Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/August 2007

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search


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


[edit]

Short description 

result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 07:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Short description 

result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 06:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Colonies of the second French colonial empire (1830–1960) published in Le Monde Illustré in 1891 Colonies of the second French colonial empire (1830–1960) published in Le Monde Illustré in 1891

  •  Info The engraving is as it was scanned; the hue/slight colour is the same as how it appears in the newsmagazine. And the original engraving is not perfectly rectangular, hence it may appear as though the crop is too tight. However, you may perhaps prefer the second version; black and white with a wider crop. :) RedCoat 21:02, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Oops, I hadn't noticed that; the moire pattern can really be detrimental. The thin lines cause it in this case don't they? And it's an original engraving though. RedCoat 15:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Comment Yeah, Moire's a problem with engravings. I don't mind if it shows Moire when shrunk by wikipedia - hell, one of my uploaded engravings does that - but it shouldn't have it at full, and this one does. Still, if you have the original, it shouldn't be too hard to scan it at a somewhat higher resolution, in which case I'll definitely support. Forgive the questioning about the dots in those grey skies - it's not a common engraving technique, so it's better to double check it's not an artefact of reproduction. (But I'm happy to believe you that it's not) Adam Cuerden 11:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Oryx gazella 

result: 10 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 07:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


[edit]

Edit 

 result: 6 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Dornstetten Kübelbachviadukt

See previous FP nominations. Dantadd✉ 15:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What kind of argument is this?? Are you angry?--Christoph Michels 16:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just a little bit, but don't worry, I'll survive. Dantadd✉ 16:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think it is a valid argument for opposing the picture. Would have you supported the same picture, if it was taken by a South American tourist? --Mbz1 16:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
We need more FP of Latin American subjects. It doesn't matter who takes the picture. Dantadd✉ 16:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agry we need more high value pictures from all over the world including Latin American subjects. Yet I'm not sure how opposing of that European picture could help to introduce the pictures from Latin America? There's no limit in the pictures that could get FP status.--Mbz1 16:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
Well' you're right, but until we have a more fair distribution I'll oppose all European and North American picture. That's my personal opinion. Dantadd✉ 16:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Everybody could have their own opinion and, if I were you, I would have tried to find some interesting Latin America pictures, which are in public domain, upload them to Wikipedia and nominate them on FP simply because opposing all European and North American pictures will not help your couse while nominating more Latin America pictures could help.--Mbz1 17:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
I'm gonna do it. In fact, I already did it with this beautiful historical picture (Image:Revolução de 1930.jpg), but, as always, the same users have found a hundred of unforgivable flaws in it. Dantadd✉ 18:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be a pity if this forum became a place for fighting over national or continental representation. So far I thought this was about good pics, but I just learned that you can't hide from politics :-) --Christoph Michels 20:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that we must have to things in mind: good pictures and fair representation. If the election is just a matter of quality we already have the Quality Picture nomination. Please, take a look on the FP category: it's not fair what we see there. It's not a matter of politics, but everybody wants to feel represented. Dantadd✉ 22:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How can it be a matter of representation without being a matter of politics? And how can you then demand one sort of politics (continentalism?)only? If we start this debate here we should also take into consideration all issues of fair representation, e.g. gender, nations, continents, species, humans/non-humans, classes, ethnic groups, religions, political parties (you could extend this list endlessly depending what kind of politics you are interested in.)But I think this issue (for this forum) had been settled long time ago. And at least I understood that FP is about (a politics of) representing high quality images with an encyclopedic value. If you have the feeling that some pictures are discriminated due to their origin you are right in yelling out loud. But: From looking at the way people argue here I do not share your perception. And: I can't understand why you then start to discriminate others due to their origin. --Christoph Michels 09:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment I have never seen such a ridiculous argument on Commons. Perhaps Europe simply does have more interesting subjects to be photographed? More skilled photographs?
I think this vote should be crossed out and not counted as Featured pictures is not about expressing personal political/ideological views, but selecting good quality pictures. What if somebody votes against a picture of a politican saying "I don't like him, he's a liar"? This vote is a dangerous precedent. --Derbeth talk 09:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The dangerous precedent has already been set. Just look at the FP category. Ridiculous argument is "Perhaps Europe simply does have more interesting subjects to be photographed? More skilled photographs?" This is not a political or ideological view, it's just a matter of equity, but it seems that a lot of people is getting angry because somebody noticed that there's is a wrong systematic in play here. Dantadd✉ 12:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are really funny. Now YOU (Dantadd) are the only one who opposes a picture because of the country where it is coming from (what a disgusting reason). If we all start a behaviour like you are doing here, we will soon have a mess here. That you as a Commons Administrator give such statements here is quite shocking for me. Again the nationality is of no matter here...i don't care if we have many pictures from Europe here...i want that commons becomes a source for good pictures. If we give low quality pictures with no composition the FP-status, then the FP in general will lose its value and we can close it down all together. But you don't seem to understand that - FP-status is only for the best pictures. --AngMoKio 12:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'm really wrong. I tried, but you seem not to agree that there's an absurd and blatant inequity in the features pictures. I'm not here by myself. This problem was brought to me by two editors on pt.wiki. There's just a sentiment of impotence and impossibility of a even minor representation here. But, you won. Keep going and thinking that everything is perfect. This is not a matter of electing bad pictures, I'm not asking that. I'm asking to little techinal flaws to be forgiven in order to have more equity. Just that. If it's just a matter of quality, why have two parallel elections to decide it?. I don't understand. That's my final comment on this. Dantadd✉ 13:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dantadd, we have more FPs of mammals (even without counting pictures of humans) than of beetles, while there can be aroung 350,000 species of choleoptera in the world, but less than 5,000 species of mammals. If this was a matter of fair representation, we should oppose every nomination of pics of mammals, and forgive flaws on beetle pictures until we reached equity among subjects. But we don't. We apply the same criteria (not just quality but also interestingness, uniqueness and usefulness - differences between QIs and FPs can be read in the instructions) to images, regardless of taxonomic class, order, or continent. Opposing a picture just with the comment too many European FP pictures looks as strange as opposing a pic of an oryx commenting too many FP of mammals. It's true that we have a bigger want of images of Latin American beetles than of European mammals, but we should have more FP of both types. --Javier ME 22:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What if we sought equity among cities instead of among continents? If I found a second excellent and informative image of Brasilia, should I abstain of featuring it until we featured at least one of all the other cities which currently have none? I think we should feature more images, even if they were from Segovia , a minor European city of which there is already one FP. The problem with Image:Revolução de 1930.jpg was neither its continent nor it had a hundred of unforgivable flaws. It was that its values were not enough to overcome the certain flaws it had. I agree with Dantadd, however, in that the first questioned reason of the amount of European FPs were not probable "Europe simply does have more interesting subjects to be photographed?". It's very difficult to say if Europe has more skilled photographers than America, but it's easy to guess that the proportion of people with good photographical equipment and affordable access to Internet is higher in Japan, Western Europe or North America than in parts of Latin America or Africa. I also understand that taking photos of humans is easier than taking photos of insects without the proper makro equipment and skills, but anyway I suspect there is specism here and some voters are more interested in images of humans than of beetles, so we'll hardly reach equity in this :P --Javier ME 22:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • cylindrical projection, the FP candidate
    cylindrical projection, the FP candidate
  • equirectangular projection
    equirectangular projection
  • rectilinear projection
    rectilinear projection
  • the bridge seen from the opposite site looking South
    the bridge seen from the opposite site looking South

Here for comparison (big discussions here please). -- Klaus with K 18:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment It still leaves the distorted pillars on the rectilinear. I think I am finding out the hard way that a mere flat screen is inadequate to display a panorama. -- Klaus with K 12:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Info Acknowledging some private discussions I feel that these are justification enough for me to say that illustrating the railway viaduct from the gallery above the right photo is presumably the best choice (unless one prints the image on a semicircular screen) but imaging the viaduct with its dominant horizontal and vertical components and also some fine structure in the girders the left photo can well illustrate the properties of a cylindrical projection. Rectilinear and equirectangular projections to serve as comparisons are now available as well. -- Klaus with K 19:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Ack Ram-Man - so I normally would Oppose, but I marked my vote as neutral because there is one more Oppose listed here than it should be. Now the final calculation should be fair again. Andreas Tille 10:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You bring back a level playing field — Thank you. -- Klaus with K 11:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Distracting projection.--Beyond silence 20:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose It's l'art pour l'art, no information value, on the contrary. On the other hand, the argumentation of Dantadd is very dangerous and inacceptable. In football it is Latin America, which is overrepresented, but nobody in his healthy mind would consider to limit their participation.--Szilas 09:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 8 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 08:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Devil's golfcourse.jpg

[edit]

Devil's Golf Course, Death Valley National Park, California

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: the image is too small. -- Lycaon 22:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC))[reply] Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
[edit]

Short description 

result: 3 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 08:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Short description 300px|Retouched version

- nominated by Mbz1 --Mbz1 17:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] 

result: 5 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 08:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Castle in Rabsztyn/southern Poland 

result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 08:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Tockus erythrorhynchus 

result: 0 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 08:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Ochlodes sylvanus 

result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 08:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Agama agama 

result: 0 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 08:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Napoleon III after Death - Illustrated London News Jan 25 1873-2.PNG, featured

[edit]

Short description 

result: 5 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 08:46, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Swifts creek region

Still not categorized and there's no indication of the country. Few people know where "Victoria region" is. Dantadd✉ 00:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 13 support, 8 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 08:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Jacques-Louis David - Mars desarme par Venus.JPG, not featured

[edit]

Painting in Brussels, own photo

- It's the original. I improved a bit the colours in the Commons, but I didn't re-load the picture here. It is a more than 3 meter high painting, it is no use to get too close to it, not even when studying the full resolution...--Szilas 11:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment You can find the left upper part of the backrgound structure curved in printed versions of the picture, too. --Javier ME 16:10, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 08:50, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Short description 

result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 08:51, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]
result: 0 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 09:06, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:William-Adolphe Bouguereau (1825-1905) - The Shepherdess (1889).jpg, not featured

[edit]

The Shepherdess, by William-Adolphe Bouguereau 

result: 3 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Newport's cliff beach 

result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 07:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:ArboretumVolcjiPotok path.jpg

[edit]
result: 0 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 07:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Equus quagga burchellii.jpg

[edit]

Short description 

result: Nomination withdrawn  => not featured. --Simonizer 09:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Surfacing great white.JPG

[edit]

Short description Short description

Original

[edit]
  •  InfoA great white shark at Isla Guadalupe, Mexico. Please note, we did not try to catch a shark. We did try to bring sharks closer to the cages. No shark was hurt. The picture is a digital copy of my old film picture.
  •  Info created, uploaded and nominated by Mbz1 --Mbz1 04:11, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Mbz1 04:11, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I know that one will be very hard for you to support. After all it is a digigat copy of my old film picture. I know that community will rather support a sharp and common flower, than that rare image. Still I'd like to remind everybody one criteria of Guidelines for nominators, which states: "A bad picture of a very difficult subject is a better picture than a good picture of an ordinary subject. A good picture of a difficult subject is an extraordinary photograph." The nominated picture is not a bad picture, yet it is a digital copy of an old film picture. --Mbz1 04:11, 4 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
  •  Oppose Ok, it's a hard and extraordinary photo. But it worse that hard - not FP.--Beyond silence 04:36, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • No surprise here. Oh well,I guess you're right. It is not fp picture. Anyway it would have been out of place between sharp flowers and bugs, but I still believe that this image is much more encyclopedic, has much more value(which in my opinion is the most important thing) than many FP pictures both on Wikipedia and Commons do.--Mbz1 04:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
  •  Comment I'd like to explain what I meant under digital copy. That image is a digital picture of my old film picture, in other words it is a picture of a picture (I have no scanner)--Mbz1 12:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
  •  Question Can you try to make a new scan of the neg, with a new lab or with the same but asking them to make no correction on it, in particular the contrast ? Because I'm sure that with a good lab, the photograph will be much, much better, the problem coming from the digitalization. Sting 13:35, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Remember it is not a scan at all. It is a picture of a picture. I'm not sure where to look for the lab that does neg scans and besides I'm too laizy to bother, but maybe I will for that picture. Thanks--Mbz1 16:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
  •  Oppose both. Low quality image, and doesn't strike me as being very good compositionally either. It looks to me a pretty standard shot [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] from one of these diving trips. Would have liked to see one with a bit more action [7] [8] or at least minus the obviously unnatural rope line [9] --Fir0002 www 01:30, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • #3 is not bad, only too small. #7 and 8 are great.I like #9 too. I wonder, if the guy will agree to upload it to Wikipedia with a free licence and without a water mark. #1,2,4,5 and 6 also nice images, but in my opinion my image is much more interesing. Anyway you did your homework. Thanks and have a nice day.--Mbz1 02:10, 5 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
  •  not because it is not passing. I knew from the beginning it will not pass, not even because it gets opposed(you know I do like opposes almost as much as I like supports), but rather because the way it gets opposed especially by fir0002. Of course user made some progress and instead of commenting on my spelling, like he's done on other occasion, he tries to comment on the image. Well for some reason, his comments do not feel right. I would not mind any comments from one, who was in cage with sharks. I would not mind valid comments from everybody else.I do mind sarcastic and unfair comments from the one, whos very best wild life image is a supper quality and a supper no value (in my opinion) image of a head of giraffe taken in a nearby zoo.What was also rather surprising that all very nice samples, which fir0002 shared with us were taken not from Wikipedia. It is really strange to me because just few days ago fir0002 wrote to me: "Wikipedia doesn't want people to get the info from another site, it wants to give the people the information." Thanks to all, who wanted to oppose the image, but never did.
result: Nomination withdrawn  => not featured. Simonizer 09:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit

[edit]

 Info I think it's a very interesting picture.I propose an edit; I reduced it,I smoothed the sea and I sharpened the shark (some parts more than others).It isn't really sharp yet, but it's absolutely shark! Vassil 14:02, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:80486dx2-large.jpg

[edit]

Short description

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: too small. -- Lycaon 06:40, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
no way to take this photo again. Size will remain 1.34Mpixel .. --Zedh 07:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:ArtistPaintingAtLouvre.jpg

[edit]

Artist Painting at Louvre

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: too small. -- Lycaon 13:56, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
[edit]

The kungsleden trail in swedish lapland

  •  Info created, uploaded and nominated by Nattfodd --Nattfodd 16:55, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Nattfodd 16:55, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Composition. There doesn't seem to be a subject and any interesting things are probably in the hills. I would suggest trying a panorama for this. --Digon3 talk 17:17, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Info As Szilas said, there doesn't need to be a specific subject here other than the valley extending into infinity. What I tried to express through this shot was the very particular mood we were into after getting through this pretty hard pass (the highest point of the whole trail) and seeing this endless valley unroll upon us, with evening light and a really peaceful/melancholic set of mind. I guess the real subject is the perspective and the mood. --Nattfodd 23:42, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support - It's exactly the speciality of this part of the world, that you won't find anything interesting for the first sight. Emptyness and tranquillity prevail. Very characteristic and very good picture.--Szilas 19:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Too shallow DoF resulting in unsharpness, especially in the foreground. Most landscapes need both tripods and small apertures. This picture has been either cropped or downsampled as well, for some reason. Special note should be made though that this is perfect use of a human subject to provide scale. -- Ram-Man 23:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Ack Digon3. Anrie 07:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Cattle Egret 

result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Fungia Coral

  • As Mbz1 already mentioned, this is a quite a common solitary coral from the genus Fungia. Moreover, it is not the back or the front side but the top which is showing ;-). They are rather odd amongst corals, because they move around over the bottom of the sea. Please change the name of the file at earliest convenience. Lycaon 08:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 07:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Flowers and leaves of a Morning Gloria (Ipomoea acuminata) 

result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 07:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hooded Vulture 

result: 0 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 07:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Caltha-palustris 0058 a.jpg

[edit]

Caltha palustris

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: underexposed. -- Lycaon 15:17, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

Image:Bird on fence.jpg (nomination withdrawn)

[edit]

300px|Bird on fence

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: not sharp and the subject has not been identified. -- Lycaon 15:15, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
[edit]

Stargazer lily 

result: 12 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 07:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Monarch Butterfly

  •  Comment That's composition: if you would crop that, the composition would fail as the attention would be drawn outside of the picture... (my 5 €-cents) Lycaon 08:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Simonizer 07:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hornbill bird 

result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 07:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Simphiwe Dana

  •  Info created, uploaded and nominated by Tsui 19:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support I like. Romary 20:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Bad lighting, much noise.--Beyond silence 20:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Lovely portrait at small sizes, but noisy in the largest. Unnecesarily horizontal, while there is a better cropped and colour edited version Image:Simphiwe Dana Wien2007aa.jpg --Javier ME 21:26, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I am aware, that lighting and sharpness are not the best (it was an open-air concert in the shadow of a building, not a portrait-shooting in a studio). As far as the edited version is concerned: in my eyes, while the light may be "better", the image loses most of its atmosphere when cropped and color-edited (and the noise increases). --Tsui 21:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Unfortunate lighting and framing. Anrie 07:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Noise and the fact that part of the head is cropped off. --Digon3 talk 01:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support This is an extremely graceful and, may I say it, soulful pose and the opposers are a bunch of accountants who miss the intricate beauty of the image in their search for technical flaws :) I'd consider alternative edits though. ~ trialsanderrors 05:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral Great facial expression. Some technical flaws but they are all tolerable for a event shot in my opinion. The light is not unfortunate, it fits the impression. The face is visible, thats important. I dont care if the headress is cut. Thats very common in portrait photography. But i also would like to see a vertical format. --Simonizer 09:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose crop -- Gorgo 17:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral First of all: This picture is great! But i would really prefer a color-improved version of this one. I prefer this uncroped version in this format...maybe it is possible to crop a little on the right side to move her a bit to the right side in order to "de-center" her a bit. But you have my support if you upload a color-improved version of this one. --AngMoKio 19:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I did an edit here, trying to focus on the skin tone and reduce pixel grain. I'm still not perfectly satisfied, and if people keep complaining about the cropped headdress it might not be worth nominating. ~ trialsanderrors 16:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Your edit is not bad. Though I have to say I like the format of this original picture. Well about the cropped headdress...the crop of the head is perfect and has to be like that. To crop upper parts of heads is a very common composition for portraits.--AngMoKio 08:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Info After reading and considering the comments above I was tempted to load up another edited version. But there are too many different recommendations: vertical or horizontal format (on de.wikipedia someone also mentioned square), more or less correction of color and/or light etc. ... there does not seem to be one version to satisfy all viewers (for enzyklopedic use, there are already two edited images, one by myself, one by by trialsanderrors). Personally I like the image just as it is, with the blurry background (including the black area at the left, which, to me, works as a visual completion of the image), with the cut headdress (otherwise the bust-like portrait would lose its vertical balance) and the bluish-pale colors which support the atmosphere); so I wont load up another edit for FPC. Nevertheless: thank you for all comments, feedback is always very welcome :-) Tsui 17:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose - Good portrait of a nice lady in a beatiful posture. Unfortunately the photographic quality is far from adequate for FP status. The edited version has better colours and crop but the chromatic noise is just too much. - Alvesgaspar 18:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support I have taken a lot of concert images, it's always very hard. This one is nice. J-Luc 14:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 3 support, 6 oppose, 2 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Agama agama 

result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 2 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Short description 

result: 0 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 08:43, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

result: 0 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 08:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Castle shumakov.jpg

[edit]
 Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: considered not featured just a few days ago. -- Lycaon 13:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

Image:Swan displaying.6669.2.JPG

[edit]

Swan*Swan

[edit]
result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]
result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 09:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Short description 

result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 09:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

The monastery of Dragomirna in Romania 

result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 09:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Blooming Yellow Lantana 

result: Nomination withdrawn => not featured. Simonizer 09:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

isumena vatia female 

result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 10:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Bigleaf Hydrangea 

result: 5 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 10:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Closeup picture of a seagull with island in background 

result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 11:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

A facsinating, psychedelic satellite image of a desert.

This is a satellite picture of a desert--AngMoKio 15:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 11:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Red-veined darter dragonfly

I talking about this . There is a lots of dragonfly pictures, and some is sharper then this. Now can be need more to be featured like this, I think. --Beyond silence 19:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just because there are sharper images does not mean this is unsharp. You said the same thing about this and it is a QI (but it is a bit noisy, I'll download an edit soon). --Digon3 talk 19:43, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, Not enough sharp. About that, enough good for QI, not enough good to FP. It's my opinion, sorry. --Beyond silence 19:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is not talking about the species. --Beyond silence 21:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Alvesgaspar 16:51, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] 

result: Nomination withdrawn => not featured.
[edit]

 Comment I think need an English description.--Beyond silence 15:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Apologize friend, but not everything is English. The image has excellent resolution and an unique quality for a map of a city where the material historical lack. Greetings Fidelmoquegua 02:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Support --Netito777 03:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 Comment"Descriptions can be in any language, but it is always a good idea to include an English description as well. If you can speak multiple languages, consider adding the description in all of them." (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:First_steps/Quality_and_description) Not everything English, but I think a featured picture must have a description that can be understand by most of people...--Beyond silence 19:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 11:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

image:Pola - 32-45.jpg,not featured

[edit]

Historical map of part of the Adrian coast 

result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 11:54, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Trichius zonatus 

result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 11:56, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Sossusvlei, Namib desert, Namibia

How can you get rid of the vignetting? --Digon3 talk 20:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Restitch the panorama. On the how-to I've contacted Lycaon. -- Klaus with K 20:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
please state your reason for opposition Lycaon 19:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I had hoped the visible vignetting in the image as first submitted would be dealt with in rerunning the stitch with vignetting correction included (like in hugin 0.6 or 0.7) and not applying a blurring filter on the output. -- Klaus with K 13:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 10 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 11:57, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Short description 

result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 11:59, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Fountains Abbey view 

result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 12:00, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Short description 

result: 0 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 12:04, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

The 17th century warship Vasa.

  •  Info Created, uploaded and nominated by Peter Isotalo; a picture of the museum ship Vasa shot from the catwalk used to service the lighting fixtures below the ceiling of the Vasa Museum. The platform is off limits to visitors and is otherwise only accessible to postcard photographers. / Peter Isotalo 10:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose That's a missed opportunity then :-(. The picture is far too noisy to be featured here. Sorry. Lycaon 12:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is it a technical limitation of the camera or merely a matter of settings? Peter Isotalo 16:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not sure the settings can be improved upon. Check the ISO settings an put them as low as possible. If it is on Auto, it will probably revert to ISO 400 in such circumstances. With a lower ISO you will get longer shutter times, but I assume your using a tripod already anyway. The Canon PowerShot A610 can be set as ISO 50, that should reduce the grain. Illumination of the ship will always be a problem though, I'm afraid. Lycaon 16:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I actually know diddly about photography and I don't even own a tripod so I guess it might be difficult to get it up to featured quality. Especially considering how shaky one gets when hobbling about on a steel catwalk some 30 meters above the museum floor... :-) I'll see what I can do about getting the AV tech guy to get me a a few shots worth of extra photo lighting (they really only turn it on for press photos as far as I know). One thing, though: is the composition okay? Peter Isotalo 17:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Looks good, but unsharp & noisy.--Beyond silence 00:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Lucky you, I have been looking for this angle all the time I was in there! But noise is really too high for FP. --Nattfodd 07:16, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I tried to apply some technical adjustments, but unfortunately I could not make it any better than the version I uploaded. Apparently this is extremely hard image to improve regarding noise. Unfortunately the orginal has a lot of noise, which obviously can be reduced in both luminance chrominance channels. However, what makes this tricky, is that when the noise is reduced, the detail in deck and other parts of the image starts to dissapear. Which is a really, really pity. The angle is good and such image is certainly needed by the projects. In any case, thank you Peter for contributing the image. --Thermos 09:47, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 0 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 12:07, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]
result: 0 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 12:08, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Hydrodictyon reticulatum.jpg

[edit]

Hydrodictyon reticulatum, a green algae, is a water net (Hydrodictyon) who gets its name from the large (usually pentagonal or hexagonal) mesh that they form.

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: too small. --Digon3 talk 18:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
[edit]

Short description

 2 dragonflies more, 2 less who cares? 

result: Nomination withdrawn => not featured. Simonizer 07:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]
result: Nomination withdrawn => not featured. Simonizer 07:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Short description 

result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Short description 

result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 08:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Laubfrosch (Hyla arborea).

If it "is so easy to fix" fix it and upload it :-)
--D-Kuru 21:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 13 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 08:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Mother and daughter.jpg

[edit]

Flower and bud of a yellow chamomile Flower and bud of a yellow chamomile

[edit]
result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 08:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


[edit]
BG was de-noised more (and differently) than the flowers themselves. Lycaon 05:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 08:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]
result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 08:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hooded Vulture 

result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 08:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

The quadriga on top of the Brandenburg Gate in Berlin, Germany.

  • The photograph was taken from about 100 m away from the Brandenburg Gate, i. e. here:
Camera location52° 30′ 59.04″ N, 13° 22′ 45.72″ E Kartographer map based on OpenStreetMap.View all coordinates using: OpenStreetMapinfo
-- אx 10:27, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 08:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Felis silvestris - July 2007-1.jpg, not featured

[edit]

Portrait of a street she-cat 

result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 08:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Island of Capri, from a boat offshore. 

result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 08:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

A Agile Frog (Rana dalmatina) landing in a stone Agile Frog

[edit]
result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 08:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]
result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 08:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Short description

Nein, ich hab mir die mal flux ausgeliehen um zu sehen ob die Kamera die 14 mal mehr kostet als meine, 14 mal bessere Bilder macht. Ich war ein bischen enttäuscht und hab danach einen Muskelkater gehabt. Aber tolles Maschinchen, trotzdem. --Richard Bartz 22:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 08:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Short description 

result: 0 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 08:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Saumon cru, mariné au vinaigre (avec estragon et baies roses). Le saumon est riche en oméga-3 qui agit sur le métabolisme du cholestérol, avec effet bénéfique sur le HDL, élément diminuant le risque d’athérome. 

result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 08:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Short description

No, I did not. --Digon3 talk 13:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 08:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]
result: 0 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 08:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Cascade de la Grande Ravine, La Réunion 

result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 08:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

water palais in Pillnitz, Germany 

result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 08:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Unknown darter

 Alvesgaspar 10:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] 

result: Nomination withdrawn => not featured. --Simonizer 06:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Red-veined darter

 Alvesgaspar 10:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] 

result: Nomination withdrawn => not featured. --Simonizer 06:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Scarlat darter

 Alvesgaspar 10:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] 

result: Nomination withdrawn => not featured. --Simonizer 06:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Red-veined darter

 Alvesgaspar 10:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] 

result: Nomination withdrawn => not featured. --Simonizer 06:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Yellow Lantana Camara 1 Edit.jpg

[edit]

Lantana Camara 

result: Nomination withdrawn => not featured. --Simonizer 06:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Female red-veined darter

 Alvesgaspar 10:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] 

result: Nomination withdrawn => not featured. --Simonizer 06:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Crown Prince Frederick William of Prussia - Illustrated London News August 20, 1870.PNG

[edit]
[edit]

Crown Prince Frederick William of Prussia, later Frederick III, German Emperor, in 1870. 

result: 4 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 12:01, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Simonizer 07:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Puffotter (Bitis arietans) 

result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Simonizer 07:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

The I-35W Mississippi River Bridge collapsing on August 1, 2007. This was caught by a surveillance camera near the southwest corner of the bridge, overlooking the Lower Saint Anthony Falls Lock.

  •  Info created by United States Army Corps of Engineers - uploaded by Anetode - nominated by Kulshrax --KULSHRAX 17:12, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --KULSHRAX 17:12, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Although this image is of low resolution and quality, it captures a historical moment excellently. This is the only known footage of the bridge's collapse, and that should be taken into account when rating this picture. It has huge historical significance and cannot be replicated, and I feel that those are strong, migrating reasons. KULSHRAX 17:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support--Mbz1 17:47, 4 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
  •  Support Beacuse of strong, migrating reasons. --Digon3 talk 17:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose far too small, I can hardly see what's happening. Lycaon 18:11, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Comment Well, I don't really see anything that can be done to fix that now, unless more footage surfaces, but this is the only know footage of the event, and footage of this kind is extremely rare, so I feel that it is acceptable, because it is possible the the security camera that caught this footage could only produce this resolution. Also, when you think about it, it is remarkable that this is in color, because the majority of security cameras are in black and white. KULSHRAX 18:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose agree with lycaon, I also can't see the "huge historical significance" of this event. It's really great to have this video here on commons but that doesn't mean it has to be featured, there are tons of pictures that are unique here. -- Gorgo 00:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support I mean, people still talk about the Tay Bridge disaster (Victorian era), and various other fallen bridges. I can't help but think that this will be similar, at least in its local area. Adam Cuerden 01:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose It is really extraordinary, but I think a bridge disaster not have enough historical value to counterweight the low resolution and bad composition. Sorry --Beyond silence 02:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I don't see any reasons why this animation should be a FP. --AngMoKio 11:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose agree with lycaon --Donarreiskoffer 11:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support At the moment, the rules (guidelines) say that FP is about valuable pictures. This is clearly an important image, and a valuable image. If this nomination fails, then I suggest we change the written guidelines to make it clear that we want pretty pictures, and that things like historical value are nice to have, but not as important as being pretty. Regards, Ben Aveling 23:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment I think too the value is more important than being pretty. But I am not agree with you, this isn't a very important image. A war, an invention or revolution changes the history, and has a historical value. A bridge collapse is terrible, but don't change the going of world - to being terrible don't more than being pretty! --Beyond silence 00:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 7 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral =>not featured. Simonizer 07:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Short description 

result: 10 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 07:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Pair of seagulls (Larus argentatus) 

result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:The Bible - Gospel of John - Chapter 19.JPG, not featured

[edit]
  • ✓ Done - Your concerns have been fixed. How on Earth I saw 'chapter 9' I have no idea! I have also noted the Gospel of John, however I am afraid I can't do anything about the printing - it's a direct transcription of the King James Version which was first published in 1611. RedCoat 22:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 07:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Flower of Ibitipoca 

result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 07:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Taktshang.jpg

[edit]

Taktshang Monastery, Bhutan by Greenmnm69 (Douglas J. McLaughlin) Taktshang Monastery, Bhutan by Greenmnm69 (Douglas J. McLaughlin) Taktshang Monastery, Bhutan by Greenmnm69 (Douglas J. McLaughlin)

[edit]
result: 0 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 08:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]
result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 08:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

 Info I agree that this white sky is unaesthetic, but it was cloudy so it's impossible to get something else.I propose an edit: I cropped the picture and I adjusted the levels. It's still rather dark, but the monastery is in the shadow. Vassil 07:58, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] 

result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 22:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Contre-jour talk.jpg

[edit]

Talking in the evening. Example of a contre-jour Talking in the evening. Example of a contre-jour

[edit]
result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]
result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 22:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Caterpillar of the Spurge Hawk-moth 

result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 22:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Short description 

result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 22:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

A crab-eating macaque in Lopburi, Thailand. 

result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. (rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 23:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Lavatera maritima 

result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 23:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]
 Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: it is too small --Simonizer 16:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
[edit]

Armenian crossstone in Dsegh village

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: it is too small - Alvesgaspar 12:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

Image:Grasfrosch1.jpg

[edit]

Grasfrosch (Rana temporaria) Grasfrosch (Rana temporaria) 

result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 08:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


[edit]
result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 18:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Dibujo copia.jpg

[edit]

Short description

[edit]
result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 22:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]
result: 0 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 18:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Short description 

result: 15 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 18:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Two species of Cheloniidae in Kélonia, Réunion 

result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 18:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Short description

 Comment Hmmm, I just wanted to illustrate here how to remove some dust...and now that. Yes it is a cylindrical projection, in panorama context I would call that a bog-standard projection. The horizontal angle covered is 180 degrees, too much for a rectilinear projection. -- Klaus with K 13:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Question what other projection covering 180+ degrees FoV do you suggest? -- Klaus with K 12:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to be more than 180 degrees and looks like a rectilinear projection? Maybe its possible? --Digon3 talk 19:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It cannot be rectilinear. My guess is its cylindrical too, wit a semistatistical distribution of trees you just don't notice it. In Klaus' picture there are many straight and linear elements which get distorted by the projection. No biggie for me, I prefer conserved proportions over straight lines in this case. --Dschwen 20:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Vertical features do show as vertical. Some old buildings are simply not vertical. -- Klaus with K
result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 18:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Buds of an oleander 

result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 18:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Short description 

result: 5 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. --Beyond silence 03:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Short description 

result:  5 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. --Beyond silence 03:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Thymelicus sylvestris Thymelicus sylvestris

[edit]
result:  3 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. --Beyond silence 03:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]
result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. --Beyond silence 03:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Pieczęć Jagiełły.jpg

[edit]

Royal seal of Władysław Jagiełło 

result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. --Beyond silence 03:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Uina Gorge in Engadin, Switzerland 

result: 4 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. --Beyond silence 04:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Aeshna cyanea male in flight

  •  Comment I don't know that it is a fair comparison, different insects, different behaviour, dragon flies fly very fast, do mating hover flies fly at full speed ? (might they just hover :-) --Tony Wills 22:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 9 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. --Beyond silence 04:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Short description***

V1 Close up

Sorry I cant deliver that. The lens is at its maximum with f16 at a magnification of 2,5x. --Richard Bartz 12:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC) Forget it. --Richard Bartz 12:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 6 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. --Beyond silence 04:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


V2 Total view

[edit]

Thats why he was so relaxed ? :) I agree --Richard Bartz 13:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 4 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. --Beyond silence 04:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Short description

No sir, thank you, thats all. I have to watch out for the dragonfly above, yummie! :) --Richard Bartz 16:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC) [reply]
Greeeeeeeeegor gor gor gor :P --Richard Bartz 22:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC) [reply]
 Info Neu-Schönau, im Bayerischen Wald --Richard Bartz 12:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC) [reply]
result: 14 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. --Beyond silence 04:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Nyamata Memorial Site, skulls.

Do you mean in a gallery? No problem, I create to it a category. My pleasure. --Beyond silence 19:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 7 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Simonizer 07:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edited

[edit]

Nyamata Memorial Site, skulls.
Edited by --Beyond silence 19:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose very noisy --Bergwolf 20:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] 

result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit 2

[edit]

Dropped the brightness a smidgen and upped the contrast, getting rid of the noise.

 Support Adam Cuerden 21:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] 

result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Diavolezza hut and aerial tram station. 

result: 6 support, 4 oppose, 2 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Kissing Prairie dog.JPG

[edit]

Short description Short description
Short description

[edit]
Why not imagine to watch it with a pinkish brown sunglas? :-)) --Richard Bartz 20:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

 Question For the colours, do you prefer like this? Vassil 20:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] 

result: 8 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured  Simonizer 07:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you promote the Edit3 when Edit has that votes too? --Beyond silence 08:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Guess because the colours were not correct??? Lycaon 08:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ack Lycaon --Richard Bartz 08:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong count. 8 people supported this one. Digon3 said he supported all, but the first.--Mbz1 12:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
So edit 3 has 8 support-votes, too. So the situation is the same. Personally i find the colours in this version oversaturated. So i decided to feature the other version. But I dont know what to do in such a situation. The guidlines say we should feature only one picture of the same motif. So i decided to feature the last one. But if you dont agree with this decision, what else can we do? Should we consider a new nomination of both edits? --Simonizer 13:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC) Iam confused. I copy Digons Support vote and feature this one. --Simonizer 13:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Just for Beyond Silence red spot is removed(I wish I knew how it came about in the first place)--Mbz1 22:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]

Thanks, it is better for everybody! ;) --Beyond silence 22:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

I've been naughty and removed the onlooker in the background. Lycaon 14:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doubleplus  Support Wonderful! --Richard Bartz 18:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hahaha, good Vassil, I missed that one. Thanks. I'll fix it. Lycaon 14:08, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but there is nothing to 'like' about natural colours. That's how they are. Lycaon 18:31, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 7 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (other version has more support votes)  Simonizer 07:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Short description

Shurely it was possible to take this butterfly with 100ISO, a ring flash, from a sideview or topview for low noise and "perfekt?" DoF, but this causes in a very dark background, boring composition and unnatural colors. What i tried and still try is to display the 100% brightness of the background, i mean the state i have seen at the place. Its not possible with my cheaper 400D, so i used 800ISO which causes a slight noise. DoF: the most FP butterflies are from a sideview, so taking one from diagonal view by this distance and no crop at a apperature of 14 which is 3x higher than your eye (another unnatural thing) result in this image. As a example, this one is in apple-pie order with a greater distance, but very boring for me. --Richard Bartz 16:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The human eye works differently than a lens because the brain sees perceived sharpness differently than just whatever the aperture is.
result: 7 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 07:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Kleine Emme

Yes but they are the motif and they are building great lines through the picture and letting your eyes move around --Simonizer 22:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And as far as I can remember there are not many featured pictures of this kind (river- or forest- or similar detailpictures ) at wikimedia. And i thought this one is pretty good because of the composition and the strong contrasts of dark and bright areas. But now I see how wrong i could be. ;-) --Simonizer 07:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Darter August 2007-3.jpg

[edit]

Red-veined darter Red-veined darter

[edit]
result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]
  •  Info - Alternative improved picture added - Alvesgaspar 19:26, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support - Alvesgaspar 19:26, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Good sharpness. --Beyond silence 02:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I will admit great pickiness in my evaluation of insect photos, but this composition is better than many, but the DoF could be higher, and certainly the resolution as well. Is this a crop or a downsample? I would have liked to see a smaller aperture for more DoF. The composition, however, is excellent and should be the benchmark for future insect photos of this type. -- Ram-Man 03:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Depends on the size of the insect --Richard Bartz 01:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      •  Info - This is a crop, not a downsample. Maybe I could get a little closer with my macro lens (not much) but then the DOF limitations would be even worse. The only way to get the whole insect in focus is to take him from above. Yes, I believe there is some pickiness in your evaluation, this is one of my best (two) dragonflies photo. The other one was opposed because the wings were distracting (?). Perhaps there is some irritation in the reviewers because I nominated so many dragonflies in a short time. Even if none of them is promoted (the most certain thing) I'm sure they have contributed for raising the bar in this particular subject. - Alvesgaspar 11:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • This would have been a neutral vote for me a couple months ago, but I think I'm trying to raise the bar a little so that only perfect pictures get through. Unless this insect is smaller than I think it is, you could have gotten closer (theoretically) for more resolution. The composition makes the DoF issue less important, although I would have shot the picture at f/13 (if given the choice). Also, the focus is not on the eye, which is a bit distracting. For me it was very close, but just not quite there. -- Ram-Man 01:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support WOW! -- Slaunger 15:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Red-veined darter Red-veined darter

[edit]
result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 16:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]
result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 16:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

So what ? Can't the grunt duck to level with the girl ? If that thing symbolises anything to me, it's the dehumanising which produces faceless people unable to look at their children in the eyes.
But the point on featured picture review is not what things represent, it's more whether it's a good idea the make portrait of people which cut them at their crotch. Rama 08:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I am not immune to emotions convoyed by photos of children torn by war, at the image on the right shows. But you can witness that this works better when 1) it looks less cheesy 2) the grunt is shown as a human being whose humanity shows through the uniform, rather than just the bottom part of a combat droid. Rama 08:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Eeek, I'd rather never had had to see it. Rama 11:12, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
May he think it's a directed scene. --Beyond silence 18:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it is a staged photo, the angle would be less lousy. It is probably a candid, and yes it is propaganda, which is fine in itself. The problem is that it is cheap and mediocre propaganda. Rama 08:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's the bag, the feet of the grunt and the teddy are cut, the background is disturbing, and the composition is lousy. Sharpness and lightning are passable, hooray! Rama 07:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I agree with Smokizzy in that the meaning of an image is always depending on the context it is presented in, and how it is interpreted. However, to me this image feels staged, overromantic and somehow like a "cliché". That is what makes me associate it with propaganda. This does neither mean that the image actually is any of that, nor that it was intended in such a way or that no other interpretation would be possible. Sorry if I offended somebody. --Christoph Michels 00:13, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 17 support, 9 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 17:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Paul Simonon mg 6701b.jpg

[edit]
[edit]

Paul Simonon 

result: 4 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 17:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

result: 0 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 17:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

result: 8 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 17:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Diagram of the Digestive system

It takes a hell of lot more effort to produce this kind of artwork than it does to make a small microscope image... ;) Lycaon 11:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • this diagram is nothing special, actually is a quite usual diagram, it is used in more than 20 pages in 7 diferent projects, and has been translated to 7 languages. and still i think you are right...on the other hand , diagrams are not done to be special, but to be usefull.-LadyofHats 23:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • True, very useful. But it just falls short on wow factor for me. I guess there are two ways a diagram like this could work: it could show accurate spatial relationship, or it could show a functional relationship, what feeds into what for example. I'm not sure about the first, but I don't think it achieves the second. I agree it's useful, I just think it might be a little more beautiful as well. The colors seem chosen to distinguish the differences between the organs, which they do, but the resulting image, it, well, I just think it could be prettier without detracting from its usefulness. And such a diagram could show flow, if desired. Add a little whitespace between organs that don't 'communicate' with each other in some meaningful way. And/or add little arrows showing the passage of food, and/or the passage of bile, and/or whatever else is of interest. It's not bad. I just think it could be better. My apologies for not explaining my vote more fully earlier. Regards, Ben Aveling 12:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
File:Digestive system photo.jpg
  •  Info- here is a picture of the actual arrengment of organs in the human body,it is in fact a picture of an actual body. and still half of the liver in this picture was removed to have some view in the stomach. if you can understand what is there , how they concet to each other, and where a organ ends and the next starts. then i will do you a diagram that looks this way. Increasing the size of the surrounding outline would result again in organs that are far too small for the body.so it is not the solution... if this is not enough to convince you, then i sugest you google an image on the digestive system. and tell me how this : [10],[11],[12],[13], [14], [15],[16],[17],[18], [19],[20] people can breath.. I mean couldnt you at least make a little bit of research before giving your opinion on a diagram?. (ok the last one was a chiken but wanted to see if you were looking all of them :P)
  • i really dont want to be agresive nor pushy, but sometimes you really seem to have no idea what you are talking about. Isnt there a doctor in between you? havent you at least look for your high school book and double check? arent you at least a bit curious? Making this diagrams takes a hell of a lot of work, and time. To come and simply kick it back with a "is nothing special" is more than just ofensive. if it is really nothing special then ok with me, next time i make it with 2 hearts surely you will think it is special then. the point here is that some things doesnt need to be special, diagrams must be simple, clear and illustrative. they should Explain something. the reason why people uses diagrams now a days, even when they require far more work than a picture is becouse in many cases they are more clear, more simple and more illustrative than a picture....I just dont understand you. really-LadyofHats 10:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Info I'm very close to supporting this, and I don't underestimate how much time and skill it has taken, nor do I think it 'not special'. My point is a narrow one: that the outline of the body down both sides gives a misleading impression of where the organs actually go, and suggests a physical position which - as LadyofHats points out - was never the intention. Could you not simply remove the body outline, so that there's no implication of where the organs fit - as for example with [21] ? I would happily then support. But in any event, even if this does not pass, I for one very much appreciate the high level of skill that's been dispayed here. --MichaelMaggs 16:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 5 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 17:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Werdau - townhall (aka).jpg, featured

[edit]

townhall in Werdau, Germany 

result: 12 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 17:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Short description

  •  Info created & nominated by --Richard Bartz 17:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Info A hornet with the upper torso of a honeybee, which she gathers for her breed.
    Trenching the bee in a Bat-like posture lasts less then 20 hectic seconds. Adult Hornets just eat plants-juice.
Like our highly respected Alvesgaspar said: "The best wine should never offered at the beginning", or something like that :-) --Richard Bartz 17:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC) [reply]
result: 21 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 17:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:USA Höhle.JPG

[edit]
[edit]

Antelope Canyon in Arizona

you can replace it with badname template, ask a Admin. Regards Richie --Richard Bartz 22:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 because i nominated another version Lucas Löffler 23:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] 

result: Nomination withdrawn => not featured. Simonizer 07:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

The Antelope Canyon in the USA,Arizona 

result: 14 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 19:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]
result: Nomination withdrawn => not featured. Simonizer 07:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 20:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Country of Vysočina Region, Czech Republic 

result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral =>not featured. Simonizer 20:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Short description 

result: 5 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral =>featured. Simonizer 20:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Chrysotoxum cautum

|Author= Richard Bartz, Munich aka Makro Freak -> two aurhors? --D-Kuru 11:53, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 13 support, 5 oppose, 2 neutral => featured. D-Kuru 17:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Portulaca grandiflora 

result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 20:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Unique diagram about macroeconomic system

Which symbol's meaning don't you find? There is on the picture! (T=Tax, TH from household=household's tax, isn't logic?)--Beyond silence 00:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result:' Nomination withdrawn => not featured. Simonizer 19:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Calopteryx virgo (female) 

result: 0 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 20:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Short description

Yours seems to need to be rotated 90 degrees CCW and has alot of noise. See this to get a perfect white background for future macros. As for the DOF, both of ours may fall a little short. :) --Digon3 talk 01:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See the the second nomination below this one for a (mostly) clean one. --Digon3 talk 01:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is why I posted mine in fron of yours - to take all Opposes to myself and let your picture a green light :)--Mbz1 01:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
  •  
result: Nomination withdrawn -> not featured --Simonizer 19:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Short description

  •  Comment Can we have the inside view from the original (suitably cleaned) next to the outside view from the new image (rotated to be in the same orientation? I think that would look best. I think this is going to be an FP, but it'll need a little work. - consider running it by en:WP:GL/IMPROVE or another graphics lab? Adam Cuerden 18:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  
result:' Nomination withdrawn => not featured. Simonizer 19:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]
result:' Nomination withdrawn => not featured. Simonizer 19:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Summer alpine meadow

 QuestionThank you for the feedback—I greatly appreciate it. If someone wouldn't mind, here is the raw photo: what tweaks would you suggest? I have Photoshop CS2, but don't mind using another program. EncMstr 05:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Question This is cropped and has increased contrast and slightly increased brightness to balance the histogram. What is the goal of downsampling? EncMstr 01:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 20:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Joy of Freedom

 12.3.226.126 15:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] 

result:' Nomination withdrawn => not featured. Simonizer 19:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unformatierten Text hier einfügen

[edit]

Georgetown University's Healy Hall

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: too noisy. -- Lycaon 08:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
[edit]

Short description

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: too small. Lycaon 08:14, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
  •  Comment We've had a lengthy discussion about image sizes in QI. In this case composition, subject and rareness (a such detailed photo of the calyptra of the moss Orthotrichum anomalum is pretty unique on the internet) outweighs image size. Fabelfroh 09:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Question What size is the moss? How was the image taken? The metadata says it was with a Canon PowerShot A80? If so, why isn't it possible to get a larger image? Regards, Ben Aveling 09:36, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment The capsulas of the moss we're about 1 mm. The photo already shows a 80% crop. I could upload a full version with about 900 x 650 pixel. But the resulting image will have high noise levels which I have removed in the version above. As I recall correctly the image was taken with ISO 200 which is a lot for a compact camera from 2003. Fabelfroh 14:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Paris by Night, from the top floor of the Eiffel Tower. The view includes the Palais de la Decouverte and place de la Concorde. 

result: 2 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 10:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Henry Wadsworth Longfellow

It is not a photo, I think that is an only empty part as top of hand. --Beyond silence 23:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ay, that's just how they did engravings, though it was probably similar in the photograph: One of the reasons I like engravings for Victorian subjects is that photographs of that time are often in pretty bad shape by now, but the engravings keep very well, and often have more detail. Adam Cuerden 15:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 10:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Short description

  •  Info created by Richardfabi - uploaded by Richardfabi - nominated by Richardfabi --Richardfabi 08:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral (selfnomination). I like the composition and the light very much. --Richardfabi 08:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Technicaly isn't enough good (noise, expose). Sorry --Beyond silence 23:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment It would have been better if the lighting was reversed, e.g. the white building was in the shadows and the dark building had the sun reflection off of it. --Digon3 talk 13:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral That's a picture of my town! I like the light and especially the sky. Composition is very 'classic' but good. Some noise however, and a strange impression of unsharpness, although actually sharp at full res. Contrast in the lighting of the left and right buildings: yes, but 'reversing' the lighting by choosing another moment of the day is not possible. The buildings on the left are lit by the sun only on late summer evenings in june and july, and then the tower is only a silhouette because of the sun behind it... Conclusion: nice picture, but just not good enough for FP nomination, I'm afraid. -- MJJR 21:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral Sorry I'm biased too, I used to live 150 m from there at some time... But I agree with MJJR. Let's try to make a better one of this place, Marc. Lycaon 08:15, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 0 support, 1 oppose, 3 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 11:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Ile Madame, France 

result: 0 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) --Simonizer 14:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Centre Pompidou Facade HDR.jpg

[edit]

300px|Details of the Georges Pompidou centre building, in Paris, at night.

Image:Hoverfly.jpg

[edit]

Short description 

result: 6 Keep, 3 Delist, 0 neutral => not delisted. --Simonizer 14:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Darter August 2007-13.jpg

[edit]

Female red-veined darter Female red-veined darter

[edit]
I am curious about it when he will contribute a picture to this list, and if, i guarantee, we will look veeeeeeeeery closely. :-)) --Richard Bartz 23:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment  Support This is nice, but be careful: At f/16 you lose image sharpness from diffraction that can't be fully recovered by image sharpening:
    1. f/10 -> 10MP maximum resolution
    2. f/13 -> 6MP maximum resolution
    3. f/16 -> 4MP maximum resolution
    So unless you are downsampling to those resolutions, the DoF increase may not be worth it, especially if you crop a lot. (See here for calculations). -- Ram-Man 03:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a  Comment This looks like a vector graphic for me, sowhat postprocessed, I would say this is cheating, sportsmanlike. If this is your definition of your thrown in "raised bar", na servus. --Richard Bartz 17:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment - I don't know the reason for this "painted" look, it is in the raw file also! I will have to verify if there is some noise reduction process active in the camera. Alvesgaspar 18:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd be surprised it's due to some noise reduction process if it's already in the RAW file. As the name suggests, RAW files contain unprocessed datas from the sensor. -- Benh 22:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For me it looks like a heavy manipulation with Capture NX's unsharp mask --Richard Bartz 00:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Loss of any detail/structure, due very excessive postproduction. I hold it with the classic style and see this very sportsmanlike, sorry. But indeed a very nice picture. --Richard Bartz 00:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Ack Richard. Might not have been intentional, but you only got your camera very recently, maybe you'll find out what happened. --Dschwen 22:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I've changed my vote to raise the bar. I originally evaluated this image at 2MP, and it is indeed acceptable at my standard viewing requirements. I didn't even notice and/or care about the overprocessing. But an exception to my standards should be made for insect photos: they should look better at higher resolutions based on the quality body of work that we already have. -- Ram-Man 00:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result:' 4 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. --Simonizer 19:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative (right), notfeatured

[edit]
result:' 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. --Simonizer 15:23, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Short description

Why can not I see the picture? --Beyond silence 00:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is /ad/ in your anti-banner blocking list (KAV?) --Chrumps 17:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result:' 12 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. --Simonizer 15:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Israel - Haifa - Bahai Gardens 004.jpg, not featured

[edit]

Bahai Gardens at Haifa, Israel 

result:' 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. --Simonizer 15:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Enallagma cyathigerum in Belgium 

result: 6 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Simonizer 21:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Aegypius monachus 

result: 6 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 21:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Gentiana pneumonanthe 

result: 0 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 22:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Brilliant Lighting 

result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 22:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Aitutaki sunset 1.jpg, not delisted

[edit]

result: 10 Keep, 3 Delist, 0 neutral => not delisted. Simonizer 15:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Aerogel nasa.jpg, not delisted

[edit]

Short description

SIZE...? --Beyond silence 12:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 8 Keep, 2 Delist, 0 neutral => not delisted. Simonizer 21:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:African penguins.jpg, not delisted

[edit]

Short description

Because it is not enough good. What do you like in that history? Some weak picture was been one of best? What are you talking about! If anybody thinking about my technical possibilities then I will thinking about it. --Beyond silence 13:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 8 Keep, 6 Delist, 0 neutral => not delisted. Simonizer 21:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Common snail.jpg, not delisted

[edit]

Short description 

result: 4 Keep, 6 Delist, 0 neutral => not delisted. Simonizer 21:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Crepuscular ray sunset from telstra tower edit.jpg, not delisted

[edit]

Short description

Because it is not enough good. What do you like in that history? Some weak picture was been one of best? What are you talking about! --Beyond silence 13:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Its not allways the technic things --Richard Bartz 19:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 6 Keep, 4 Delist, 0 neutral => not delisted. Simonizer 21:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit 1

[edit]

Edit 1

I guess the irony was lost on you... despite the footnote! --Fir0002 www 05:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is an FP - this is an edit of the FP above (reduced noise) --Fir0002 www 22:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Only one edit of picture can be FP, I think. --Beyond silence 01:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:LilacBreastedRollerCropped.jpg, not delisted

[edit]

Lilac Breasted Roller

It was cropped from this version. There are other picture of this type of bird here --Digon3 16:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 3 Delist, 0 Keep, 0 neutral =>not delisted. Simonizer 16:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ring tailed lemur and twins.jpg, delisted

[edit]

Short description

Ok, I found it already. Only I don't know on the pict.'s page why is it unavaliable? --Beyond silence 22:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because, frankly, the featured picture template is broken. If an edit is proposed, and is the one that makes FP (not uncommon) the template links to the nomination as if it was nominated under the new filename. Adam Cuerden 23:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 2 Keep, 5 Delist, 1 neutral => delisted. --Simonizer 21:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:PetrifiedWood.jpg, delisted

[edit]

Short description 

result: 10 Delist, 0 Keep, 0 neutral => delisted. --Simonizer (talk) 11:14, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Walls of Dubrovnik

A wall of cars could be interesting, yeah! --Richard Bartz 00:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Beyond silence 04:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] 

result: Nomination withdrawn -> not featured. --Simonizer 21:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Tree frog in banana plant

And yet you felt it was worth nominating... or perhaps that was just another example of misuse of this page --Fir0002 www 06:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How did you guess I was talking about your image? Maybe because it is the only one image of a frog on a white paper? As I mentioned earlier I nominated your image with the only reason, which is to learn, if it gets promoted or not. I have many encyclopedies of animals and bugs, but none show a bug, or a frog, or any life creature for that matter at a white paper. In my opinion it is just boring and not encyclopedic. Yet I guess I'd like to learn how you do it. I mean how you take a bee or a wasp or a frog and put them on white paper?--Mbz1 04:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 22:25, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Aragonite Mineral

  •  Support Not as good as I would expect (macro shots of still subjects is much easier and should deliver the very best of sharpness and details) but good enough, especially the lighting, and I guess we don't have better pic of similar subjects for now. -- Benh 09:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose ac Beyond silence --Lestat 16:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose a reproducible macro shot like this should be perfect, this is off center has soft focus, the light could come a little more from the front etc. Good QI but not excellent. --Dschwen 21:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At least I now this has a chance now. I'll wait for my new camera to come and then I will reshoot this. Does anyone else have preferences on different lighting? --Digon3 talk 13:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 22:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Orsay Museum Panorama, in Paris, seen from the right bank of the Seine 

result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 22:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Short description 

result: Nomination withdrawn => not featured. Simonizer 22:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]
result: Nomination withdrawn => not featured. Simonizer 22:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Rio de Janeiro - Pão de Açucar - Cablecar.jpg, not featured

[edit]

Cablecar to the Pão de Açucar (Sugarloaf mountain) in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil 

result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 22:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Short description

  •  Info Eastern banjo frog created by Fir0002 - uploaded by Fir0002 - nominated by mbz1 --Mbz1 19:20, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose The context is completly wrong. A white box and a frog. It may be nice for lots of other subjects but not for a frog. Show me mud, dirt and nature! But not a sterile white box. Metoc 19:33, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment - I do not intend to vote on this picture because I don't agree with the reasons for nominating it. If the nominator really wants to get it promoted, please begin by supporting it. Alvesgaspar 20:56, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not all nominators support the nominated pictures. You could find quite a few pictures at that very page that were not supported by the nominators. I'm not sure what my reasons for nominating the picture have to do with your vote. If you like the picture, then support it. If you do not like the picture, then oppose it or skip the vote. By the way my only reason for nominating the picture was to see, if it gets promoted.--Mbz1 21:33, 18 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
  •  Support Good sharpness (may it resized), and lighting. Clear composition. --Beyond silence 00:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose IMO the white background makes the frog look artificial - like plastic. I just does not look right to me. -- Slaunger 01:36, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose due to white background. This is the type of shot for an obvious and unashamed QI and easily has lots of encyclopedic value. My own FP frog has a natural background that compliments the frog and is a better example than the one above. -- Ram-Man 03:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I don't mind the white background. It has wow and is valuable (and it is an unashamed QI attempt). The only thing that bugs me though for an object this size is the limited DOF. Lycaon 08:26, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, in my opinion the size alone cannot be the reason. The rulls are: "Resolution - Photographs of lower resolution than 2 million pixels (e.g. 1600 x 1200 = 1.92 million) are typically rejected unless there are 'strong mitigating reasons'." The nominated picture is displayed at Wikipedia Main Page. Few days ago it was a picture of the day. Isn't this enough 'strong mitigating reasons'?--Mbz1 12:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply] 
result: Nomination withdrawn => not featured. Simonizer 22:36, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Short description 

result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 22:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

A pedestrian bridge over Mulyanka River with Parkovy microdistrict (Perm) on background. View from the new bridge at Stroiteley Street. 

result: 0 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 22:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Short description 

result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 22:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Short description 

result: Nomination withdrawn => not featured. Simonizer 22:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Short description 

result: Nomination withdrawn => not featured. Simonizer 22:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Snow in Holland.jpg, delisted

[edit]

Short description

Orwell's book inn't in this case. --Beyond silence 13:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 2 Keep, 7 Delist, 0 neutral => delisted. Simonizer 22:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Mantis religiosa

can elaborate that? What is wrong with background and lighting? --AngMoKio 21:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, the background is unatural (concrete) and the tilted fence and overexposed sky is disturbing. As for the lighting, the use of a flash really ruins it for me. Great focus on the Mantis though. --Digon3 talk 13:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The background is concrete and not nature..ok... but what's the problem with that? It is part of the composition and furthermore insects also exists in cities not only in nature. The sky is maybe a little overexposed, but it is also totally out of focus and at least the sky is still blue and not white. The photographer used flash and f/8 and thus got the sky blue...how would you make that shot without a little overexposure in the sky? And what is the problem with overexposure anyway? Overexposure in general is nothing bad...especially in not relevant parts of the picture. --AngMoKio 14:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 12 support, 8 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 20:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Short description

I took photo, uploaded my computer and uploaded commons in same time, except this. I didn't use any software--Machiavelli talk 19:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I didn't mean you did anything wrong. Just that it might look better if someone with software poked at it a little. Adam Cuerden 22:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, just little information.:)--Machiavelli talk 08:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 10 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 20:36, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Interchange near Lausanne 

result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 21:03, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Korean Fir cone. 

result: 10 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 20:37, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Short description 

result: Nomination withdrawn => not featured. Simonizer 20:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Water tower in St. Petersburg 

result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 20:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ibón de Estanés.jpg

[edit]

Ibón de Estanés (Aragonese Pyrenees)

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: too noisy. Lycaon 17:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
[edit]

Short description

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: overexposed and has a poor background. --MichaelMaggs 08:20, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
[edit]

Moth on Deck

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: too out of focus. --MichaelMaggs 08:21, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

Image:FA-18F Super Hornet "Jolly Rogers".jpg

[edit]

F/A-18F Super Hornet Edit

[edit]
result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 21:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit

[edit]
result: 4 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Lycaon 06:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]
Short description
1 2
3 4
5
  •  InfoAn ant in the small piece (1.5cm *2cm) of amber created , uploaded and nominated by Mbz1 --Mbz1 21:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Mbz1 21:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Composition, overexposed parts, noise. Sorry --Beyond silence 23:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment You withdrew too early in my opinion. I really like the composition and there is no noise. To criticise the overexposure here is simply ridiculous. The only problem with the photo is that it is not too sharp and I think there are some jpeg artefacts. Maybe a size reduction can help. --AngMoKio 09:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I think that it is a good picture of a difficult subject.For me it has the wow factor.But it would be better without the lines at the bottom. Vassil 12:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I agree AngMoKio, you withdrew too early. This is one of those pictures that downsampling might really help. --Digon3 talk 13:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Dont get demotivated too early :) --Richard Bartz 19:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Thank you, everybody. I will let it stay not because I believe it will pass, but rather because I'd like to share with you wonderful world of amber for few more days. I'm going to post few more pictures here not to vote, but to look and to see. I hope the other pictures will also help you to understand how dificult the subject is. Once again, I know that in the end it is result what matters. The second picture shows a fly in my necklace. It is a very interesting piece because you could see "the crater" created, when a fly hit the resin. The third picture is the ant from the nominated picture again, but now you could better see the size. The fourth picture is mosquito from the same necklace as a fly. Please, note that mosquito survived the hole that was drilled, when the necklace was made. By the way, when I bougt the necklace, I have not look for insects in it. I found insects much later, when I looked every piece through 16x magnifier glass. One more picture shows few ants in amber. Once again these pictures posted here not to vote, but to better introduce the topic.--Mbz1 23:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
  •  Comment I would like to support the third image in the top row. It is really nice - I think. And since we have so many insects featured here I think this would be a very good contribution to FP.--Christoph Michels 09:26, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks, Christoph Michels. An insect in amber will be very good contribution. If nothing else it will be something different and quite unique for FR. I do not think #3 is to pass with my fingers in the image.--Mbz1 15:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
    • Actually, I like the fingers. They somehow give a scale to the subject. The compression might be more of a problem to me. Your fingers seem to have "stripes". --Christoph Michels 23:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 I wish it was withdrown, when I've done it first time. 

result: Nomination withdrawn => not featured. Simonizer 21:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]


  •  
result: Nomination withdrawn => not featured. Simonizer 22:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]
  •  Info created by Mbz1 - uploaded by Richard Bartz - nominated by Mbz1
  •  Info Worked on the slight noise issue, adjusted levels and rised slightly the sharpness, also modified the crop.

I was watching "Tarantula" in the meantime, so it was ok ;) --Richard Bartz 01:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Much better. --Beyond silence 00:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support ----ßøuñçêY2K 00:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Considerably better, but noise and focus problems still remain. Such issues simply shouldn't arise in an FP of a stationary subject where the photographer has plenty of time to set up the camera for an optimal image. --MichaelMaggs 21:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The guideline for the nomination states: Every important object on the picture should be sharp. Important objects of the pictures are insects and they are sharp.I also do not consider that statement of yours: "Such issues simply shouldn't arise in an FP of a stationary subject where the photographer has plenty of time to set up the camera for an optimal image" to be polite. I believe we shuold discuss the image and not "the photographer" and not even his camera. How do you know what camera was used? How could you tell, if it could have been put at tripod? How do you know, if I have a macro lens for such small objects, or I do not.I'd also like to remind you that "stationary subject" are kind of very, very smal and just btw are inside amber (2 different pieces of amber, with different colors and a very different structure). How could you possibly know how much time I spent to take these pictures and what it took to take them? If you'd like to oppose every one of my images, please do so, yet I'd like to ask you to stop discussing my photography skills. I do not consider it to be polite.I guess what I meant to say is: "Welcome back, MichaelMaggs"--Mbz1 21:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
My comments were intended to be constructive criticism as to how the image might be improved. Sorry if they didn't come over that way.--MichaelMaggs 05:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose - Agree with MichaelMaggs - Alvesgaspar 08:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not sure in what aspect you agree with MichaelMaggs: that "noise and focus problems still remain" or that "Such issues simply shouldn't arise in an FP of a stationary subject where the photographer has plenty of time to set up the camera for an optimal image.", or maybe both? Yet somehow I do not really care. I guess the most important thing is that you agree with MichaelMaggs.--Mbz1 20:23, 25 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
  •  I'm not sure, if it is still my nomination, or Richard is the one, who is the nominator on it now. Richard, if it is the case, please, withdraw it. Thank you, everybody for votes and for comments.
result: Nomination withdrawn => not featured. Simonizer 21:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

result: Nomination withdrawn => not featured. Simonizer 22:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Lincoln Memorial (south wall interior).jpg

[edit]

South interior wall of the Lincoln Memorial

  •  Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Gmaxwell
  •  Support We need more historical reference grade images of archiecture. --Gmaxwell 00:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eh? For some reason, it will not show at full size. Adam Cuerden 00:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support The lighting is not the best, but has great resolution and sharpness. --Beyond silence 01:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Great stitching job, a lot of details and a nice composition -> I support, even though it's a bit dark. Benh 06:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose - The fresco, which is one of the main elements in the picture is not well lit. - Alvesgaspar 09:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Nice work but lighting is really problematic and as a result it can't describe/illustrate its subject well... - Noumenon talk 10:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • So, lighting which does not accurately represent the subject would illustrate it better? This is a 100 ft tall building, not a table top object. The drab and solemn lighting is part of the memorial and it's widely mentioned in discussions of the building, to remove it would be to create a lie. I'm okay with the notion that we won't feature images of some subjects if they accurately represent reality, but please don't go so far as to claim that an image must be a fabrication to well illustrate its subject.--Gmaxwell 06:49, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • How would you suggest this be corrected? --Gmaxwell 12:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I just discovered this technique you probably know so : I do suggest you make three shots with different exposure (bracketing ?) of this (I know it's a stitched pic, so this will be harder for you) and combine them to get a HDR picture. This way, the room will appear brighter, but the ceiling won't be overexposed. Also, Would taking this pic at another moment change something ? Benh 08:34, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Excellent technical quality and resolution. IMO not enough wow for FP - lightning is not the best. -- Slaunger 15:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose This is one of those wonderfully detailed shots that is likely unique on the internet and of great encyclopedic value, but it is more suited to QI, because it lacks sufficient wow. I know people want FP because it's more "prestigious" than QI, but that's not what this is about. The lighting is somewhat problematic, but I'm not sure how you'd go around fixing it. -- Ram-Man 05:08, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree a little. Some kind of picture aren't "WOW" by nature, but I think this should not detract us from promoting them. That is why I voted for this nomination of yours : it's the best we have of the subject for now and as far as I know, and it's good enough. FP should cover the largest range. But here I guess the lighting killed it for many. -- Benh 08:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • We both have different standards, but I did support this building panorama because I believe it had fewer weaknesses than others in its category, despite not being the most exciting for me. My image is a natural texture, which is different in my mind from man-made subject matter. This is why I vote differently. For what it's worth, I might support this one with better lighting. -- Ram-Man 14:51, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Lycaon 06:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

South interior wall of the Lincoln Memorial 

result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 06:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Corsican Pine 

result: 3 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Lycaon 06:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Short description

Discussion moved to here --Richard Bartz 15:31, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 18 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Lycaon 06:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Short description 

result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day)Simonizer 21:15, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Short description 

result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 06:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ramaria stricta.jpg, delisted

[edit]

Short description 

result: 0 Keep, 6 Delist, 0 neutral => delisted. Simonizer 21:17, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Tersane in Alanya, Turkey 

result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 14:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Nunâ Upernavik district 2007-08-09 2 cropped.jpg

[edit]
[edit]

Nunâ island in Greenland

 Due to stitching problems and noise, see new nomination below. -- Slaunger 17:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] 

result: Nomination withdrawn => not featured. Simonizer 14:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Nunâ island in Greenland 

result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 2 neutral => featured. Simonizer 14:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Short description 

result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 14:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Short description

This is FP, there are size requirement, whether you like it or not. For encyclopaedic value, try en:FPC: I'd support for biological value over there (also on de:FPC) but surely not on commons. Lycaon 15:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, i can't. The pictures i've taken had a different subject and are copyrighted, as part of a university project. --Jeses 21:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 10 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 14:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Lula - foto oficial05012007.jpg

[edit]
[edit]

Luís Inácio Lula da Silva, current president of Brazil. 

result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 14:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]
result: 11 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 14:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Equisetum pratense

En Belgique dans une petite réserve naturelle ;) Botanic Garden Meise --Luc Viatour 04:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 17 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 14:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Amalfi Coast 

result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 06:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Amalfi Coast 

result: 0 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 22:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Short description

More cowbell available here... --Fir0002 www 06:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 25 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Lycaon 12:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Lycaon 12:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/Log/August_2007&oldid=106418292"