaluating FPCs -see my comment on my picture below on this-. If the subject is ordinary is neither the point, if you take a look on FP pictures you'll find other "ordinary" subjects, like this, or this or this. Francisco M. Marzoa 16:05, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support Cary "Bastiqe" Bass demandez 19:17, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Noisy... Erina 19:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose boring - MPF 00:11, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
banned template replaced Roger McLassus 07:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose black&white doesn't make it better. Metoc 18:17, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Agree with Francisco M. Marzoa. Nice face and composition, spoiled by excessive grain (is it on purpose?) Alvesgaspar 23:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose too bad that it is so noisy - as thumbnail it looks very good --SimONE 12:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support --Lerdsuwa 10:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose i love the composition ...unfortunatelly the noise is really much too heavy :( --AngMoKio 18:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support Spoken 23:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose ack AngMoKio Roger McLassus 15:25, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
4 support, 10 oppose → not featured Roger McLassus 06:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Image:Polarlicht.jpg - featuredEdit

   

Original version (left) - not featuredEdit

  •   Info created by Senior Airman Joshua Strang — uploaded by JAMES BOND and Para — nominated by Solipsist
  •   Support Solipsist 20:14, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support --XN 21:45, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose There's something wrong with this: when I click to download the full resolution version, I get a smaller one!!! Francisco M. Marzoa 04:39, 1 October 2006 (UTC) That was a cache issue or something... :-?
  •   Support Very nice. Francisco M. Marzoa 04:40, 1 October 2006 (UTC) Change my vote to color corrected version.
  •   Support Ss181292 08:41, 1 October 2006 (UTC) - nice and informative, but I see funny noise on full resolution version (noise, jpeg artifacts, effect of digital sharpening... I dont know exactly, but it's a little strange). I think this should be filtered somehow, or downsampled about 1.2-1.5 times with bicubic filtering (resolution is quite enough).
    •   Comment The noise looks quite normal (rather good even) for a long exposure night shot. If you are seeing more of these strange effects in the top left corner, you may be getting confused by the star trails of the fainter stars. -- Solipsist 08:50, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - spoilt by the street lights - MPF 09:52, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support noise is very good for a night shot. The horizont is a bit distorted but this seems unavoidable for ultra wide angle shot. --Ikiwaner 14:18, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support - The picture looks a bit "funky" but given the subject, I feel it's a good one. Plus I personally like pictures with funky colors, very surrealistic! - Roadmr
  •   Oppose Lestat 18:31, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support both versions. This should be a featured image no matter what. Cary "Bastiqe" Bass demandez 23:11, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
    •   Comment If you support both versions, you should vote "support" on both because is easier to count votes on 15th. this way. Francisco M. Marzoa 11:18, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose green snow Lycaon 11:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support Green snow because green sky. I prefer original picture. Stephane8888 17:15, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support Spoken 23:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose [This is Gorgo's vote (see below)] Roger McLassus 15:38, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose green snow. Noise --Lmbuga gl, pt, es: contacta comigo 16:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
8 support, 5 oppose → not featured Roger McLassus 08:15, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Modified version (right) - featuredEdit

  •   Comment added colour improved version --AngMoKio 16:01, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support for the improved version. Now, I see what's wrong with the first version. Indon 16:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support for color-corrected version, really amazing colors, nice shot and   Oppose to original version because of the green "fog". btw. the thumbnail seems way more noisy than the photo itself, weird. -- Gorgo 16:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC) - oppose vote transferred Roger McLassus 15:38, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support This one's even better. Francisco M. Marzoa 17:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support Lestat 18:32, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support - --AngMoKio 19:39, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - same street light problems as the original. - MPF 08:59, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Ss181292 10:27, 2 October 2006 (UTC) - too much blue component. Slightly oversaturated.
  •   Support Shry tales 22:20, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support Strange and fascinating. Dori | Talk 03:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support A beautiful image that would figure nicely in our collection of featured pictures. --Zantastik 22:40, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support Excellent. By the way, can someone recommend a tutorial on how to correct colours this well? - gobeirne 06:33, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose purple snow Lycaon 11:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support very colourful ;) Metoc 18:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support I've seen similar in real life and this image evokes northern lights well. ++Lar: t/c 19:21, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - i agree with Lycaon i also think that the snow has an unrealistic colour. --SimONE 15:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support--MichaelMaggs 13:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support Spoken 23:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support James F. (talk) 12:46, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support - Andreas.Didion 15:45, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose ack Lycaon and SimONE -- Simonizer 20:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose ditto with snow color -- Lerdsuwa 10:13, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Color Noise --Lmbuga gl, pt, es: contacta comigo 16:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
15 support, 7 oppose → featured Roger McLassus 06:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Image:KinderdijkMolens01.jpg - featuredEdit

   

Original version (left) - qualifiedEdit

  •   Info created by Lucas Hirschegger — uploaded by Lucash — nominated by Lucash
  •   Neutral I like it so much. Lucas H.-
  •   Comment a little bit leaning to the left Roger McLassus 15:57, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support Romary 17:45, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Solipsist 20:20, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support --XN 21:46, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support Erina 06:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support tho' would like to see its being rotated level (about 0.5° CW) - MPF 09:56, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose — It's a postcard picture and the object is dead centered. Indon 14:40, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support its simply the best photo on this page!!! Miriamrot 16:18, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
banned template replaced Roger McLassus 07:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Neutral   Oppose By same reason commented by Roger McLassus Francisco M. Marzoa 17:23, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support Dori | Talk 03:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support I think the tilt is negligible. Lycaon 06:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support It's a postcard picture and the object is dead centered. Vanillatea 23:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support both versions of this image. Cary "Bastiqe" Bass demandez 20:03, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Nice picture but lacks something: the bells are not ringing.... Alvesgaspar 07:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support Spoken 23:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support Prefer the original, but both good. James F. (talk) 12:46, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
11 support, 2 oppose, 2 neutral → qualified
other version scores better → not featured Roger McLassus 06:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Cropped version (right) - featuredEdit

  •   Support Although looses some resolution, I think composition gains a lot in this version. Francisco M. Marzoa 18:08, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support Simonizer 07:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose It's still dead centered and horizon is exactly in the middle. Bad composition. Indon 10:20, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support Erina 05:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support wonderful picture --SimONE 12:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support I prefer this one. Stephane8888 17:01, 6 October 2006 (UTC)   Neutral I don't know... Stephane8888 18:14, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support Spoken 23:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Agree--Lmbuga gl, pt, es: contacta comigo 16:39, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
6 support, 1 oppose → qualified
higher score-ratio → featured Roger McLassus 06:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Image:Konkatedra w Prabutach.jpg - not featuredEdit

 

  •   Info created by Marcin n®  — uploaded by Marcin n (Marcin n® ) — nominated by MARCIN N
  •   Support MARCIN N 13:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Shy   Oppose. Several reasons:
    • Perspective not good
    • Tree on the left masking part of the church
    • Not very sharp on some parts, particularly the top.
    Your photo is IMHO good but not featured. I like it  Pabix  14:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Comment to adjust perspective, you can define horizontal and vertical lines with panorama software 'Hugin'. I would not hesitate  Pabix  14:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Unpleasant perspective, poor definition and sharpness Alvesgaspar 14:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Ss181292 16:40, 3 October 2006 (UTC) - perspective (too short lens focal length)
  •   Oppose per Alvesgaspar -Vanillatea 23:08, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose not even technical perfect Metoc 18:15, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Pabix   ––odder 07:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I see no argument justifying support Roger McLassus 15:50, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support Gordo 20:06, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
2 support, 7 oppose → not featured Roger McLassus 06:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Image:Reading glasses.jpg - not featuredEdit

 

  •   Info created by Dori — uploaded by Dori — nominated by Dori | Talk 04:01, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Self-nom, trying to see if I've gotten any better at taking pictures. Dori | Talk 04:01, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose blurry subject, disturbed and overexposed background, ill-suited colours, boring composition - and nothing outstanding whatsoever. Roger McLassus 06:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
    •   Comment It's blurry because the photographer hasn't her|his glasses put on (just kidding). Francisco M. Marzoa 11:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
      • That's what I get for trying to be artistic. I was going for in focus for the glasses, the background out of focus. Dori | Talk 13:05, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per RogerMcLassus, it's blurry and overexposed background. Indon 07:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support Simplistic beauty. That shows talent - making something ordinary look good. --Fir0002 www 08:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose shadow, distracting background Erina 09:14, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose like Roger McLassus [vote by Jacopo86 - Roger McLassus 13:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC) ]
  •   Oppose Background :-( Francisco M. Marzoa 11:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support too few of such pics are here; we need more artistic photos without the typical well-known and boring compositions.--AngMoKio 15:05, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose ok image.not fp worthy at all though Vanillatea 23:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support I like it. Cary "Bastiqe" Bass demandez 20:24, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not good enough. Nothing again minimalism but it has to be carefully prepared and executed. Background is distracting. Alvesgaspar 23:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Tbc 11:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose maybe b/w would be nicer SimONE
  •   Support Spoken 23:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
4 support, 9 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured Roger McLassus 06:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Image:Thrashers_player.jpg - not featuredEdit

 

  •   Info uploaded by Xgeorg 16:25, 5 October 2006 (UTC) — nominated by Xgeorg 16:25, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Neutral as uploader & nominator Xgeorg 16:25, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose not a FP, too low res, bad crop. --Digon3 19:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Rather low resolution.--MichaelMaggs 21:29, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose not outstanding Roger McLassus 07:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nice DOF, but ack Digon3, it's too low res. Indon 08:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose. Would really like to see his face. howcheng {chat} 16:54, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose bad DOF (only the shirt is in focus, not the helmet) Lycaon 21:31, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support Classic composition. It moves this hockey fan! Y'all are just WAY too picky (my opinion). - Quartermaster 23:52, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose nothing that amazing SOADLuver 00:57, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - looks like some sort of weird plastic turtle. - MPF 13:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
1 support, 8 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured Roger McLassus 06:21, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Image:F--18.jpg - featuredEdit

     

Version 1 (left) - not featuredEdit

  •   Info created by US Navy — uploaded by Blind14 — nominated by Blind14 20:29, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support Blind14 20:29, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support I supprted this picture on wikipedia and I support it here.Very intresting and unique picture. SOADLuver 20:45, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose -- Lycaon 20:46, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support a little bit grainy, but composition and colors are really great. -- Gorgo 21:28, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose — Noisy and the composition is totally wrong with the subject of interest faces almost at the edge, trying to escape from the frame. Indon 01:22, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
  • If I would have put it in the middle it would have missed the smoke and the background. Blind14 05:11, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
  • You can change your angle of view, leaving more space in front of the jet and still you gain the smoke and the background. I'm still opposing it, sorry. Indon 14:53, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Comment Indon, that is precisely the merit of this photograph. Good composition, good diagonal, good sense of movement. And yes, the plane is taking off, the smoke is an integral part of the moment, etc., etc. I do not like the theme itself, thus I will not support it, but it is a good photograph.--Tomascastelazo 13:30, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Thank you Blind14 15:18, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
  • The composition is not good at all. The plane is about to jump off the frame. There is too few space for it to breath. As a result, there's no sense of movement. The smoke and the jet are frozen in time. Indon 14:53, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Composition rules are just guidelines, not The Law written by God. History of photography is full of good compositions -like this one- that break those guidelines in some manner. Francisco M. Marzoa 11:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Still it does not work for me. I've seen many images like this with much better composition. This picture looks good only because of sunset silhouette, nothing more. Indon 18:22, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Neutral very fine composition, but too dark and grainy Roger McLassus 15:52, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
  •   Neutral I may support (or not at all...) if [grain|noise] is improved. I really like the composition and that sunset light is very good for me. Francisco M. Marzoa 18:12, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
How about now? Blind14 07:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - ditto to Tomascastelazo - MPF 10:03, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support Pluke 12:36, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Neutral I agree with Tomascastelazo norro 18:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose As too often with photographs from the US Army/Navy/Air Force/Whatever, this photograph does not show what it pretends to show. It is apparently meant to show a F-18, of which you see only a vague silhouette under an unfavourable angle ; and it show little puffs of white smoke, vapour or dirt... Another photograph wasted by lyrical ambitions at showing a grandiose setting, ending in a too dark photo not even suitable for a model box for a 12-year old boy. Rama 07:41, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support Alvesgaspar 16:48, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   OpposeNo reason for this to be featured if Version 3 is so much better =) .Vanillatea 23:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support a good photo, but I still think Version 3 is better. Vanillatea 01:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support Austin Hair 05:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support. It's a plane taking off, so to me having the subject at the far end of the photo facing away from us makes sense. howcheng {chat} 16:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support Spoken 23:31, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
10 support, 4 oppose, 3 neutral → qualified
(featured unless another version scores better) Roger McLassus 08:55, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
not featured Roger McLassus 06:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Version 2 (center) - not featuredEdit

  • weak   Support Good picture but the one below is better. Vanillatea 01:39, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Nom.+  Support thank you dearly for the support Blind14 03:58, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support SOADLuver 00:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support Spoken 23:31, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
4 support, 0 oppose → not featured Roger McLassus 06:16, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Version 3 (right) - featuredEdit

  • Strong   Support I really don't care about the encyclopedic value.It's a cool picture,and this version improves all of my minor dislikings.Who cares if it's "frozen in time" who cares if it has no "encyclopedic value" not like that matters really.This is an excellent image in my mind and deserves to be featured. SOADLuver 04:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Nom.+  Support per SOADLuver Blind14 07:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support I don't agree the picture is "frozen in time". I see movement, action and beauty. Alvesgaspar 07:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose too much editing artefacts. Lycaon 08:08, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Neutral No substantial technical improvements. (I think they are not possible by editing the picture.) But I still like the composition and the atmosphere. Roger McLassus 13:05, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support Pluke 17:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support per SOADLuver -Vanillatea 23:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support Austin Hair 05:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose It's even worse than the first version. Since you performed noise filtering so badly to wipe out noisy grains, artefacts shown up. Indon 13:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I liked this on en-WP but this version has too many artifacts. You need to more selectively filter the noise out. In the original photo and this version, compare the flight deck and the plane's body -- much cleaner in the original. howcheng {chat} 16:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support though i can not really see the difference between those versions i like the colours and scenery --SimONE 16:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support Spoken 23:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support Best. James F. (talk) 12:46, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
9 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → qualified
featured unless another version scores better) Roger McLassus 06:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
featured Roger McLassus 06:18, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Image:Koh Samui Lipa Noi2.jpg - not delistedEdit

Original nomination

  • Its a sunset, its low res, got some problems with the picture(artifacts?, grainy?). Unless it is special in some way I don't know about or its one of a kind I dont see why it should be a FP. --Digon3 13:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Keep I see no reason to delist (Incedentally, have we adopted a policy for delisting?) Cary "Bastiqe" Bass demandez 14:15, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Comment If this where to be put up for nomination today it would never make FP. Requirements have change since 2004 and being a pretty sunset (there wasnt hundreds of sunset pictures being nominated), was the only reason it was featured. It may have been good then, but not now. While it has a good foreground and background, everything else (General quality, Resolution, Value) is bad. Like it says in the guidelines, "almost all sunsets are pretty, and most of such pictures are not different in the essence from others". There is nothing special about this picture. --Digon3 18:10, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
    Still, I believe that requirements for delisting be substantially more stringent than listing. This clearly was considered by some to be a featured picture (with no opposition), regardless of our requirements. Furthermore, some sunset pictures are striking. We don't have a policy prohibiting sunsets. Cary "Bastiqe" Bass demandez 18:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Im not saying it should be delisted just because it is a sunset, Im saying it should be delisted because of everything else (General quality, Resolution, Value, technical quality). Over time, featured picture standards change. --Digon3 20:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Delist Ss181292 22:14, 6 October 2006 (UTC) - we need only one (if any) picture of sunset featured, unless someone find (create) really special one.
  •   Delist because of sunset, because of low res and because of terrible noise. Indon 01:27, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Delist All the above --Digon3 02:33, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Keep Beautiful sunset. Composition takes nice advantate of the setting. Resolution is adequate. Noise is controlled. Artistic merits far outweigh any perceived flaws in this stunning photograph. Fg2 05:44, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Keep Delistings should be restricted to severe errors of judgement, which was not the case here. Roger McLassus 07:18, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Keep Agree with Roger McLassus -- Alvesgaspar 08:53, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Delist it only has colours/composition going for it, the rest is sub-standard. Lycaon 09:03, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Keep per Roger McLassus. --MichaelMaggs 16:36, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Keep ack Roger McLassus --Erina 20:23, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Keep Francisco M. Marzoa 12:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Delist Visible noise in entire image and low-res --Leclerc 09:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Delist Rez, noise. --HereToHelp (talk) 02:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Comment I think User:Roger McLassus is wrong in his judgement. Above we can read Over time, featured picture standards change. It may be decided that for some pictures which were formerly "good enough", this is no longer the case. The picture was featured looooong ago (November 2004), and some standards changed since then (for example standards of judgeing sunsets). Ss181292 21:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Standards for judging sunsets are -and must be- exactly the same that for other pictures, indeed. Francisco M. Marzoa 18:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
6 delist, 7 keep → not delisted Roger McLassus 04:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Image:Versailles Chapel - July 2006 edit.jpg - not featuredEdit

 

  •   Info created by Diliff — uploaded by Fir0002 — nominated by Arad
  •   Support I feel I'm inside the building Arad 15:58, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   SupportVery nice --Digon3 20:16, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
    •   Oppose I did not see the stitching errors, thanks for pointing that outAngMoKio. --Digon3 16:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose due to stitching errors K!roman | ☺‼♫♥☻ 10:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
      Support K!roman | ☺‼♫♥☻ 21:13, 7 October 2006 (UTC)</>
  •   Support--MichaelMaggs 21:47, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Neutral super quality sth is wrong with the photo. On the most right and left column there are some distortions visible - most likely because of the stitching --AngMoKio 22:50, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support Roger McLassus 07:40, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
    •   Oppose I did not see the stitching errors, but now I do Roger McLassus 15:47, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support Awesome! Erina 09:02, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Although details are nicely taken, I found a bit distracted by highlights in several areas. Lights in the windows above is definitely overexposed and purple fringings are quite visible. The rightmost pillar is also overexposed. Indon 13:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose this edit, would   Support original. --Wikimol 21:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
banned template replaced Roger McLassus 07:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Info I've noticed the same as AngMoKio: some columns have discontinuities as if the image were a pasting of various components. But I tought that was an artifact of my own computer display. This happens not only with the edited image but also with the original. -- Alvesgaspar 22:20, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support Simonizer 13:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
    •   Oppose Because of the stitching errors Simonizer 06:42, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose ack Wikimol + stitching errors -- Lycaon 13:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose, although this is an impressive and wonderful picture. If the errors can be corrected then they should be. -- Alvesgaspar 15:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Agree --Lmbuga gl, pt, es: contacta comigo 18:01, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Info I'll have a go at re-stitching it and see what I can come up with. stitching pillars out wide is actually pretty difficult from my experience. The tiniest variance between frames will cause them to misalign, whereas slight alignment problems elsewhere in an image are far less obvious. You are right though, it is noticible. Diliff 15:39, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
5 support, 8 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured Roger McLassus 08:31, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Image:Melbourne Docklands - Yarras Edge - marina panorama.jpg - featuredEdit

 

  •   Info created by Diliff — uploaded by Diliff — nominated by Arad
  •   Support Diliff strikes back Arad 15:54, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support Not dark enough to be a night shot, I like it. --Digon3 20:19, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose what happened to daylight? Also buildings to the right are beheaded. Lycaon 21:24, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose ack Lycaon Roger McLassus 07:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support NIce night panoramic shot. Exposure is perfectly taken. Indon 13:04, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support I do not have problems with night shots, I found this one in particular great. The buildings on the left may be complete, but I think the picture has enough things good to ignore this "problem". Francisco M. Marzoa 18:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support I like the reflection in the water --Jacopo86 12:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support - good photo. Well done. (JROBBO 09:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC))
  •   Oppose - ditto to Lycaon - MPF 21:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support - Lerdsuwa 10:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose because of the beheaded buildings Simonizer 10:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support - a good pano. However I would expect at least three times better resolution from stitching 10 x 12mpix photos taken with the Canon L-class IS lens. Dr Bug (Vladimir V. Medeyko) 17:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support //Moralist 18:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support really cool time of day, and great clarity Paul Frederickson
  •   Support --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 22:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
11 support, 4 oppose → featured Roger McLassus 08:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Image:Second Severn Crossing pano 1.jpg - featuredEdit

 

  •   Info created by Yummifruitbat — uploaded by Yummifruitbat — nominated by Yummifruitbat
  •   Support self-nomination. This is a view of the Second Severn Crossing (a combination cable-stayed/viaduct bridge with a total length of more than 3 miles) which carries the M4 motorway across the River Severn. It is the main crossing point from Wales to England (and vice versa) for South Wales, and had to be designed for the second-highest tidal range in the world. --Yummifruitbat 01:35, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Neutral It was a little to early in the morning to take this picture (or late at night). It is a little too dark for me. --Digon3 12:56, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support Erina 15:51, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support JohnKolter 18:52, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - I like the sky in the middle of the image and the idea of it, but too dark. Arad 21:14, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose ack Arad Roger McLassus 07:33, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support Yes it is a bit dark but I like it this way, gives the suggestion of thunder. -- Alvesgaspar 10:38, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Comment - Just to clarify, it was my intention that this photo was 'dark' - it was taken early on a late-summer evening as a thick bank of storm clouds rolled overhead. I used the bridge regularly during the summer to commute from work in Bristol to my home in Cardiff, and was often struck by the dramatic contrasts as the sun shone through clouds to cast the bridge in silhouette. I think this photo (at least when viewed on a properly-calibrated monitor) is an eyecatching depiction which might capture the interest of a casual viewer. I'm aware that it's not the most 'encyclopaedic' view of the bridge, which is why I nominated it here rather than at EN.FPC. --Yummifruitbat 12:47, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose It's a nice panoramic picture, if it was taken properly. The color is not rich and it looks like a duotone picture. It's better, IMO, to make it real silhouette, but with a support with a dramatic colorful sunlight. Indon 13:01, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm afraid I don't understand the latter part of your comment. Are you suggesting that I've changed the colours of the sunset? --Yummifruitbat 13:48, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Nope. When you make a silhouette of an object, it has to have a strong backlight. It would be a nice shilouette if the backlight has rich color, as in the sunset. In this picture, the backlight is not colorful, IMO. BTW, how about if you tweak the saturation and levels of this picture? Maybe the backlight color will appear. Indon 14:53, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
OK, that's clearer. I disagree that the picture wasn't 'taken properly' - it portrays the scene near enough exactly as it appeared to the naked eye. Tweaking the saturation etc. would be falsifying the scene - it wasn't 'colourful' but I don't think that's a prerequisite for an effective photograph. I could have waited for the sun to set completely and got a rich orange glow but that would have been a totally different scene and wasn't what I wanted to capture in this panorama. --Yummifruitbat 20:02, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support i like the composition and also the atmosphere of the photo...imho the light fits very well --AngMoKio 19:03, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Spectacular atmosphere, but unspectacular composition Simonizer 13:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support Lighting is it's strong point - it would be utterly dull without it. Nice pano --Fir0002 www 12:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support Perfect if you judge by the mood. Dori | Talk 21:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support --Lerdsuwa 10:09, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Neutral - colors are not attractive indeed. By the way, it looks much better in B&W (I tried). Dr Bug (Vladimir V. Medeyko) 18:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support I don't see anything wrong with the colours. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 09:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
9 support, 4 oppose, 2 neutral → featured Roger McLassus 08:27, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Image:Clock Tower - Palace of Westminster, London - September 2006.jpg - featuredEdit

 

  •   Info created by Diliff — uploaded by Diliff — nominated by Arad
  •   Support WOW, look at the details! Arad 22:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support Great detail, wish it had EXIF info. Dori | Talk 23:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support amzing SOADLuver 23:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support Very nice picture, high quality, FP material --Digon3 02:32, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support Erina 10:55, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support Wow! Cary "Bastiqe" Bass demandez 12:20, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support Ah, home. James F. (talk) 12:47, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support Hammer --XN 20:29, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support K!roman | ☺‼♫♥☻ 21:22, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
banned template replaced Roger McLassus 07:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support Technically awesome. Compositionally, standard. Technical prowess wins. - Quartermaster 00:00, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support--MichaelMaggs 07:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support ack Quartermaster Roger McLassus 07:44, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support Although it's a bit flat, I like its sharpness and its composition. Indon 12:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support Faultless --Gordo 20:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Neutral -- It is superb, excellent, technique is professional. But I think it can be improved:
    • At the bottom left hand corner, some disturbing antenna on a building => Cropping?
    • I have the strange sentiment that perspective is bizarre: vertical lines and horizontal ones seem to be leaning;
    But the photo is superb!  Pabix  14:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support - despite the very top of the picture seems to be our of focus, the quality is amazing! Dr Bug (Vladimir V. Medeyko) 18:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support Excellent!!! --Diligent 12:59, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support It's pics like these that sometimes make me think of buying a REAL camera... --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 20:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
17 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured Roger McLassus 04:57, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Image:Yarra Panorama.jpg - not featuredEdit

 

  •   Info created by Diliff — uploaded by Diliff — nominated by Arad
  •   Support FP on Wikipedia and made by the Master Diliff Arad 22:10, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Comment Very nice. I'll probably support after asking to the pillow, but help me a bit: there're some ghost reflections on the water at the left, closed to the bridge, that doesn't seems to be reflections on the water but some kind of optical artifact on the lens, what is it? Francisco M. Marzoa 23:31, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
    • It is a reflection of numerous lights from behind the bridge through the geometric shapes of the bridge supports. Thats why there is overlap of shapes in the reflections. Definitely not an optical artifact of the lens. Diliff 15:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose it's night, it's dark, it's not FP. Lycaon 08:26, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support Beautiful! Cary "Bastiqe" Bass demandez 12:19, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support Very nice. James F. (talk) 12:47, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose some ghost reflections on the water at the left, very blurred yellow shirted guy on bridge. Edit those out and I'll support it. --Digon3 12:52, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose ack Digon3 for the ghost artifacts at the left. Indon 12:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - streetlight & advert lighting glare - MPF 13:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
3 support, 4 oppose → not featured Roger McLassus 04:56, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Image:Montreal Twilight Panorama 2006.jpg - featuredEdit

 

  •   Info created by Diliff — uploaded by User: Diliff — nominated by Arad
  •   Support - Already a FP on Wikipedia, and a good adition to Commons too. Arad 22:04, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support what else can i say?! Such photos are incredible. --AngMoKio 22:15, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support I love the colours and the mist in the background, giving the picture perspective and depth. Fantastic. norro 23:24, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support Francisco M. Marzoa 23:36, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support Dori | Talk 23:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice colours, great panorama. --Digon3 02:35, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support Obviously twilight yields far more details than night pics (as above image). Well done. Lycaon 08:29, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support Wonderful photo! I like the smoke getting out of the chimneys. Pitty there are a few branches out of focus in the first plan. -- Alvesgaspar 08:40, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support Erina 10:55, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support OMG... I have to live there. Cary "Bastiqe" Bass demandez 12:17, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
banned template replaced Roger McLassus 07:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Yeah? That makes me proud of my city. But the weather is a problem. And thrust me, it goes -25C in winter Arad 15:46, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support Lovely. James F. (talk) 12:47, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support - Andreas.Didion 15:43, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support K!roman | ☺‼♫♥☻ 21:26, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support Roger McLassus 07:45, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support The master of featured picture in WP has come in commons :-) lovely. I like the trail of the smoke. Indon 12:50, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
banned template replaced Roger McLassus 07:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
22 support, 0 oppose → featured Roger McLassus 04:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Image:Port of Kobe02s4100.jpg - not featuredEdit

 

  •   Info created by 663highland — uploaded by 663highland — nominated by 663highland
  •   Support Port of Kobe at the time of twilight in Kobe, Hyogo, Japan--663highland 11:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Noisy, not sharp (no tripod?) and over exposed around street lights (shutter speed too slow?). Indon 11:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose same as Indon. --Digon3 13:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose ditto Francisco M. Marzoa 14:24, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support beautiful. Noise is not a problem. Might benefit from light sharpening but the only motion blur is in moving ships. Street lights should be overexposed and are. Outstanding photograph. Fg2 05:35, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nice picture, but unsharp and noisy. Maybe it's unfair, but what can we say after looking at the night shots above, by Diliff ? - Alvesgaspar 08:48, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support, despite the noise; the exposure level is perfectly judged as appropriate. I'm perplexed by Indon's exposure comment. James F. (talk) 12:47, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose due to insufficient sharpness, local over-exposition (not only lamps), oversaturated colours, unnatural looking water because of long exposition time, and too narrow cropping above the tower. Furthermore the conspicous darkness of the water near the left margin is not plausible and the composition is unbalanced. Roger McLassus 16:08, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - streetlight glare - MPF 13:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
3 support, 6 oppose → not featured Roger McLassus 04:53, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Image:Círio.jpg - not featuredEdit

300px|Short description

  •   Info created by Breno Peck - uploaded by Gdamasceno - nominated by Gdamasceno --Gdamasceno 17:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support --Gdamasceno 17:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose resolution, composition, fingers in the foreground .. actually I don't even know what this picture is supposed to show -- Gorgo 22:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Info The information in the picture file says it is the "berlin of our Lady of Nazaré. The title means "candle".--Alvesgaspar 23:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose --Alvesgaspar 23:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Ack Gorgo and it's a bit oversaturated. --Erina 08:03, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose too busy and not showing clearly the essential: what is inside the "vitrine". Isn't it too low resolution for a Featured Picture? --Diligent 08:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose. Those fingers really bother me. howcheng {chat} 23:59, 19 October 2006 (UTC)