Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/July 2008

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.


== Hamza Issa Farid est un Djiboutiens,et il est un etudiant .Il a commence L'etude de 1 er année jusqu'a second;ecole Champion et Lycée Mandela.Et Mantenant,il passe L'anticipe blanc.Il à une belle Famille,les noms des freres: Mahomed,Ibrahim,Abdi,Idriss,Sadik,Hamza,Bilal,Youssouf;et les noms des soeurs:Moumina,Rahma,Zamzam;les noms des parents:Issa Farid Adaweh,Fardoussa Sayed Idriss.Et aussi son couleur préferée est: Rouge;son matieré est:Arabe.Il est Muslumans; il decteste les menteurs et les voleurs;il aime ses familles et ses amis; et il aime trop voyage comme Dubai;Turkey...


  1. REDIRECT Nom de la page de destination

Image:Heart numlabels.svg, not delisted

[edit]

Short description 

result: 1 Delist, 1 Keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. --Simonizer (talk) 15:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Purine Nucleoside Phosphorylase.jpg, delisted

[edit]

Short description 

result: 5 Delist, 0 Keep, 0 neutral => delisted. --Simonizer (talk) 15:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Hubble ultra deep field.jpg, delisted

[edit]

Short description

  •  Comment Because it was the other version that went through FPC. If we do it the proper way, nobody can afterwards object or complain. This should be a piece of cake anyway. Lycaon (talk) 19:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
result: 8 Delist, 0 Keep, 0 neutral => delisted. --Simonizer (talk) 15:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Replaced with high resolution version -- Lycaon (talk) 17:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Trakai-Troki.jpg, delisted

[edit]

Trakai-Troki 

result: 6 Delist, 0 Keep, 0 neutral => delisted. --Simonizer (talk) 15:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Bébé Phoque de Weddell - Baby Weddell Seal.jpg, delisted

[edit]

baby seal pic 

result: 7 Delist, 1 Keep, 0 neutral => delisted. --Simonizer (talk) 15:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

SHORT DESCRIPTION

She has an ovipositor --Richard Bartz (talk) 17:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer (talk) 15:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hebe Flower

  • The exact flower name category, or the "flower family". For animals and plants pictures, the scientific name (in latin) is usually used. It's why I've asked for a more specific name than "hene". We can help you to categorize your picture, but you must do quick before opposing votes accumulate because of this. Give me all the info you have on the flower, and the location of the picture, and I'll do my best (as I told you, I have no knowledge about flowers...!) --S23678 (talk) 19:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The thing is I am not 100% sure what particular species of hebe it is. Is there some database with images from which we could find this out? It was taken in south east England, UK. I will look for information here: Google Book and here Hebe society--Haleq (talk) 19:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Location must be as exact as possible (coordinates from google maps). Understand that I can help you to categorize your image and put the geolocation tag, but I won't do the research for you on what kind of hene this is...! --S23678 (talk) 12:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Info But the flower is beautiful. Thumbs up. Crapload (talk) 01:03, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 15:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Soča River Slovenija

 MarcusObal (talk) 00:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply] 

result: withdrawn => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 15:16, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

A northern rough-winged swallow eating a bug 

result: withdrawn => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 15:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Boy begging in Agra.jpg

[edit]

Street children, Beggars in India

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. Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

Lycaon (talk) 22:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Main station in Zurich 

result: withdrawn => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 15:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Black Eyed Susan.JPG

[edit]

A photograph of a budding Black Eyed Susan

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: mostly out of focus - sorry. Why not try again using a tripod and a small aperture to generate a larger depth of field? Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

--MichaelMaggs (talk) 13:44, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Llangrannog beach sunset 2.JPG

[edit]

Sunset on Llangrannog beach in Ceredigion, Wales


Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: overexposed, underexposed, distorted and of suboptimal composition. MER-C 02:10, 1 July 2008 (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:Parqueecologico3.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: much too small --Simonizer (talk) 20:58, 1 July 2008 (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]

Hal Abelson 

result: withdrawn => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 15:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Wagner College From End of Parking Lot.jpg

[edit]

Panorama of Wagner College

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: hiding important elements of the main subject (foreground objects are distracting) --S23678 (talk) 14:42, 2 July 2008 (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: 11 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer (talk) 14:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Banana Flowers

--MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sorry, the specific id was in my email and I had problems opening it. Description page updated with specific name.Muhammad 17:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment The FPX template should be reserved for the most obvious nominations only. This is a nice picture with good image quality, so it really doesn't deserve it and further discussion would be helpful for the author. —startaq (talk) 18:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It can be removed by anyone who intends to support. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • My suggestion would be to take it from another angle possibly, so that the background gradient is more consistent than it is now. For example, if you would take it from another angle and the whole of the background were green, that would be much better, have a look at most other flower FPs. I am not necessarily saying reducing depth of field will help, I am saying a different background would help. Good luck in your future endeavours, Freedom to share (talk) 10:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Question Is it acceptable in this kind of image to digitally remove the background using, for example, a blur filter? -- Korax1214 (talk) 06:25, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
result: 5 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 14:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Jakarta Child Poverty

  •  Info created by Thehero - uploaded by Thehero - nominated by Kuzain -- Kuzain (talk) 04:28, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support The detail in the picture is very good and it captures a great deal of the subject matter. The garbage dump is contrasted with the excited faces of the children (and even the adult behind him) over a toy that many people in my country would not even pick up with their bare hands. All of this is excellently played upon the child's shirt: a shirt labeled California Beach and "Hope Club." -- Kuzain (talk) 04:28, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose The composition is very muddled, with the cut-off adults behind the boy being very distracting. The hand and arm behind his ear don't help either I am afraid. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:32, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Relevance. This image doesn't mean the same thing to me as it does to the nominator. Of course I understand the location and the probable life of those childrens. But it seems to me the kid is picking up the doll only to impress the photographer, and that he finds it discusting as well: he holds it by the hand not the body, other childrens and the adult are smiling/laughing as if it was not a normal behaviour, and the main kid's smile is not the one of a kid happy to find a toy, but the smile of a kid waiting for the reaction of the photographer (or someone nearby). --S23678 (talk) 13:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer (talk) 14:51, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Seastar rfom White Sea 

result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer (talk) 14:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Solar Coronae 

result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer (talk) 14:53, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

SHORT DESCRIPTION

i withdraw - Sterkebaktalk 19:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply] 

result: withdrawn => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 16:32, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Emerald PoolEmerald Pool

  • Well, it is a deep (27 feet deep) pool filled with the hot water. How sharp you expect it to look?The most important part of the image is the colors of the pool. The image really illustrates how the pool got its name. Here are few nice samples from Flickr [2]; [3]. They are hardly any sharper than my image and they do not reaaly show the deep green color of the pool.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:51, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 but do not agree with the opposers 

result: withdrawn => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 16:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

 but do not agree with the opposers 

result: withdrawn => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 16:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

SHORT DESCRIPTION

 but do not agree with the opposers 

result: withdrawn => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 16:29, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

SHORT DESCRIPTION

It actually is an artist's impression from 1889 of Frankfurt (it's suburbia Sachsenhausen respectively) as it looked like around 1600. But he didn't add any imagination, every single object that can be seen (i.e. the bridge tower, the bridge, the fortification, most of the buildings) is taken from historical descriptions / depictions of that time. --Doenertier82 (talk) 17:41, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply] 
result: 4 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 11:24, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

A flower arrangement from an Agapanthus plant before blooming.

Er, sorry, but, do you really think such comments are helpful? Do you really think I don't know what DOF is? I know that you have to use a narrow DOF in the macro photography, but the point is that the subject still has to be sharp: Just have a look at this image as an example. Your picture does not even have a DOF, as there is nothing in focus/sharp. As such, this has nothing to do with DOF, but more with poor technical quality. —αἰτίας •discussion• 21:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well I was shooting with a 100mm macro lens(quite a sharp lens I may add). But the picture you gave me was a single flower. This set of flowers has a diameter of 100mm? Trying to get that all in focus is quite difficult. If you see the picture at full size you can obviously see where the focus plane is. —victorrocha •discussion• 21:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (rule of th 5th day) -Simonizer (talk) 11:32, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Cheb dřev most 2.jpg

[edit]

Wooden bridge over Ohře river in Cheb

 Info I think it is correct perspective, not tilt. 71.139.44.122 18:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


 Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: of tilt and blown sky. MER-C 02:15, 4 July 2008 (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:Литейный проспект ночью.jpg

[edit]

Night view of Liteyny Prospekt (one of the major streets in Saint Petersburg)

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: the objects depicted on the image have no apparent symbolic meaning or relevance. --S23678 (talk) 00:40, 4 July 2008 (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]

Cesar Palace of the band 5 Card Studs

  • I wasn't going to reply since I thought it was obvious, but he's a player in a known Milwaukee band, playing at a recurring Milwaukee festival. I would think that's "suitable" enough for Wikimedia or Wikipedia to illustrate the person, the band, the summer festivals around Milwaukee, etc. But I can see I am alone in thinking this. --Dori - Talk 22:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I sould have clarified my idea, sorry; On the first image, from the description, I understand it's the member of a band, but we see no instrument, or microphone, and it's unclear what he is doing. On the second image, again, we see only part of the instrument, and some kind of weird face. For a better symbolic meaning, it must be clearer that the people are participating in the band. --S23678 (talk) 11:59, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral, fifth-day rule => not featured. Korax1214 (talk) 02:07, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 11:15, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Vincent van Gogh (1853-1890) - Starry Night (1889)

  •  Comment This FP and maybe one or two others should not be closed without reference to the project CheckUsers. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 13:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Comment Please note I have struck the votes of three users on this page. There is evidence to suggest that there is abuse of multiple accounts and that the three are linked & operating together. I suggest other votes that they have cast should be subject to review. If anyone requires further information please contact a project CheckUser - all active CUs have been informed of this. --Herby talk thyme 10:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose unless someone can explain me if there's a reason for the tilt. --S23678 (talk) 12:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose no geolocation, nominated by subsequently-blocked user, nothing special about this reproduction -- Korax1214 (talk) 01:58, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 11:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Panorama view on Oberjoch

 Info I did not have a tripod handy. I took the photos freehand using continuous shooting mode of my camera while turning my body. ISO 400 results in short shutter speed. Ukuthenga (talk) 15:56, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So pretend that he had just down-sampled the image to 1/2 size before uploading it. Then it would be tack sharp and still an enormous image. --Gmaxwell (talk) 19:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think there's nothing impressive with handheld panos :) I use tripod for two things, preventing camera from shaking, and getting a good horizon, straight out of the camera. 1st point doesn't apply on day shots unless you're looking for the ultimate sharpness, so we're left with the horizon to fix, which is now pretty easy with nowadays' powerful software. Benh (talk) 19:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same, my current nomination, and almost all my panoramas are hand held (I like to travel light). Parallax errors are almost impossible for such scenery panoramas. I usually don't see such errors past 10 m, when hand held.--S23678 (talk) 19:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
result: 5 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 11:19, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Banana Flowers

  •  Comment Needs better categorization (it's not the sun, it's another star).
  •  Question This is an awsome illustration from NASA, as almost all NASA illustrations. As of now, no Nasa illustration is FP from what I can see. I am wondering if we want to start voting for those images as Nasa has litterally hundreds of such illustrations: robots on mars, satelites, future projects, etc. Should such works of art be notable or of great value in addition of being beautiful? After all, this is the artist's conception of an event (with some personal input such as the blue flames that may not be a real representation), not a picture of the real event itself. If we vote for this one, are we creating a precedent to every illustration that is "simply beautiful"?
result: 3 support, 6 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 11:25, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Leaf epidermis 

result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer (talk) 11:44, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

A group of cows in a fieldTwo Cows in a field (on a drumlin)Two cows in a field 

result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 12:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]
  •  Info I've taken what you've all said on board, and cropped it down to the two cream-coloured cows in the foreground. I'm working on the categorization through the badges you'll see in my "badge-box" (thanks for the complement btw S23678 - It's entirely of my own invention!).
  •  Comment You should add the same colour corrections from the original nomination (It was the little special thing in your original nomination). And, while you put these corrections, I think the new crop is a little bit too tight... sorry! Leave more sky (a balance between original edit and edit 1), and maybe try to tilt the horizon straight (even if the top of the hill is not flat, it will be less noticeable as a cow is not always 90 degrees up) --S23678 (talk) 18:38, 27 June 2008 (UTC) (I will not be connected until next Tuesday, so I will not be able to comment your new modifications)[reply]
result: 0 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer (talk) 12:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]
result: 0 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer (talk) 12:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Lower manhattan with Staten Island Ferry and Terminal from the seaside. 

result: 8 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Simonizer (talk) 12:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Lotte.jpg

[edit]

Lotte, 1908

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

Lycaon (talk) 19:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • From the guidelines: "Photographs of lower resolution than 2 million pixels are typically rejected unless there are 'strong mitigating reasons'". Also, we are in a digital world: your image size will be the same size than the original painting only if you adjust the pixel size to a precise dimension. So, your image should be of higher resolution, regardless of the size of the original painting. --S23678 (talk) 16:56, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Parque Grancolombiano - Cúcuta.jpg, not featured

[edit]

SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 1 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer (talk) 13:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Man of Nootka Sound.jpg

[edit]

schöner grauer Man

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 --S23678 (talk) 00:13, 6 July 2008 (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]

Cunda, the large former Greek Orthodox cathedral, main landmark of Alibey village.

I think that's kind of the point. --Aqwis (talk) 03:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply] 
result: 10 support, 9 oppose => not featured. Korax1214 (talk) 15:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Daisy Geyser Daisy Geyser edit by norro

 I withdraw my nomination 

result: withdrawn => not featured. Korax1214 (talk) 14:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

 I withdraw my nomination 

result: withdrawn => not featured. Korax1214 (talk) 14:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]
result: 3 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Korax1214 (talk) 14:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]
result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Korax1214 (talk) 14:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Pronghorn 

result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Korax1214 (talk) 13:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]
At full resolution you could see flies at his legs.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:48, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is because the image was taken very early in the morning and the snow was lit by the direct sun.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But it was took within 1 minute from the other picture, where the snow is white (5h49 vs 5h50) !?! --S23678 (talk) 13:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Korax1214 (talk) 13:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

BisonBison 

result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 22:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]
At this image you see hot spring boiling--Mbz1 (talk) 16:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are right. It is quite dangerous to get this kind of shot. There was not one, but two bisons there. As we were warn : "Bison can sprint at 30 mph (48 km/h) or 44 feet per second (13m/second). That is faster than an Olympic sprinter!These animals may appear slow and tame, but are wild animals - unpredictable and dangerous! You are required to stay at least 25 yards (23 m) away from all animals. People are gored by bison every year for not respecting the required distance. Be smart - do not approach bison!" When I was taking the pictures, I was much,much more closer than 23 meters to the closest bison. Besides there was nowhere to run because of hot springs. I left rather fast, when one of the bisons started getting up.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't improve the quality of this picture! -- Lycaon (talk) 16:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added the link after the image has passed and only because I would not like somebody to get hurt in trying to repeat my experience with bisons. I always try to prevent Wikipedia readers from getting hurt. Here's for example the article Sunspot. If you go down to the gallery, you will see that I added there: "Please remember observing sunspots at sunsets without proper solar filters may permanently damage your eyes."
    May I please ask you, Hans, if you believe that the link to the safety videos should be added to the description of the image too? Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:47, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
result: 5 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer (talk) 22:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

SHORT DESCRIPTION

It is not tilted.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:28, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply] 
result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer (talk) 22:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Western tent caterpillars Western tent caterpillars

...and it's not. Crapload (talk) 01:13, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Surely I could not remove the branch in order do not disturb the nest, but I removed it in a photo shop, which means you should come up with a new reason to oppose the image :-)--Mbz1 (talk) 02:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • First, on an administrative aspect, you should not modify an image on which there is already some vote, but instead propose it as an edit (all the actual votes were made on another picture, not the current edit!). Also, from the guidelines: “More extensive manipulations, such as removal of distracting background elements, should be clearly described in the image text, by means of the {{RetouchedPicture}} template”. Now, on the image itself, the edit you did is quite impressive at thumb size, but the seam is visible where only halves of caterpillars have been cloned. Finally, in my opinion, retouched FPC should not have portions of the image entirely replaced by another portion of the same picture. I think the elimination of distracting elements of the picture should only be done by cloning actual photograph of the missing portion (taken from another angle or at a later time). --S23678 (talk) 12:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  

result: withdrawn => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 22:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

  

result: withdrawn => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 22:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Rocky Mountain National Park 

result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer (talk) 22:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

SHORT DESCRIPTION

  •  Info created, uploaded and nominated by Muhammad Mahdi Karim -- Muhammad 05:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Info Panorama of Kibaha Landscape. First one available online!
  •  Support -- Muhammad 05:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose It's technically quite good I guess, but there's nothing very striking or interesting about it. It's just some hills/scrubland. Naerii (talk) 07:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose As per Naerii. You're in Tanzania? Just photograph some beautiful sceneries very unique to your region with the same quality and it should be easy to promote them FP. Also, don't forget to geolocate. --S23678 (talk) 17:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yup, I live in Tanzania. I visited this school in Kibaha and from one of the construction sites, saw this and I thought it looked great. Anyways, what do you think about the quality of this image? Geocoding is a bit difficult though as Google Earth has not covered the remote areas in detail. Muhammad 18:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Overall quality is good, I see no big flaws. Some “tuning” you could do IMO is; contrast: the left area of the picture is directly lit by the sun (a side lighting is usually better to give more texture and volume), exposition: (the clouds are near overexposition), and colors: in post-processing in photoshop, try adjusting the levels to make the colors more vivid. But I saw no stitching errors. You mainly need a better scenery. For geolocation, an approximate location with the mention “approximate geolocation” could be good in my opinion. At least, it's better than nothing --S23678 (talk) 19:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose As above - nothing special, wow factor missing. --Karelj (talk) 18:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Overexposed. I think the ground looks goods, but some blue sky that won't drown out the electric lines and the pylons in the distance would complete this quality photograph. --Specious (talk) 07:37, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer (talk) 22:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • I even do not know (and do not like to know) what NR is. How you know they used polarizer filters? Please do not respond. It is just a a rhetorical question.The rock has uneven structure and that's why some parts are sharper than another. Here's one more sample from Flickr [7] to compare. In a mean time I've got more than enough from way too smart for me reviews.  --Mbz1 (talk) 21:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
result: withdrawn => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 22:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Bear tracks

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: the main subject is unsharp and the general quality is low --S23678 (talk) 12:16, 7 July 2008 (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.

  

result: withdrawn => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 22:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Black bearBlack bear

  •  Info created, uploaded and nominated by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 18:38, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Info There were two bears in a meadow. I asked them many times to look at me and to smile for Wikipedia. They did not. Eventually a ranger came and "smiled" at me. He said that I endanger not only my life, but his life too by approaching the bears so close. It was silly. Who is going to be afraid to meet a bear in a forest after meeting reviewers of FP candidates at Commons? Besides one should get very, very unlucky to get attacked by a black bear, but I had no choice, but to leave without taking an image of a smiling bear. I know the composition of the image is not very good, but IMO it is interesting to show that a black bear is not always black. Besides I had strong mitigating circumstances (two bears and a ranger) :-)
  •  Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 18:38, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Nice shot. I admire your courage, I came within about twenty feet of a Black bear in the Great Smokey Mountains National park a few years ago and I didn't hang around to take it's picture.--Paloma Walker (talk) 04:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I'm sure you expected opposes, Mila. The focus is on the bear's rear end, leaving the head out of focus. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  

result: withdrawn => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 22:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]
  •  Info May I please ask you to notice the focal length of the lens for taking this image (19 mm). The idea was not to show the bear close up (it could be shown in a Zoo image too), but rather the bear in his natural habitat.--17:03, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
  •  Support--Mbz1 (talk) 14:15, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  

result: withdrawn => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 22:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Painted Arachnis (Arachnis picta) 

result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Simonizer (talk) 16:13, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Namibia, girl Himba

 Comment Himba is a ethnic group in Namibia. 

result: 4 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral =>not featured. Simonizer (talk) 16:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral =>not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer (talk) 16:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Frankfurt Am Main-Peter Becker-Frankfurts Vorstadt Sachsenhausen zu Anfang des 17 Jahrhunderts-1889.jpg - failed

[edit]

SHORT DESCRIPTION

  •  Info Sachsenhausen, suburbia of Frankfurt on the Main, around 1600 (opposite direction view of a already featured image)
  •  Info created by Doenertier82 - uploaded by Doenertier82 - renominated by Ben Aveling 01:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support This just failed because it didn't have enough support. But it looked like it had enough support to pass, until two votes were struck. So I suspect that, were it not for those invalid votes, it would attracted other, valid, votes. So I'm going to renominate it and give it another chance. Regards, Ben Aveling 01:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Although I voted in favour of your picture in the first nomination, I don't think it's appropriate to nominate again a picture that just failed the FPC process, at least not before a certain time (6 months to a year seems to be a good time to re-nominate IMO). The same situation of this FPC may occur with another FPC where only 1 late oppose vote makes the picture fails. For your nomination. every voter had 9 days to vote, and if they didn't, it's probably because either they had no opinion on your picture, were not feeling comfortable voting for this kind of image, or it's a subject that does not interest them (I rarely vote for birds or flowers myself for that reason), not because they thought there was enough votes to make it FP IMO. I suggest you withdraw your nomination and you re-nominate at a later time, giving other voters the chance to join and to evaluate your image. --S23678 (talk) 04:30, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The struck votes I was referring to were not mine, but Eagle01/Simba123. That is, it looked like it had 6 votes in favour, and none in opposition - not counting the nominator who did not vote for some reason. 2 of those votes were struck with one or two days of time left to vote, by which stage people would have seen it, seen that it had enough support, and not bothered to vote. Having been around a while, I've seen that people are more likely to vote if the vote is close. Once it lost the 2 votes, it was a long way down the page, where most people wouldn't realise that anything had changed. Regards, Ben Aveling 04:58, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: it was very recently declined (please wait a reasonable time to renominate) Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

Lycaon (talk) 13:14, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Lycaon, S23678, the nominator did not vote on this. Another 4 people who thought this is FP worthy did. (Not counting myself - I didn't vote until too late because I thought it already had sufficient support). Exactly zero people voted against it. What would you consider a reasonable time to wait? 12:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
  • 6 month to 1 year IMO. I understand the special situation for this nomination (I supported the image!), but I think we should apply the same rules to everyone to make it fair. I think the main goal of this is not to encourage people to resubmit over and over again the same image until it passes the voting process. The delay changes nothing to this image, it's just longer to make it FP (if it becomes FP). --S23678 (talk) 13:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't believe there is any rule on this. For me, the question is, what is sensible. If it is FP quality now, then why can't it be nominated? If it isn't FP quality, what difference does 6 months make? Regards, Ben Aveling 08:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:thunderstorm_in_sydney_2000x1500.png

[edit]

Thunderstorm in Sydney, Australia

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 extremely noisy, tilted an possibly upscaled. Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

Lycaon (talk) 13:13, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

====Edit 1 ====

  •  Support Noisy? Yes. Upscaled? Maybe. And huge "wow"!--Mbz1 (talk) 15:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)The edit was removed by the creator of the image.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Info It's not tilted. This is the horizon and it's going into a slope from East to West Sydney (you are looking at Sydney airport on the horizon)
If you do not like my edit, you could remove it, but it should be removed together with my vote.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:22, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Still noisy, possibly upscaled (jagged edges) and tilted (unless buildings are all leaning down under;-)). Oh yes, forgot to mention missing EXIF and geolocation—though they by themselves would not be enough reason to oppose. Lycaon (talk) 16:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Info Sorry to desagree, but this picture is not tilted at all. The left building is tilted on the right and the right building on the left, this is because the picture is taken with a wide angle camera, wich always gives a "perspective" effect. As for he noise, yes, there is because this is not a digital picture (we are in 1991) but a paper print scanned. I lost the negative in my return from Australia. The exceptional event shown here (one lightning every 30 seconds for two hours...), is more relevant than the technical quality of the picture. When I look at the first steps on the moon, I don't discuss how many pixels there are and if the flag is upright or not. This picture has been used by many storm chasers sites, by the Australian severe weather bureau, by scientific magazines and as a print cover by a book about electro-magnetism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patriiick (talk • contribs) 17:35, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose The subject is: Wow! But: The quality is too poor. Maybe a better scan will do. And by the way: Definitely it is tilted! Look at the printed date in the lower right corner (is this picture printed on the magazine covers with this number???). It indicates a tilt of approximately 0.8 degrees. At a rotation of approx. 1.8 degrees counterclockwise it looks straight. --Ukuthenga (talk) 18:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Very bad quality. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 12:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Normalsi - Mirek 'Koniu' Mazurczyk 02.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: of noise. 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.

-- Crapload (talk) 02:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

A cliff swallow (Petrochelidon pyrrhonota) 

result: 3 supports, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Benh (talk) 20:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

A closeup of the cliff swallow 

result: 6 supports, 2 opposes, 0 neutral => featured. Benh (talk) 20:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 9 supports, 2 opposes, 0 neutral => featured. Benh (talk) 20:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Time Passes

This picture shows a man standing alone. With the shutters speed very slow, the cars that pass are in a blur, giving a sense of time passing and that we humans, so small can not do anything about it but witness its passage.

  • Having just a bit of the far side of the road is a negative - barrel correction would fix that. I'd be curious to see a version without break lights - nor sure it would be better, but maybe. I think a version without the tree might work better - but I think the lamp post is good, it breaks up what would otherwise be very dominating horizontal lines. Maybe, just maybe, it might work better if the near lane was just a bit less than half the picture rather than a bit more than half. I think that one car heading in each direction works well - the front of the car at the top left is, I think, a negative. I could be wrong. As other people have said, variations on this image would be well worth exploring. Regards, Ben Aveling 09:16, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
result: 3 support, 6 opposes, 2 neutrals => not featured. Benh (talk) 20:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Reine i Lofoten LC0148.jpg

[edit]

Reine i Lofoten

Image:Caligo memnon (Wroclaw zoo)-1.JPG

[edit]

Caligo memnon species

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

--Crapload (talk) 03:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Thalurania glaucopis-5.jpg

[edit]

A Brazilian Hummingbird

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: Image was declined just two weeks ago. Please do not resubmit so soon. Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

Lycaon (talk) 20:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

An Agapanthus flower arrangement after most of the flowers have bloomed.

An alternate to the first picture taken with different focusing planes.
result: 3 supports, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Benh (talk) 19:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Pink granite rocks coast, Brittany, France

  • I don't really think so: the appropriate details are given.--Simba123 (talk) 14:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately, I don't yet own a GPS, so I always geolocalise by looking at google maps. I haven't figured out from the lowres map (google maps quality is uneven across france) what my position was, and it might even be on a place covered by sea since I took it at low tide. I'll add the geolocalisation when I figure it out, but for now, one has to live with only the "near Ploumanach" clue ;) Benh (talk) 15:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
result: 11 supports, 3 opposes, 0 neutral => featured. Benh (talk) 19:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Truck passes

  • I'd say it's a good try at background motion blur with a moving subject, as you may have had some difficulties with the lightning and the high speed of the vehicles. However, when I'm voting for FPC, I'm searching for "that special thing" that makes the picture stands out. On your picture, the motion blur stands out as the "special thing", but other things like the perspective (flat view on the side of the truck), crop (missing part of the truck's wheel) and background (although there's the morning light, this concrete and steel bridge is not the cutest background) scales the "wow" factor down to an average photography. Just try again and keep in mind that less than 0.1% of the pictures on commons are FPC, so it may take a lot of time to get "that perfect shot". --S23678 (talk) 03:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
result: 1 support, 4 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of the 5th day)Benh (talk) 20:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hot spring Hot springHot spring

Tell me your secret, I'll tell you if I like the picture or not ;). I've checked the picture and it seems it's in 16bit (65000 colors instead of 16 millions). I guess it's a mistake from editing it ?? Maybe you should upload a true color version of the picture. Benh (talk) 18:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • no, I'm not talking about the colours accuracy, I meant 24bit colours (16 million or something), sorry for the poor english. Your picture has 65000 and something (16bit). I see no reason for that. At least one of your other nomination below has 65000 colours too. Benh (talk) 15:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then how did you check ? I'm still looking how to.. Benh (talk) 20:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I guess it has to do with 16-bit processing (so 48 bits in total) in Photoshop Elements but I don't have that program to play with. :) --Lerdsuwa (talk) 02:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think a few degrees counter clockwise might be required. I could be wrong, it's hard to tell for sure with water when it's bubbling like that, but that would make the curved line at the bottom of the bubbling water sort of flat. And the people seem to be leaning too much to the right, as if the ground is actually more tilted than it looks in the picture. On the other hand, the trees on the left look about right. So I don't know, but I wondered, so I thought I'd ask. Regards, Ben Aveling 11:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've no Canon XSi.--14:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
result: 4 supports, 3 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured. Benh (talk) 19:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]
result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of the 5th day). Benh (talk) 19:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]
result: withdrawn => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 10:14, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Three Saddhus sitting on the Vishnu Temple of Kathmandu's Durbar Square, Nepal, performing the vitarka mudrā. 

result: 16 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer (talk) 10:15, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

The historical reenactment of the Battle of Berlin (1945) at Modlin fortress. 

result: 5 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 10:17, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Green Emerald Coast, from dungeon of fort la Latte castle.

  • As I said to user:MJJR I'd have prefered a light litting the scene from aside, I believe it would have made the scene looks better. But I got there at the wrong time and got that contre-jour lighting as a result. The sky is blownout for sure, and it shows on the histogram, but I think the picture is faithfull to what I saw. So I'm not trying to convince you the sky isn't overexposed, but that this is how it should look like at that time of the day (4:00pm). Maybe I could have tried some multiple exposures shots for HDR purpose, but I couldn't use tripod because I had to "lean over the wall" (don't know how to say in english) to get the unobstructed view. Or maybe it's been taken the wrong way and to be fair, I'd certainly have raised the point if the picture hadn't been mine. Benh (talk) 08:10, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
result: 10 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer (talk) 10:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Old sadhu with white beard and coiled dreadlocks in Nepal. 

result: 8 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer (talk) 10:19, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Barn Swallow 

result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. --Simonizer (talk) 10:22, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

White German Shepherd Puppy

[edit]
result: 6 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. --Simonizer (talk) 10:25, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]
result: 1 support, 3 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of the 5th day). Benh (talk) 20:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Lavandula multifida 

result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. --Simonizer (talk) 10:26, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Indígena da etnia Tapirapé.jpg

[edit]

The Croda Rossa d'Ampezzo in Veneto, Italy 

result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) --Simonizer (talk) 10:29, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Finlyandsky Rail Terminal Less sharped, fixed tilt 

result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) --Simonizer (talk) 10:30, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Nymph 

result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) --Simonizer (talk) 10:31, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

simple Model train by Märklin 

result: 0 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) --Simonizer (talk) 10:33, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Girl at the River Near Momostenango 

 result: 3 supports, 6 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured. Benh (talk)
[edit]

Inde Chatisgaht, jeune fille sur le chemin du marché. 

 result: 8 supports, 4 opposes, 0 neutral => featured. Benh (talk) 20:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]
edited version
[edit]
result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 22:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit

[edit]
 result: 13 supports, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Benh (talk)
[edit]

SHORT DESCRIPTIONSHORT DESCRIPTION

  •  Info created and uploaded by chmehl - nominated by Benh (talk) 21:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Christian Mehlführer's pics remind me a little Lucag's superbe sceneries, with similar mood, and a better quality. I find this picture incredible because of the weather, but also because of that piece of cloud covering right part of the mountain. Hope you do think like me -- Benh (talk) 21:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. --Simonizer (talk) 10:21, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]
  • I have difficulty to understand your point about full resolution. This image is a downsampled version of the original images used in the panorama. It can hardly be more sharp and detailed. Even more, remember that large images don't need to be perfect at full resolution, since they can be modified (downsampled, cropped, etc) later on with a much higher quality than if it was a perfect-at-full-resolution 2mpx picture --S23678 (talk) 13:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer (talk) 15:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer (talk) 15:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Vilnius - Panorama 01.jpg, not featured

[edit]

Panorama of Vilnius 

result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 15:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Superior mirage

  •  Info created , uploaded and nominated by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 17:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment May I please ask you to imagine a man, who's desperately lost in the endless ocean. He is thirsty and hungry, almost delusional. Hi's constantly looking at horizon and tries to see a boat, that would bring him to safety. Suddenly he sees something, but what it is? It looks strange, almost as UFO. The glare from the sun playing with waves prevents him from seeing it clearly, but no, now he's certain it is a boat... Well, it is not. It is a very rare superior mirage of a distant island, which lies below the horizon. Please think about this: the island cannot be seen from the place I took the image from, but its mirage could. I would also like to point out that the shapes of the miraged island are changing constantly. Here's the image of the same miraged island taken few hours later at the same day: Image:Superior mirage of a distant island 2.jpg. May I please ask you before opposing the image for the quality to think about the quality of the image as about a mirage? --Mbz1 (talk) 17:59, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 17:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose strange, how linear the mirage is. What about to try to nominee it for valued picture?--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 10:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's right, it is better to have another FP of a sharp and beautiful landscape than one unique image of a rare superior mirage.I cannot try VI simply because I cannot say which superior mirage image is the most valued one.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:55, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
May I please make myself absolutely clear? I do not think it is a mirage. I know it is a mirage. I also know that it is not just a common inferior mirage, but complex and rare superior mirage. No I am not angry. I used to opposes for my rare atmospherical optics phenomenon images. I am sorry, if I sounded as I am angry. As a matter of fact I'd like to thank you for the vote. At least somebody payed atention to the image.May I please ask why you doubt that it is a mirage? Have you seen objects that are hanging on above the ocean, if they are not planes, not birds and not clouds? What else it could be in your opinion?--Mbz1 (talk) 21:58, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  

result: withdrawn => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 21:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Femalewithduckling.JPG

[edit]

Female mallard and duckling searching for food

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 has serious DOF problems. Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

Lycaon (talk) 18:10, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Ten-line June Beetle

Studio conditions? This was taken outside in the middle of the night. And what is it's natural environment? Animals have adapted to live around humans, concrete is it's natural environment now. --Calibas (talk) 18:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Adult P. decemlineata feed on coniferous leaves (not concrete AFAIK). Try there during daylight. Lycaon (talk) 18:30, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Please use standard support/oppose templates. These other symbols are confusing enumeration of votes and are not according to guidelines. Thanks. Lycaon (talk) 17:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 No. These are tallied up by a human being who can easily tell it's a support. I'm not really one for following silly rules. Feel free to report me to the admins, they're who I learned about the  Awesome! template from. --Calibas (talk) 18:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please use the normal support templates. Its not a silly rule. It makes closing work easier. Did you ever close FPCs? No? Then you would know how much work that is. I need about 15-60 minutes (depends on the amount of pictures) for the closing process. So i appreciate using the normal support templates, because then it is easier and faster to count them. Thanks --Simonizer (talk) 14:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
May I add it's also a good practice to get used to, in case a bot is written some day. I've though about that already, and one of the challenges is taking votes into account in a proper way. I'm also about to ask FPC nomination to be categorized during nomination process as a first step, because obviously, it will be hard to make a bot categorizing FP properly. Benh (talk) 21:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
result: 2 supports, 4 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured. Benh (talk) 21:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

The church of Prato alla Drava in South Tyrol, Italy 

result: 2 supports, 5 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured. Benh (talk) 21:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

I mistakenly removed the two nominations because I believed they were both withdrawn. I'm putting it on top again in the hope this will compensate my mistake. I also hope you'll accept to have its voting period extended by one day. My apologies to everyone. Benh (talk) 21:11, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
SHORT DESCRIPTIONSHORT DESCRIPTION

  • We've already talked about oversaturation last time. May I please remind you about this? "At first after reading the comment I wanted to make my image look dull (not "Oversaturated"), but then I decided what for? You would come with another reason to oppose, don't you, Hans. BTW about "Oversaturated", here are few samples from Flickr [14] (103 comments 99 faves};[15] ( 19 comments 27 faves} and a dull one (not "Oversaturated") [16] ( no comments no faves}. No, my image is not oversaturated at all. The image correctly represents the beautiful and briliant colors of the mound."--Mbz1 (talk) 17:03, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The votes for the nomination have ended at 03:59 July 17.The nomination was removed for 30 minutes maybe less, which makes it to end of votes at 4:30 July 17, so I believe the last vote by Simonizer is against the rules, but on the other hand I hardly care about that nomination any more, so whatever.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  
result: withdrawn => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 14:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]
  •  Oppose Hope you won't take it personaly again. I maintain this is oversaturated, or at least unproperly processed. Look at the people and their orange skin. I don't believe this is due to sunbathing. Benh (talk) 20:42, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indians don't have orange/red skins as far as I know. The ones on this picture are not exception to this. And you should temper yourself down a bit sometimes. I'm just here to give my opinion, and that's what you must get ready for when you nominate a picture on FPC. I always try to justify any of my opposes, and am ready to discuss with any person willing the same. Benh (talk) 21:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I don't think "tan american Indians" have red orange flashy skin. Your nomination has been significantly saturated, as can know be proven by comparing it to original. Lycaon noticed it too, other people noticed too. Why not, sometimes, admitting when there's something wrong on one of your nomination, and try to fix it, or have it fixed ? My comment on lava flow nomination was justified I believe. Quality could be better, and composition wasn't to my taste. As you often like to refer, a bad picture of a very difficult subject is a better picture than a good picture of an ordinary subject, but there are limits to this. I would have opposed, but knew this wouldn't have changed anything. I won't justify to you again. Benh (talk) 06:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're mistaken. My lava image is a good picture of of a very difficult subject. It was supported by 24 people (me exluded) and opposed by none (blessing God you found it too late). It got 46th place in Picture of the Year voted by 120 people above any of your "good quality" images. That's why your so called "justifying" of the quality of the image only proves one more time what quality, fairness and validity your "justifying" and your voting are.You won't justify to me again? Thank you! It is going to be really hard, but I'll live with this.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  

result: withdrawn => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 14:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Hrošč na rmanu.jpg

[edit]

Unknown fly

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: identification is lacking 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.

Please do identification attempts before you nominate. Thanks. Lycaon (talk) 17:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Harvestmen Close Macro.jpg

[edit]

Harvestmen Macro

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 not identified, the crop is unfortunate and the DOF is insufficient. Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

Lycaon (talk) 17:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Reconnaissance 

result: 2 supports, 3 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured. Benh (talk) 20:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

W parku 

result: 2 supports, 2 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured. Benh (talk) 20:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Misumena vatia with Syrphidae

Ok it has a heavy sharpening too. I cut a more normal value! It is better? --Luc Viatour (talk) 18:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here I do not understand, the sharpness is perfect for me! It is highly expanded more than the ratio 1:1!--Luc Viatour (talk) 21:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment She is going to inject the hoverfly with digestive enzymes. Those will dissolve most of the inside and then the spider is going to suck up the liquid parts and the only part which will be left will be an empty chitinous husk. Lycaon (talk) 17:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
no flash view exif... --Luc Viatour (talk) 07:34, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
result: 10 supports, 5 opposes, 0 neutral => featured. Benh (talk) 20:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 9 supports, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Benh (talk) 20:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Popular demonstration commemorating the "disappeared" in Chile on September 11, 2004 in the Santiago de Chile cemetery, in front of the monument for the disappeared.

  •  Info created by Uri R - uploaded by Uri R - nominated by Uri R -- Uri R (talk) 20:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Info Popular demonstration commemorating the "disappeared" in Chile on September 11, 2004 in the Santiago de Chile cemetery, in front of the monument for the disappeared.
  •  Support -- Uri R (talk) 20:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Nothing standing out from this picture. A more dramatic scene would illustrate better the still open wounds from Pinochet's regime. --S23678 (talk) 17:13, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Comment Don't get me wrong - I am not here to lobby - vote as you understand. However, I see a dramatic event in this picture: first, the sign, portraying an individual, is a strong contrast to the list on names of the disappeared on the monument in the background. This contrast gives a name and face to each laconic name on the stone, and at the same time puts the individual in its numeric context. the fact the monument is not shown in full only strengthen this effect. Second, the directions in the scene create a fictive-highly real dialog. The face on the sign, as the names on the monument, are facing the demonstrating audience. Thus, a silent dialog is created between the appears and the disappears, between the living and the dead, between the picture and the viewer. To me, the picture captured a dramatic moment, a silent one, which shoves the political into the viewer's face through a hint of violence, through the non-evident tension of the moment, through the different dialogs it documents. Again, this is what I see in it. Thanks, Uri R (talk) 22:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Every picture speaks to the viewer. I admire the way you analysed the picture, you saw it at a very deep level, and it made me look at your picture with a different eye. I will however keep my vote as it is, and I will explain you why by doing a comparison with movies, paintings and books. Some movies have been analysed very deeply, such as this one, by making sometimes connexions to historical/religious figures or events, making the movie more deep than just a mix of sound and images. Same thing for paintings, where some people take huge amounts of time analyzing the meaning of every little details to make theories about the "real meaning" of the picture. Same thing for books (I think you understand the pattern). But the big thing about these analysis is that, in the end, they are personal. No mather how other are analyzing a movie in it's deepest, as a person, you either like or don't like the movie. The painter may have wanted to transmit an emotion to the viewer, but it's to the viewer to do his own analysis, and to draw it's own conclusions and emotions without having to read the detailed description from the author. You saw all the connexions you talked about, but I saw a normal shot framing a portrait, a monument and some randomly disposed people. After a careful look at your picture (from my first vote), I did not saw the emotions you saw because my interpretation was different. In no way I want to say that your opinion is wrong, it's just different than me. --S23678 (talk) 03:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Many thanks for your comment. I agree that interpretation is subjective, and I am sorry I could not make you see it through my eyes, regardless to the vote. Thanks again, Uri R (talk) 00:18, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Not enough contrasts, "milky" --Alipho (talk) 18:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support--Mbz1 (talk) 04:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose not enough quality -- LadyofHats (talk) 11:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Washed out blacks. –Dilaudid 11:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose No "wow", nothing special and the colors are no good. --Aktron (talk) 20:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
result: 2 supports, 5 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured. Benh (talk) 20:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Koh Samui Lipa Noi2.jpg, delisted

[edit]

Koh Samui 

result: 6 Delists, 0 Keep, 0 neutral => delisted. --Benh (talk) 20:56, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ecuador cajas national park.jpg, delisted

[edit]

Short description

  • I did not delisted the picture, I propose it's delisting, for reasons that I find legitimate, including my "no wow". My feeling is not more or less important than anyone else who proposed other delistings, just as your feeling is. --S23678 (talk) 21:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
result: 5 Delists, 1 Keep, 0 neutral => delisted. --Benh (talk) 20:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 17 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Simonizer (talk) 14:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Lologo vulgaris 

result: 16 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer (talk) 14:24, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Island of Volcanic Origins 

result: 4 support, 8 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 14:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

I mistakenly removed the two nominations because I believed they were both withdrawn. I'm putting it on top again in the hope this will compensate my mistake. I also hope you'll accept to have its voting period extended by one day. My apologies to everyone. Benh (talk) 21:11, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
SHORT DESCRIPTIONSHORT DESCRIPTION

  • We've already talked about oversaturation last time. May I please remind you about this? "At first after reading the comment I wanted to make my image look dull (not "Oversaturated"), but then I decided what for? You would come with another reason to oppose, don't you, Hans. BTW about "Oversaturated", here are few samples from Flickr [17] (103 comments 99 faves};[18] ( 19 comments 27 faves} and a dull one (not "Oversaturated") [19] ( no comments no faves}. No, my image is not oversaturated at all. The image correctly represents the beautiful and briliant colors of the mound."--Mbz1 (talk) 17:03, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The votes for the nomination have ended at 03:59 July 17.The nomination was removed for 30 minutes maybe less, which makes it to end of votes at 4:30 July 17, so I believe the last vote by Simonizer is against the rules, but on the other hand I hardly care about that nomination any more, so whatever.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  
result: withdrawn => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 14:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]
  •  Oppose Hope you won't take it personaly again. I maintain this is oversaturated, or at least unproperly processed. Look at the people and their orange skin. I don't believe this is due to sunbathing. Benh (talk) 20:42, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indians don't have orange/red skins as far as I know. The ones on this picture are not exception to this. And you should temper yourself down a bit sometimes. I'm just here to give my opinion, and that's what you must get ready for when you nominate a picture on FPC. I always try to justify any of my opposes, and am ready to discuss with any person willing the same. Benh (talk) 21:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I don't think "tan american Indians" have red orange flashy skin. Your nomination has been significantly saturated, as can know be proven by comparing it to original. Lycaon noticed it too, other people noticed too. Why not, sometimes, admitting when there's something wrong on one of your nomination, and try to fix it, or have it fixed ? My comment on lava flow nomination was justified I believe. Quality could be better, and composition wasn't to my taste. As you often like to refer, a bad picture of a very difficult subject is a better picture than a good picture of an ordinary subject, but there are limits to this. I would have opposed, but knew this wouldn't have changed anything. I won't justify to you again. Benh (talk) 06:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're mistaken. My lava image is a good picture of of a very difficult subject. It was supported by 24 people (me exluded) and opposed by none (blessing God you found it too late). It got 46th place in Picture of the Year voted by 120 people above any of your "good quality" images. That's why your so called "justifying" of the quality of the image only proves one more time what quality, fairness and validity your "justifying" and your voting are.You won't justify to me again? Thank you! It is going to be really hard, but I'll live with this.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  

result: withdrawn => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 14:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Dike near Tossens (Butjadingen, Northern Germany) 

result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 14:28, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Lens Flare

  •  Info created , uploaded and nominated by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 05:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Info This image is a very good illustration of how not to take images. The subject of the image is lens flare, but this partical flare is interesting. It shows a good refraction of the real sun from my camera's lens, and because the sun was miraged and not round it is easy to see at the image that refracted sun is upside down. IMO it is an interesting and new subject for FPC.--Mbz1 (talk) 05:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 05:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support you have a flare for photography. :-) (sorry, couldn't resist) -- Korax1214 (talk) 07:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Interesting and new, all right, but only the wow of another sunset. So though valuable, not suitable for FP. Lycaon (talk) 15:41, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If I wanted to repeat this shot, and I'm not talking about clouds, about rays, about mirage, but just repeat this second sun lens flare, I would not have been able to do it. I often take images of the sun and I often get flare, but it was the only time I got such an accurate inverted second sun. IMO, Hans, you contradict yourself. On one hand you say: "Interesting and new, all right" and on the other hand you say: "only the wow of another sunset". These two statements are just the opposites IMO. Another sunset image cannot be new.No, this image is not about sunset at all. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, IMO, is the first impression you get when you look at an image (in casu in FP size on the front page). On you picture, one sees a sunset, nothing more. After reading an extensive caption and looking at the real size picture, one may appreciate the value of such an image, but that is no longer wow... Lycaon (talk) 17:07, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Come on, Hans, it is a strech! IMO one should not read the "extensive caption" to notice the second sun at the very first look at the image because it is cleary seen even in a thumnail and it is what makes the image WOW in my opinion. Still your latest statement did not explain why you called "another sunset" image "interesting", "new", "valuable" even after reading the "extensive caption".--Mbz1 (talk) 17:32, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm having fun with the nomination.I'll tell you why. Could you imagine, what would have happened, if I nominated the image as an image of a sunset and/or crepuscular rays? By now I would have got quite of few opposes because of "the second sun", but now the reviewers telling me that my beautiful "second sun" is hardly noticeable! Next time I'll nominate an image to show what the noise is, and I am sure it will get opposed because the noise is "hardly noticeable". It's going to be fun :-). There's no offence at all. Thank you for you vote,Norro.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:17, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your assessment of the nomination is wrong. The image is much mote than just technically insufficient image. It is an interesting and fine example of a rather serious optic matter , which is studied even by NASA --Mbz1 (talk) 17:22, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • [...] It is an interesting and fine example of a rather serious optic. Of course, and that makes it a very valuable picture, but not a featured one IMHO. --LC-de (talk) 11:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose It's weird to me that an image with technical defects, flare in this case, be a FP (no mather how enigmatic this type of flare is, it is still a picture defect because the second sun is not something you want on the final picture). This is clearly a Valued Image case IMO (best image of something without being technically perfect). --S23678 (talk) 17:39, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
result: withdrawn => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 14:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Carl august weimar.jpg

[edit]

Statue of Charles Augustus, Grand Duke of Saxe-Weimar-Eisenach

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

SHORT DESCRIPTIONSHORT DESCRIPTION

A better word is noise I believe, not crisp enough. --Paloma Walker (talk) 22:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Paloma, I am really sorry to bother you with this, but noise and crisp are just the opposite things. Please explain to me one more time, where you see the noise and where it is not crisp enough. I only try to understand because I've been here long enough and I honestly cannot see the problems you're pointing out. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I struck my comment. When it's at high resolution it is not clear. Look at this from google, see the middle image of the eye, that is what this image looks like [20] . Also I cannot not find the image at the source given on it's page [21].--Paloma Walker (talk) 23:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You probably have a very high resolution of monitor because I still cannot see at my image anything even close to the image of an eye you reffer to. I am afraid you cannot find image source by looking at my home page you reffer to. The image source is clearly specified in the image description.Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
result: withdrawn => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 14:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]
result: withdrawn => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 14:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Fireworks for beginning of Summerfest SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 22:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]
result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 22:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Normal Life cycle of the babesia parasite 

result: 10 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer (talk) 22:25, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Cornflower taken near Sýkořice in the Czech Republic 

result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 22:25, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Reseda luteola 

result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 22:26, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Coltsfood 

result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer (talk) 22:28, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Mexican Wolf 

result: 13 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer (talk) 09:21, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

life cycle of the entamoeba histolytica

This is interesting. I thought that Lycaon and LadyofHats were the same person. -- carol (talk) 12:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
LadyofHats is certainly a superb technical illustrator of biological subjects, by the look of it. -- Korax1214 (talk) 19:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
well Lycaon always corrects my spelling, for that i am really greatfull. but outside from that i think we are quite diferent. how come you thought we were the same?-LadyofHats (talk) 18:50, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
result: 9 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer (talk) 09:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Red-naped Sapsucker 

result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 00:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

SHORT DESCRIPTION

  •  Comment Yep, without shades it would have been even better. But royals can't be approached that close that you can ask them to take off their glasses for the camera ;-)). Lycaon (talk) 22:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dear Lyacon, I know you can't just tell him to stop moving and smiling! ; ) I agree that there was probably some shooting difficulties for the photograph, but I really think we should see the eyes. I never hear of that prince, and I doubt I could recognize him at other occasions just by looking at this picture. After all, why do we erase the eyes on medical images? I agree that the sharpness is incredible, but I can't underlook the composition. --S23678 (talk) 16:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh but I don't have any problems with your vote, to each his own opinion. And I know that Belgium is these days more (in)famous for other stuff (Budweiser, government crisis, ...) than its prince... :-) Lycaon (talk) 17:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
result: 10 support, 8 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 00:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 3 support, 6 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 00:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Waterfalls Panorama at Bahati Camp, Mt Uluguru Morogoro 

result: 7 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 00:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Mulberry Street, NYC, circa 1900

 Info This picture is a so-called Photochrom(e). The Photochrom (without "e") technique was developed by a Swiss printing company in the 1880's and introduced in the U.S. as Photochrome (with "e") by the Detroit Photographic Company. Photochrom(e)s are lithographic colour prints created from high quality black and white photo negatives. These prints were very popular in Europe (where more than 14,000 different pictures were published!) and the U.S. between 1890 and 1914. See for more information [22] and Category:Photochrom pictures. -- MJJR (talk) 21:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
result: 21 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer (talk) 01:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Larva of Formicidae Larva of Formicidae

 Info Darkness must be easy to fix. Crapload (talk) 02:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
can you help me? --Böhringer (talk) 05:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I make the correction here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Ameisenpuppe2b.JPG --Luc Viatour (talk) 09:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 09:25, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]
English: I have embarrassed the plates in the garden ants nest accidentally opened. It has obviously been injured this cocoon. I have it on a sheet, and photographed.sorry for my English
Deutsch: Ich habe beim Platten Verlegen im Garten ein Ameisennest versehentlich geöffnet. Dabei muss offensichtlich dieser Kokon verletzt worden sein. Ich habe ihn auf ein Blatt gelegt und fotografiert.
Could you also add a size indication? Lycaon (talk) 17:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
result: 7 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 11:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

An American football quarterback rushing with the ball. 

result: 6 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer (talk) 11:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Kuppenheim Synagoge 010.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: it is far too small. This is essentially a thumbnail of what would have been originally a far-higher resolution negative. Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

--MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Van Gogh - Skull with a burning cigarette.jpg, not featured

[edit]

SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 5 support, 4 oppose, x neutral => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 01:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Declaration of Independence - USA.jpg, not featured

[edit]

The Declaration of Independence, USA. 1819 engraving

  •  Info created by John Binns (1772-1860) - uploaded by Alex:D (talk) - nominated by Alex:D (talk) -- Alex:D (talk) 16:58, 13 July 2008 (UTC). Note: This image has 10.89 MB. it would be best to download it first![reply]
  •  Support I think this very high resolution image is significant for the American history, even if it's not one of the five "official" versions of the Declaration, as historian Julian P. Boyd, editor of Jefferson's papers, described them. But, as the "Port Folio" magazine from Philadelphia reports, "We have at length been gratified with the sight of a proof-sheet of the splendid copy of the declaration of Independence; and we declare that it deserves the most liberal support..." I think that the perfect details and splendid engravings makes this image one of the finest on Commons. -- Alex:D (talk) 16:58, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral, high res is nice, but it crashes my browser when I try to look at it. Can we get a smaller version for those of us with slower computers?Naerii (talk) 17:11, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I usually upload these images at a lower res, but I wanted to keep the writing confortably visible. The best solution to this problem: Download it. A much lower resolution is here--Alex:D (talk) 17:17, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Shure. --Alex:D (talk) 19:36, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My support is not because it is suitable for Wikipedia, I think it is a good quality scan that also has enc. value. --Canislupus (talk) 08:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is nor the original Declaration, neither a repro of a repro, but an original art work. Read the description for details. --Alex:D (talk) 17:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Yeah, that is a good call on that! The real one did not have the photographs. I acquired in my youth a reproduction of the real thing and it had kind of a bland appearance of just handwritten text on a (for my version) fake aged paper. -- carol (talk) 10:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 01:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Short description 

result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 01:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Museum display of Orange Roughy.

  •  Info Skin is there, but the muscle tissue has been severely dehydrated, probably because of the use of ethanol as preservation liquid. The soft tissue then tends to shrink and becomes hard and brittle. Formaldehyde does not have that problem, but because of its toxicity, it is not used in Australia (even banned AFAIK). Lycaon (talk) 18:15, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
result: 4 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 09:11, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 11 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer (talk) 09:12, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:2008-07-21 Nap under the Morehead-Patterson Bell Tower.jpg

[edit]

Napping under the bells

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: underexposed in some parts and does not show anything special. Subject is unclear — do you want to focus the napping man? His feet are hidden by the bike. 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.

--Romwriter (talk) 11:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the usage of this template is in this case a bit exaggerated (imho). Subject is "Nap under the Morehead-Patterson Bell Tower" as the file description says and this is also what the pic shows. Of course the pic has underexposed parts but I think that we should use this template only in cases where it is more than obvious that it never gets through. This picture has at least potential as it is a very well spotted scene. --AngMoKio (talk) 16:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the FPX template could be reworded, but it's a clear FPX case here :
  • Underexposition
  • Value: While subjective, I don't see a clear value for this picture. It looks more like he was killed or had an heart attack than he is taking a nap. Try to take a nap with your legs hanging in stairs like that... fake, obviously (if it's a nap)
  • Crop : top of the building not visible
  • Perspective : we only see the legs of the person
  • Symbolic meaning or relevance : none, IMHO
FPX templates are used when it seems clear to the voter that the picture will no get support votes. It is based on his analysis of the picture compared to pictures with the same (absence) qualities. There's no reasons to vote 5 days for a pictures that will obviously not make it. IMO there's no overuse since there's still a lot of pictures getting removed because of the rule of the 5th day. And in general, those pictures (5th day rule) are not as bad as the pictures who get FPXed. And since FPX tags can be removed by anyone with a support vote, in the end, the person who's putting that template has no more "voting power" than anyone else. --S23678 (talk) 17:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It was just a thought...it sometimes seems a bit harsh to me. Especially for some new nominators. But concerning this picture I think quite different ..there are technical problems, but it is quite creative. I would like to see more such pics here. --AngMoKio (talk) 19:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your critique, but I'd like to add that I'm telling the truth that the man really was napping. And evenetually I saw him wake up. I thought this photograph illustrated rest and sleep, especially as he was sleeping under the bells which would wake him up. The bell tower is also a notable landmark, at least in North Carolina. --Specious (talk) 02:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • It's very subjective (which sucks, I know, it's easier to have opposes for technical problems), but things like direct sun on the background mountains (a no cloud day), or sunrays throught the clouds, or maybe some sunset colours, or some really dark clouds indicating an incoming thunderstorm, or thin morning fog over the lake, etc. Right now, the mountains are dark and the lake has nothing special. It needs a special touch in the area covered by the background IMO to be FP (since it covers about half of the picture). --S23678 (talk) 16:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, no problem. Thanks for the answer --Simonizer (talk) 21:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
result: 22 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer (talk) 20:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Rajpoots 

result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 20:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Annapolis Graduation 

result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer (talk) 10:37, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]
Ryszard Kaczorowski - polish President 1989-1990 Ryszard Kaczorowski - edited version Ryszard Kaczorowski - edit2
Original Edit Edit2 
result: 4 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 15:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

I've edited this image (in Corel Paint Shop Pro Photo X2, if anyone's interested) so as to reduce the brightness and saturation of the background by 50 (I think that means 50%, but the program just says "50"). -- Korax1214 (talk) 11:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would upload the .pspimage version of this image somewhere, so that a more skilled manipulator can have another attempt, but it's 35Mb. :( (I think increasing the black area of the mask to include all hairs, and then running a blur brush over the border between the black and white areas to make a smoother transition between white (full effect) and black (no effect), might do it.) Perhaps if I convert the mask layer to a B/W image (assuming this can be done) and upload that? This could also make it possible to make the second attempt with a different program. -- Korax1214 (talk) 21:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 09:20, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

nominated by --wau > 18:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply] 

result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 10:07, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

SHORT DESCRIPTION

    • Je sais que les couleuvres passent beaucoup de leur temps dans l'eau, mais ce n'est pas pour ça que la photo devrait être floue. Avec une ouverture plus petite ( 9 peut être ? ) et une mise au point sur les yeux et le corps au lieu de l'avant plan, le résultat aurait été meilleur. Sinon la composition est vraiment très bonne. Courage tu y est presque ! Ianare (talk) 18:21, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • C'est ouvert à 7 et je ne pouvais pas faire mieux, on est à main levée et pas sur pied et j'étais à 400ASA pour ne pas avoir de bruit. Le focus est sur les yeux. De toutes façons, le corps étant dans l'eau, il ne peut pas être net. Merci du commentaire. J-Luc (talk) 13:01, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
result: withdrawn => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 10:11, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Nails in love 1.jpg

[edit]

Nails in Love

Note the alternative Image:Nails in love 2.jpg. Plenty of pixels for the subject matter.

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

--S23678 (talk) 18:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I know you want a centerfold size portrait to drool over, however the small size is in fact part of the artwork and represents a pro-environment conservation of resources theme. Remember, these are only nails. OK, I surrender. Jidanni (talk) 02:21, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Interrogation sovjet partisan 1943.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: it is way too small. Any chance of a more detailed scan? MER-C 03:40, 26 July 2008 (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]

Florida Gopher Tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus), Green Swamp, Florida.

  •  Comment Thanks, I prefer this to harsh light, but am not sure I agree either. I would accept unnatural light, since a fill flash was used, but I don't see this as a big issue with the picture. Tomfriedel (talk) 04:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Good point! I could make a version which is cropped more at the right and has more on the left, and then flip it horizontally because I think people are more comfortable with the center being more to the right. But looks like the pic isn't going to make it. Tomfriedel (talk) 04:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
result: 4 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 08:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]
Wrist and hand, deeper palmar dissection Wrist and hand, deeper palmar dissection
Original No Labeled
 Comment Thank's you --libertad0 ॐ (talk) 13:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. (version 2) Simonizer (talk) 08:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Wheat * Triticum polonicum L. 

result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer (talk) 08:10, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Bumblebee pollinating red flower. 

result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 09:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Heliotropium aborscens 

result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 09:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Royal Lotus in bloom 

result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer (talk) 09:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Cherub at Duke Gardens 

result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer (talk) 09:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Tiger beetle 

result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 10:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Space Shuttle Atlantis STS-79

What is wrong with the license. The NASA logo is no where present in the image (that I can see) except for the shuttle's name and thats just a name... --Romeo Bravo (T | C) 20:36, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So why there is Warning on the licence page? --Karelj (talk) 18:50, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The warning is part of the {{PD-USGov-NASA}} license tag. --Kimse (talk) 22:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I still do not see the license issue with this image. --Romeo Bravo (T | C) 22:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
result: 9 support, 2 oppose, 2 neutral => featured. Simonizer (talk) 10:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Tsetse head-proboscis.jpeg

[edit]

A Up-close photograph of an insects head.

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 much too small Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

--Simonizer (talk) 00:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Soyuz TMA-5 launch 

result: 24 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer (talk) 09:49, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Greenovia aurea

  • Don't worry about that... My point was that the background is more interesting IMO than the flower. I never supported the background as a standalone FPC. --S23678 (talk) 20:36, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You may be very well correct there. My point is that the combination is more interesting than either one alone. Barabas (talk) 00:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
result: 10 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 09:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

A sleeping koala in a park at Cairns (Australia). 

result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 09:53, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

sunset at Anse Sévère, La Digue, Seychelles 

result: 7 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 09:54, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

"Mitten" in Monument Valley at sunset 

result: 5 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 09:56, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Antiquarium Munich Residenz 

result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 09:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose The ghost could have been removed using multiple exposures. The blue channel is very underexposed as well (23% is total darkness). A better per-channel level adjustment would have given a better white balance. --S23678 (talk) 02:04, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Punch - Masculine beauty retouched1.png, not featured

[edit]

A Study at a Quiet French Watering-Place - George du Maurier 

result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 10:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:A bee and Sunflover.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: the subject is out of focus and cut off. MER-C 09:21, 29 July 2008 (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:STS-97 ISS.jpg

[edit]

The ISS after its first solar panels were installed

 I withdraw my nomination Romeo Bravo (T | C) 00:03, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/Log/July_2008&oldid=860731988"