Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/November2006

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

Image:Drosera anglica ne2.jpg - featured

Info Drosera anglica in Duck Lake, Oregon, created by Noah Elhardt - uploaded by Noah Elhardt - nominated by Cehagenmerak 08:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Nice picture and beautiful colours! A pity that part of it is unfocused. -- Alvesgaspar 08:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support not disturbed by unfocused background and really impressed by the beauty and "story" of this picture - encyclopedic worth. --Diligent 13:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm not talking about the background, but the heads of the insects at left and bottom .-- Alvesgaspar 13:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo 14:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Erina 16:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While I love the image, is there any way to identify the dragonflies (poor dragonflies!) Cary "Bastiq▼e" Bass ^demandez 17:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment for starters, they are damselflies, not dragonflies. Lycaon 20:07, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Patterns on the thorax and abdomen are often indicative/diagnostic. This one may be an Enallagma boreale (Boreal Bluet). -- Lycaon 20:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - amazing pic of plant predatory activity - MPF 16:08, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's sharp and nice coloured, but the composition is not too good. Seems to me like the photographer saw this scene and just shot it. The scene is confusing and it took quite a while for me to see, what's going on there. norro 10:38, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I would really like some more information on the description page explaining what is happening though! --Digon3 13:44, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I know that it is an interesting "event", but other objects are really distracting, annoying and makes the picture confusing. Indon 08:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support / tsca @ 11:39, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lycaon 22:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Orchi 22:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Luc Viatour 09:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Herrick 12:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC) chaotic backround, bad composition. --Herrick 12:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

9 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → featured Roger McLassus 18:30, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Schlagwortkatalog.jpg - featured

Info created by Dr. Marcus Gossler - uploaded by Dr. Marcus Gossler - nominated by --Gnangarra 15:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Gnangarra 15:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support although the point of intrest is a little weak it is very clear for it's image subject Blind14 20:07, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Blind14 a little boring but I like it SOADLuver 17:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Roger McLassus 18:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Technically it is almost flawless. So, it is a pure aesthetical decision. But I don't hear the bells ringing... - Alvesgaspar 20:48, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes, it's boring. But valuable. --Erina 22:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Boring but informative and valuable --Digon3 01:59, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Diligent 02:11, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - good encyclopaedic pic - MPF 08:39, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ziga 16:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too boring, from my point of view. --Faraj 22 October 2006
Oppose technically good, but not really interesting subject. --Ikiwaner 17:18, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support--MichaelMaggs 21:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support perfect when you need a "boring" image. So, just perfect. --Jollyroger 09:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Get_It (Talk) 17:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Nice patterned image with a good focal point of the open drawer. howcheng {chat} 23:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Luc Viatour 09:23, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

14 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → featured Roger McLassus 18:33, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Brassica juncea wild mustard.JPG - not featured

Info created by Petr Pakandl - uploaded by Petr Pakandl - nominated by Petr Pakandl --Petr Pakandl 17:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Petr Pakandl 17:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hey, I like it! The sky has a weird colour and one flower is awfully cropped, but I really like this pic. It's very original and definitly interesting. --Erina 09:48, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I would support it without the blurred yellow mass at left and the unfocused stem in first plan. - Alvesgaspar 16:14, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Alvesgaspar. Too many things are out of focus. Zzyzx11 07:10, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too many things are out of focus --Digon3 14:53, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The front blurred object is really annoying. Indon 08:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as above Roger McLassus 16:47, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral maybe a nicer crop can be found--SimONE 07:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Get_It (Talk) 17:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- foreground is distracting. howcheng {chat} 23:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lestat 18:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2 support, 8 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured Roger McLassus 18:34, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Kaernten CoA.svg - featured

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Mglanznig --Mglanznig 21:29, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral because of self-nomination --Mglanznig 21:29, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good work! --Erina 22:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Yes, it is nicely done. But is it really one the best pictures in Commons? - Alvesgaspar 22:03, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support My only hesitation was about the eligibility of this kind of work. - Alvesgaspar 13:10, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, nice to see heraldry once in a while here. Scoo 08:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not all coats of arm are PD. Copyright status of the subject should be checked --Jollyroger 09:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support--MichaelMaggs 16:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Get_It (Talk) 17:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --odder 15:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jon Harald Søby 15:17, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

7 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured Roger McLassus 18:36, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Strix-varia-005.jpg

Info created by Mdf - uploaded by Head - nominated by Pharaoh Hound --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 17:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Original version (left) - featured

Support --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 17:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support great shot --AngMoKio 19:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful Blind14 20:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Simonizer 20:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MichaelMaggs 20:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Great, and really worth the new high resolution upload. Thanks! --Dschwen 22:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Erina 08:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Diligent 08:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support K!roman | ☺‼↑♫♥☻ 10:21, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent picture. -- Alvesgaspar 10:42, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support wow Tbc 11:17, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support wow#2 - MPF 16:12, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Francisco M. Marzoa 19:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MartinD 09:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support / tsca @ 11:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ziga 16:07, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cary "Bastiq▼e" Bass ^demandez 13:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support impressive--SimONE 07:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jollyroger 10:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

banned template replaced - Alvesgaspar 22:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Support -- Get_It (Talk) 17:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Orchi 22:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Luc Viatour 14:18, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pmaltby 00:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jon Harald Søby 15:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

23 support, 0 oppose → featured Roger McLassus 18:32, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cropped version (right) - not featured

Support -- I thought cropping it would help since much of the space doesn't add much to the subject. Arad 00:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The original is better. The space enhances the atmosphere and shows the bird as alone in its environment.--MichaelMaggs 06:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ack MichaelMaggs - Simonizer 07:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - The original is much better Alvesgaspar 09:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah it's true, but don't make the much bolder. :-D Thanks for the vote. --Arad 20:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose -- Get_It (Talk) 17:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the original is difficult to get improved...this owl is placed perfect in the photo --AngMoKio 20:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Luc Viatour 14:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2 support, 5 oppose > not featured Alvesgaspar 15:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Navy binoculars.jpg - not featured

Info created by US Navy - uploaded by Neutrality - nominated by Jacopo86 --Jacopo86 10:32, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacopo86 10:32, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment on the left lens there is sommething that can be moist or dust. This can spoil the image, but for me is not so important. --Jacopo86 10:32, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Good pic, but DOF could be better. --Erina 14:26, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ack Erina. First plan is unfocused. - Alvesgaspar 22:00, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurry Roger McLassus 16:30, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lycaon 18:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support excellent composition. The image gets its Suspense by the fact that the composition is not centered while just the center is sharp. The generally dark exposure strikes out the drastic character of the subject. --Ikiwaner 18:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - ditto to Alvesgaspar - MPF 22:20, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support outstanding composition --Jollyroger 09:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very Creative --Joel McLendon please log in to vote. Thanks Lycaon 20:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral if the subject is the binoculars then they are cropped too much, such that parts are missing, if its the reflection then its a good image. Gnangarra 10:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Good composition, but seems a little cropped Bryan 12:27, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I can see it Cary "Bastiq▼e" Bass ^demandez 21:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikiwaner. I don't think a better picture of "big eyes" exists. --Dual Freq 00:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC)sorry, vote was closed Lycaon 16:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]

4 support, 4 oppose, 3 neutral → not featured Alvesgaspar 10:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Mid-Autumn Festival-beijing.jpg - not featured

Info created by Shizhao - uploaded by Shizhao - nominated by Shizhao
Oppose Its a night shot, can't see much but the things I can see are not that special. Sorry --Digon3 02:34, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose it's even shaky, not sharp. Indon 08:41, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as above Roger McLassus 18:48, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Get_It (Talk) 17:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- motion blur, lights are overexposed. howcheng {chat} 23:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

0 support, 5 oppose → not featured Alvesgaspar 10:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Sliven-thracianlowlands-dinev-flickr.jpg

Info created by Evgeni Dinev @ Flickr - uploaded by Martyr - nominated by Cool Cat --Cat out 23:42, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- BTW, the photographer is a Wikipedian: en:User:Evgord. howcheng {chat} 23:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Simply a beultiful high quality pictire. --Cat out 23:42, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Original version (left) - not featured

Oppose Yes, it is beautiful, but also dirty and small. I will support the promotion if a clean, high resolution, version is uploaded. - Alvesgaspar 23:50, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ack Alvesgaspar, would support a higher and cleaner image! --Digon3 02:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Ack oposers. --Erina 08:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose yes, it's dirty and low-res. Indon 08:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose small Lestat 10:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose bad quality -- Gorgo 14:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ack Alvesgaspar Roger McLassus 16:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ack Alvesgaspar Ss181292 20:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose way too small. I suppose the "dirt" are actually birds --Jollyroger 09:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Get_It (Talk) 17:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

9 oppose, 1 support, 1 neutral → not featured Alvesgaspar 10:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Larger, retouched version with birds removed (right) - featured

Support --howcheng {chat} 23:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Thanks Howard for adding it. --Arad 23:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Alvesgaspar 11:21, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Thermos 14:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support That is much better --Digon3 16:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting... Freedom to share 16:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support The mood is fantastic norro 19:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. A rare, interesting look at the sky. --Zantastik 06:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Erina 08:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Romary 09:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Superb Photo!!Keep it up!!! —the preceding unsigned comment is by Yash (talk • contribs)
Support Great atmosphere, well captured Simonizer 14:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Cleaned up? Those were birds, swallows to be precise. I find it worrying that photomanipulation which alters the content of the pictures and not just technical glitches is getting the support here. --Dschwen 17:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- See en:Image:Karandila2.jpg for the Original. --Dschwen 17:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, I wrote "cleaned-up" when I thought it was just dirt. howcheng {chat} 17:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rubbish the picture is good in both the cases!It deserves to be a featured picture!!! —the preceding unsigned comment is by Yash (talk • contribs)
  - Nice tone. --Dschwen 21:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I Really find those birds annoying and not useful. It's better without them. --Arad 13:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I'd rather keep the birds and get rid of those tourists! - MPF 17:39, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Fir0002 tried it without the people (Image:Karandila edit.jpg) but you totally lose the sense of scale on the dirt. Without them, it looks much smaller. howcheng {chat} 23:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, you are right! -- Simonizer 12:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cary "Bastiq▼e" Bass ^demandez 16:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 13 support, 2 oppose >> featured Alvesgaspar 11:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:SCL.jpg - not featured

Info created by DVD R W - uploaded by Xiaowei - nominated by DVD R W
Support --DVD R W 04:41, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Blown out sky but a dark foreground, purple fringing and subject obscured by cars. Choose a higher viewpoint at a different time of day. --Dschwen 07:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ack Dschwen --Erina 08:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose over-exposed sky and blurry. Indon 08:39, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ack Dschwen Roger McLassus 16:43, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Another ditto to Dschwen - MPF 22:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the cars somehow distract (apart of other things)--SimONE 07:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as Dschwen --Jollyroger 09:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Get_It (Talk) 17:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Simonizer 12:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

9 oppose, 1 support → not featured Alvesgaspar 10:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Hopetoun falls.jpg - featured

Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Arad --Arad 05:14, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support good wallpaper --Arad 05:14, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not that interesting, and to be a good wallpaper it should be 1024px or higher. --Erina 08:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support one of my favourites. It's technically perfect and suitable to illustrate waterfall and nature articles. Indon 08:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support / tsca @ 11:36, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I strongly support this picture for its beauty and technical perfection. However, it falls short of the resolution requirements suggested in the guidelines (as many other featured pictures, here and in the Wikipedia). How should we deal with the exceptions? And why is there a so large difference between the criteria here and in Wikipedia?Alvesgaspar 12:50, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

it's a guideline not a rule, it's for encouraging people to only nominate pictures with a reasonable resolution. If it has a low resolution it might be exceptional in all other points and still become featured. -- Gorgo 14:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support very good one --Faraj
~~Neutral~~ technically quite good, but rather low res and info is not sufficient (which country??). Lycaon 13:48, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is said on the bottom of the picture, it's in Australia. --Arad 19:46, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding that info Lycaon 06:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. --Arad 21:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Long-time exposure makes the water look unnatural Roger McLassus 16:27, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support The 'unnatural' water is the point of the picture. Great ! --ezeew
Support I thought it was already a FP, at least now it will be. --Digon3 17:22, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --AngMoKio 17:34, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support long exposure captures the movement of the water and at the same time adds to the feeling of tranquility in the picture. Great! --Dschwen 20:27, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- size is concern but the composition is sufficiently strong enough to ignore size Gnangarra 06:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support ack Dschwen - Simonizer 08:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support ack Gnangarra -- Lycaon 12:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose AGAINST AGAIN -- Michael 18:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC) User was not logged in--AngMoKio 18:18, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ditto to Roger McLassus. Would be very nice with a faster exposure (about 1/60th sec is supposed to best reflect how the eye perceives flowing water) - MPF 22:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MichaelMaggs 06:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support very good composition--SimONE 07:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support not bad --Jollyroger 09:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support looks perfect to me --XN 12:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Oonagh 13:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Shry tales 20:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Francisco M. Marzoa 00:04, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose agree with Roger McLassus and MPF Tbc 20:38, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support dreamy mood. Dori | Talk 03:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is a fantastic photo! Five stars —the preceding unsigned comment is by Yash (talk • contribs)
Oppose Ss181292 15:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC) - ack Roger McLassus + a little to low resolution (1.3 MPix).[reply]

5 oppose, 21 support → featured Alvesgaspar 10:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Eilat - Dolphin reef.jpg - not featured

Info created by Faraj - uploaded by Faraj - nominated by Faraj --Faraj 12:30, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Faraj 12:30, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose something is missing: three quarters of the dolphin and its name. Lycaon 18:26, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the name of the mother dolphin is Shy 30 years old if I remember the name of the baby it's nana.
Comment it's quite normal for the baby to be protected by his mom ;-) It's pssible that I've another photo where you can see the baby....
Comment - do you prefer this one ? http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Eilat_-_Dolphin_reef2.JPG
Comment I think you misunderstood Lycaon. He wants to know which species we´re lookin at, cause dolphin isnt very specific! - Simonizer 09:55, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment bottlenose dolphins.Faraj
Oppose Usual shot. norro 15:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Do you know those dolphins ? They are very happy :) I vote AGAINST Michael 18:26, 22 October 2006 user was not logged in--AngMoKio 18:20, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose just a fish The preceding unsigned vote was made by Jollyroger (nice hidden comment) --Digon3 14:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3 oppose, 1 support → not featured Alvesgaspar 10:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Reinel wind rose.png

Info created by Joaquim Alves Gaspar - uploaded and nominated by Alvesgaspar. Modern vector replica of an old wind rose that appears in a nautical chart by Portuguese cartographer Pedro Reinel (1504). It is the first one known to depict the fleur-de-lys. I'm really not sure if this kind of picture is eligible as FP.

PNG (left) - not featured

Neutral --Alvesgaspar 17:22, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose very much eligible, but should be svg. Lycaon 18:24, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose PNG ♦ Pabix ^ℹ 09:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Info Withdraw nomination of PNG version. But I suggest image to be kept for those who still can't see full size SVG images (like me...) - Alvesgaspar 10:35, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You know that's not a perpetual state. Just install the friggin' plug-in or use a different browser ;-). --Dschwen 15:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - But I read something about friggin plug-in not working well and making Windows to crash... - Alvesgaspar 18:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

0 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral, nomination withdrawn → not featured
Roger McLassus 14:34, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SVG (right) - featured

Info OK, here it is. Left: png; right: svg. If can't read svg in full size, use left version - Alvesgaspar 20:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support SVG--Digon3 01:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support SVG ♦ Pabix ^ℹ 09:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Roger McLassus 10:23, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --WarX 12:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC) nice[reply]
Support --Erina 17:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lycaon 22:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support--MichaelMaggs 06:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support--SimONE 07:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Jollyroger 09:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Go West 22:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ss181292 14:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC) - nothing special apout this picture. Simple subject, simple picture. Looks poor in comparison to Image:Amphipod en.svg.[reply]
Support Cary "Bastiq▼e" Bass ^demandez 16:51, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nothing special--Hi-tacks 14:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2 oppose, 11 support → featured Alvesgaspar 10:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Scheme amphipod anatomy-en.svg - featured

Info created by Lycaon - uploaded by Lycaon - nominated by Lycaon - 22:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

General layout of the amphipod bodyplan after Leucothoe incisa

Support -- Lycaon 22:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Thermos 05:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support / tsca @ 11:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Not all parts named (e.g., presumably there are pereopods 1-5, as well as 6); the dotted division line between pleosome and urosome isn't clear where it meets the body; also the text size is a bit small - MPF 13:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I made a second version with different labeling. Not all pereopods are labeled though, because the labeling would swamp the image. Lycaon 19:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I wonder if better use couldn't be made of color? Yellow is hard for me to distinguish. The different shades appear very similar. The text is better now. I don't know what the yellow bars in the third line of the illustration are intended to convey. Wsiegmund 21:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Agree with Wsiegmund, maybe a little stronger colours would improve the image. Why did you make the lines dimmer in the second version? - Alvesgaspar 10:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Info Final version has arrived, please use CTRL-F5 to refresh. Lycaon 11:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the second version, it is an elegant and informative picture. - Alvesgaspar 18:18, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support new version - MPF 23:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support new version - --MichaelMaggs 11:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support new version --Wsiegmund 15:15, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support new version --AngMoKio 11:29, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fastfood 13:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support high encyclopedic value. (new version) Ss181292 14:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --odder 15:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

right image 11 support, 1 oppose > featured Alvesgaspar 23:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Stock of lumber.JPG - not featured

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Simonizer 08:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Simonizer 08:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I'd prefer a less tight crop. --Dschwen 09:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~But larger pieces of wood don't burn so well in the fireplace... - Alvesgaspar 09:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)~~[reply]

Oppose badly cropped --Jollyroger 09:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unfortunate framing Lycaon 12:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Would be improved if the grass were to be cropped out, but even then the overall composition and the flat lighting mean it isn't in my view up to FP standard.--MichaelMaggs 16:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Get_It (Talk) 17:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Info I added an uncroped version of this picture - Simonizer 22:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Nothing special, I have a stock like this in my backyard for winter. --Arad 00:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good, but not FP, just not that special. --Erina 08:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not outstanding Roger McLassus 19:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Rüdiger Wölk 15:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1 support, 9 oppose > not featured Alvesgaspar 09:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Train wreck at Montparnasse 1895.jpg - featured

Info created by ~~(unknown)~~ Studio Lévy and Sons - uploaded by Hemulen - nominated by Howcheng
Support --howcheng {chat} 23:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Erina 08:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This accident is related there on Wikipedia, for information. ♦ Pabix ^ℹ 09:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Alvesgaspar 09:22, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The original source site of this image seems to be: The Heritage Online. BTW I do like the original better. --XN 12:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That one is slightly different. Note there is more smoke/haze in this version and there are people standing on the roof (upper left) that are missing from the other version. howcheng {chat} 18:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - But this means, that the source is not the same, linked in the image page. The URL is "http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-chat/1066060/posts" which doesn't show any smoke! This image is inbound from the above mentioned site "The Heritage Online". So I would like to know the editing author or the real source with smoke. --XN 21:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Found another digitization of this image at [1]. Edited author info above. howcheng {chat} 22:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Luc Viatour 14:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support un grand classique. tres belle composition. dramatique. --Diligent 16:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment a well-known picture, and potentially worthy of FP status. But much of the scan is of low contrast. I'd support if it could be improved.--MichaelMaggs 17:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support but I agree with MichaelMaggs Shry tales 20:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It seems clear that this version of the image is not the best or the cleanest one available. It's significantly less contrasty and is much more blotchy than other versions mentioned above. Whether the blotchiness is smoke I'm not sure, but it doesn't help the image.--MichaelMaggs 21:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Jklamo 18:44, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lestat 22:30, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cary "Bastiq▼e" Bass ^demandez 16:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

10 support, 1 oppose > featured Alvesgaspar 23:26, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Washington Crossing the Delaware.png - not featured

Info created by Emanuel Leutze (1816 - 1868) - uploaded by Blind14 - nominated by Blind14
Nom. and Support --Blind14 01:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose resolution --Erina 08:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Scanned resolution is too low.--MichaelMaggs 17:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I noticed in the file upload log that, for some reason, at 02:04, 25 October 2006 (UTC), Blind14's version of the image was reverted back to BrokenSegue's old version. Both version have different resolutions. Zzyzx11 05:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Blind14's version was actually Dylan Cole's 1999 redrawing of the original, a copyvio (see [2]). Thus, the revert. howcheng {chat} 19:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, then I have to Oppose the original image based on the resolution. I also think that this nomination should be withdrawn because I believe that Blind14 was specifically nominating his version, the copyvio one, not BrokenSegue's version. Zzyzx11 04:17, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Overlord 23:26, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1 support, 4 oppose > not featured Alvesgaspar 12:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:MarxEngels 4a.jpg - not featured

Info created by Manfred Brückels - uploaded by Manfred Brückels - nominated by Tets

This picture shows a sculpture of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in Front of the Berliner Dom, Germany, Berlin-Mitte.

Support Shry tales 20:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Resolution isn't high enough. (Though nice composition) --Zantastik 04:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Resolution --MichaelMaggs 11:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, resolution plus the sky should have been darkened using a polarizer and the lighting is wrong, it shines on the back of their faces and the front is dark. Either shoot at a different time of day or bring a reflector next time. --Dschwen 14:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If you have to take another shot for resolution's sake, keep this excellent composition.--HereToHelp (talk) 19:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - the resolution just isn't high enough, although it is a nice enough picture. Those guys sure had big mustaches! 71.98.15.232 20:47, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose --Fastfood 13:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --City Slicker 20:54, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose like in de: --Herrick 14:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 2 support, 5 oppose > not featured Alvesgaspar 23:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Cheshire Regiment trench Somme 1916.jpg - featured

Info created by some British soldier - uploaded by Gsl - nominated by Jon Harald Søby 16:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jon Harald Søby 16:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Quartermaster 19:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Dori | Talk 23:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Zzyzx11 04:20, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Romary 09:20, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Diligent 11:27, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Luc Viatour 14:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fastfood 13:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. howcheng {chat} 23:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --odder 15:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nemo5576 10:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 11 support, 0 oppose > featured Alvesgaspar 23:38, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Wigwam motel 2.jpg - not featured

Info created by Raleigh C. Muns — uploaded by Quartermaster — nominated by Quartermaster
Support Quartermaster 23:42, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unfocused and noisy, much more than acceptable for FP. - Alvesgaspar 20:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unfocused --Diligent 13:35, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ack opposers --Digon3 13:37, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unfocused Lestat 22:25, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unfocused --Fastfood 13:57, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Go West 22:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --odder 15:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 1 support, 7 oppose > not featured Alvesgaspar 23:38, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Panorama Donostia Kontxako.jpg - not featured

Info created and uploaded by Joanjoc - nominated by me. --88.17.54.82 19:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, somewhat grainy a little low res. --Dschwen 21:16, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Grainy and noise, some stiching problems (dark then a lighter color, then a dark band...). Take a higher res picture and use hugin, panotools, or emblend --Digon3 15:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with Digon3 - Alvesgaspar 08:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 0 support, 3 oppose > not featured Alvesgaspar 23:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Trithemis annulata Violetter Sonnendeuter side.jpg - not featured

Info created, uploaded, nominated by AngMoKio --AngMoKio 13:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --AngMoKio 13:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Are dragonflies the next sunset/hurricanes/whatever? ;) Other FPs of dragonflies are better, IMO. It's a good pic, but DOF is not perfect and other pics are more detailed. --Erina 15:57, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see a difference between sunsets and dragonflies. There is not a single feartured picture of a Trithemis annulata - of the sun there are several. Featured pictures should also be a source for good photos for the wikipedia.--AngMoKio 13:59, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support Very good picture! Lestat 16:35, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nemo5576 10:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Good picture, technical i cant say anything against it. I just dont like the composition and the colours. Simonizer 12:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for your comment; it is rather meant to show the whole dragonfly for encyclopedical purposes, that's why I chose a picture that shows the features of this animal. I also have this Image:Trithemis annulata (Violetter Sonnendeuter) front.jpg but it doesn't show the features so well.--AngMoKio 14:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support Beautiful! --Tomascastelazo 22:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 4 support, 2 neutral, 0 oppose > not featured Alvesgaspar 23:40, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Marine sextant.png ------- Image:Marine sextant.svg - featured (right)

Info created by Joaquim Alves Gaspar - uploaded and nominated by User:Alvesgaspar. Diagram of a marine sextant used to measure the altitude of heavenly bodies above the horizon, at sea. This is a detailed image fully appreciated only in full resolution. (I tried to upload a svg version but couldn't make it visible here. Please don't oppose promotion just for that reason. I'm sure someone will help in the meantime).
- Than I'll change my vote. IMO not being svg is enough to oppose this pic. --Erina 20:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alvesgaspar 14:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support A vector graphics version. Please ask me, if you need help with that. norro 15:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose .png, ~~would probably~~ Support .svg. --Erina ~~15:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)~~ 06:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. If you get an svg, change this to support. Support the SVG.--HereToHelp (talk) 19:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Info But I can't !! I tried various applications (including Inkscape and CorelDraw X3) with no results. When I try to upload the file into Commons it doesn't work. I don't understand why everybody is so excited with a picture format that many people cannot create or even see ! - Alvesgaspar 20:08, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'ld support a svg too. I also offer help if needed (Corel XII). Lycaon 21:25, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment SVG version is now available norro 22:25, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- But image in thumbnail is corrupted. Well, I'll keep trying... - Alvesgaspar 22:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support .png, which is plenty large enough, and better for all those who don't have .svg software - MPF 22:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support--MichaelMaggs 07:36, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The SVG version is being worked upon, it will be shown as soon as it is ready. Lycaon 08:34, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support PNG or SVG when they load it. --Digon3 13:35, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support PNG or SVG when they load it. -- Pluke 14:24, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support but i have a newcomer's question: shouldn't the "words" be replaced with numbers and a text storing the relevant translations for other wikipedias in the description page on Commons. This (wonderfull) illustration is useable only in the english wikipedia and creating 50ish similar illustrations is a nightmare / non-feasible. --Diligent 12:29, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That's where svg comes in: labels can be changed (translated) with a simple text editor (e.g. Notepad). Lycaon 14:36, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you, now I understand why it is so important!
Support --Fastfood 13:58, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support very extensive --City Slicker 20:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is this the place for voting PNG or SVG version? Francisco M. Marzoa 09:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Info I'm putting the svg version back, although it looks corrupted when viewed through the browser (some parts are incorrectely filled and proportion is altered). However, it looks fine when opened by a graphics application. I will not support myself this version until the problem is solved. - Alvesgaspar 10:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is small difference between PNG and SVG versions - look at the magnifying glass. I think it should be fixed. Ss181292 14:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Info Please see previous entries and explanation above. - Alvesgaspar 15:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Info Should be fixed now. —Ilmari Karonen 23:20, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support perfect --odder 15:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support (almost forgot) ;-) -- Lycaon 21:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ziga 14:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, SVGs are becoming ubiquitous so we need to choose the best. This doesn't use the text tag which makes it more difficult to change for other languages. gren 09:48, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- So, I failed in making what I wanted. Here is my attempt (doing it with Inkspace) and here is an image that does it well. (Not that if you search for "shade glass" in this you won't find it... but you will find "coal hopper" in the other) If someone knows how to do this that would be great. I think it's important because it makes translation much easier. gren 10:15, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 14 support, 1 oppose (svg version) > featured svg version Alvesgaspar 23:42, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Muzeum Sułkowskich - Zabytkowy Witraż.jpg - featured

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Lestat --Lestat 20:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lestat 20:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Romary 08:15, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support high resolution! --Fastfood 13:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support detailed --Overlord 23:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent image Cary "Bastiq▼e" Bass ^demandez 16:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support / tsca @ 17:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support great work --odder 15:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support very nice indeed --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 00:58, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Zzyzx11 22:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jon Harald Søby 16:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 10 support, 0 oppose > featured Alvesgaspar 23:44, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Berlin Siegessaeule Festival Lights.JPG - not featured

Info created by Times - uploaded by Times - nominated by Artist --Artist 23:49, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Artist 23:49, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose overexposed -- Lycaon 00:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose overexposed and too much noise. Concerning composition: This cut-off street lamp on the right shouldn't be there.. --AngMoKio 11:26, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support overexposed? not in this case. high resoltution! --Fastfood 14:00, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment image was changed since nomination. Lycaon 14:34, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice shot. --Overlord 23:21, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support good composition --City Slicker 20:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose a acceptable night shot, but not FP worthy Simonizer 09:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition does not compensate for overexposure as well as noise and artifacts in dark areas. - Alvesgaspar 09:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose street light glare - MPF 17:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Go West 22:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose / tsca @ 17:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The glare from the street lights should be cropped out. Zzyzx11 22:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

5 support, 7 oppose > not featured Alvesgaspar 11:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Glowring3.JPG

Info created by Bgran - uploaded by Bgran - nominated by Bgran

Wide view (left) - not featured

Oppose too black, too tiny, too empty Lycaon 00:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, I don't know what this is and can't read German. - Alvesgaspar 10:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Dear Alvesgaspar, in my opinion you have to view an image at full-size resolution for judging. If you do so, there is also an english translation and explanation. Also the thumbnail is now bilingual. Any comments regarding my picture? - Greetings, Bgran
- I always appreciate the pictures in full size. Yes, now I can see it is a radioluminescent keychain. Agree with Lycaon: too black, too tiny, too empty. On the other side, I can't see relevant encyclopedic value. - Alvesgaspar 11:18, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too dark, bad composition. norro 16:24, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose only 800x533px. Ss181292 22:41, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Overlord 23:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unfortunate composition --City Slicker 20:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This could be a better picture if the subject would be depicted a bit bigger. The image has to be dark in order to see the luminescence and this page is not about encyclopedic value. Anywho, I think the subject is fairly interesting and I do see relevant encyclopedic value. Do you have another version or the posibility to reshoot? --Dschwen 22:35, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Yes, there is a possibility to reshoot. I will place the keychain in the center of the picture and try to minimize the darkness on the sides. But as Dschwen said, it has to be dark, otherwise you won´t see anything. I will post the new image today in the evening. Greetings, Bgran
Info The image has been edited, I hope it fits your conceivabilities now. Bgran

0 support, 6 oppose > not featured Alvesgaspar 11:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Closeup (right) - not featured

Comment This is a much better picture. In order to reduce some grain and noise, I would reduce its size a bit. - Alvesgaspar 23:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The noise and grain is within limits. I'd leave the size as it is, downsampling can be performed if really necessary for a particular application of the picture. --Dschwen 06:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think I like it. Technically good photo. No need to resample. Ss181292 14:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose norro 17:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Two much grain and noise for a FP. - Alvesgaspar 21:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I hope peoople look at the image before voting instead of relying on coments like the one above. I honestly have no idea how Alves gets this impression. Especially for a shot under difficult light conditions the noise is very low and the grain barely noticable. --Dschwen 16:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thank you for the compliment. As a newbie here (but not to photography, I’m afraid), I feel really flattered for all the attention given to my humble opinions. Honestly (we are talking here of intellectual honesty, of course), I believe this picture does not deserve a FP status. As I have said before in another discussion, there is little excuse for not producing an optimal shot when we have controlled conditions. In the present case, and because the subject does not have any exceptional interest, it is expected the picture to be technically perfect. I gave the opportunity to the author to improve the image a little before using my vote. If he had decided to do that, I probably wouldn’t have opposed the nomination. Alvesgaspar 20:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You are entitled to your opinion, I was merely pointing out the descrepancy between that opinion and fact. --Dschwen 21:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2 support, 2 oppose > not featured Alvesgaspar 11:19, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Saturn eclipse.jpg - featured

Info created by NASA - uploaded by Oni Lukos - nominated by Oni Lukos --Oni Lukos 13:25, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Oni Lukos 13:25, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Info Honestly, this looked lighter when I was compressing it. Anyway, an exaggerated color version is available at Image:Saturn eclipse exaggerated.jpg, and I'm in the process of making a less grainy version, but I don't know what to do with it once I'm done, as three version with different colors is a tad extreme. ~ Oni Lukos 13:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow, that's unique. Really nice. I like it more than the exaggerated version. norro 16:21, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Amazing! - Alvesgaspar 19:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I love it. Cary "Bastiq▼e" Bass ^demandez 16:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support whoaa.. --odder 15:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support whoaa indeed. Would prefer a version with brightness somewhere between this and the "exaggerated" version, but will support any of them. —Ilmari Karonen 00:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Zzyzx11 22:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support alifazal 16:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 8 support, 0 oppose >> featured Alvesgaspar 14:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:CarduelisChlorisBerry.jpg - featured (left)

Info created by Thermos - uploaded by Thermos - nominated by Thermos --Thermos 14:46, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Thermos 14:46, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Diligent 22:57, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --mh 12:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not centered. --Overlord 23:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Tried to make it a tad brighter, but I'm not that good at editing. Also cropped it a bit. Dori | Talk 03:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not centered. ;) --Erina 21:29, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support ack Erina !! -- Lycaon 23:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support ack Erina ;-) and nice colours Simonizer 08:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support K!roman | ☺‼↑♫♥☻ 09:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lestat 09:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support First image. Ack Erina. Cary "Bastiq▼e" Bass ^demandez 16:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support / tsca @ 17:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --odder 15:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Zzyzx11 22:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support vote for edited pic. --Ziga 14:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support alifazal 16:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree --Lmbuga ^{gl, pt, es: contacta comigo} 22:47, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 14 support, 1 oppose >> featured (left image) Alvesgaspar 15:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Odontodactylus scyllarus1.jpg - featured

Info created by Jnpet - uploaded by Jnpet - nominated by Jnpet --Jnpet 03:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jnpet 03:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose bad focus, pity Lycaon 12:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- InfoYes, I was a bit concerned about that, but I felt that the focus here is on the head, fans and smashers. It really shows why it's a peacock mantis shrimp. Is there any way it can be cleaned up with photo shop software? Jnpet 15:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow! BTW what the... is this? --Erina 06:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- InfoIt's a peacock mantis shrimp. It uses it's smashers to crack shells of clams and crabs to get at the meat inside. I guess it gets the name peacock for its colors and mantis because of its posture.Jnpet 15:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support K!roman | ☺‼↑♫♥☻ 09:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose dirty and not very sharp norro 13:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very cool picture. Cary "Bastiq▼e" Bass ^demandez 16:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I cannot vote against this picture, in spite of being noisy and unfocused. This is a weird animal! - Alvesgaspar 23:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo 22:29, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lestat 12:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support alifazal 16:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 6 support, 1 neutral, 3 oppose >> featured Alvesgaspar 08:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Striped eel catfish, Plotosus lineatus - not featured

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Jnpet --Jnpet 08:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jnpet 08:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Interesting composition, almost like a Escher's repetitive pattern. But picture is unfocused and noisy. - Alvesgaspar 08:43, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- InfoThanks, I appreciate the critique. I'm a bit confused though. My understanding is that this is a forum to provide material which could be useful to creating informative wikipedia articles. This picture show how tightly bundled this school of striped eel catfish is. This is in fact the way they school in the wild, especially the juveniles. Hence the "noise" is intentional to show this behavior. As for the focus, I think the nearest catfish are in focus and you can clearly count the eight barbels which also identifies these to be catfish. The out of focus catfish in the back of the school also adds to the "noise". I would be happy to take any suggestions as to how this could be improved. Perhaps cropping it? Jnpet 15:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  Just to point that out: Commons are not just for providing material for wikipedia, but for all wikimedia projects. In addition: It would be nice, if you could provide this additional information here on the image description page, too. Kindly, norro 13:14, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment In this context (digital photography) "noise" doesn't mean "confusion" but the presence of random coloured "grain" and artifacts caused by the camera sensor or the file compressing process. This is most common in the parts of the image less iluminated. To have all the fish focused it would be necessary to use a smaller lens aperture in order to have a larger depth-of-field. I don't think cropping would solve the problem. - Alvesgaspar 23:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose small DOF and very confusing norro 13:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I really appreciate everyone's input. I'm not necesarilly new to photography, but I am somewhat new to underwater photography, which I find can be somewhat challenging at times. Under water, things appear to be bigger than they actually are, an optical illusion caused by the water itself, so when focusing on something it can be a bit difficult to find the right focus to click, especially when you are looking into a tiny digital window when placing the subject in the frame. Light is another problem, the water naturally filters out colors and the deeper you go, the bluer it gets. Reds are the first to go and so you need to have flash to bring out the colors. But the flash has a tendency to white out underwater as the water itself reflects the flash. Best way to counter this is to use a strobe light, an expensive bit of equipment I have yet to invest in. Random colored grains was mentioned, this could be things floating in the water. It could be plankton or sand and it's not always possible to control. From this and the other two pictures I have submitted so far it seems DOF is my biggest correctable problem. I'm somewhat limited to the lens I have for the camera, as it's put in a water proof casing, however, I'm thinking that perhaps I am better off shooting on wide focus, then crop the picture afterwards. Some of the subjects are very small, and I'm not sure how well they will show. At any rate, I have a few more shots of some unusual creatures, which I hope will be useful to Wiki and all its projects, which I'll be submitting over the next few weeks and look forward to the input. Jnpet 02:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo 22:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sufficient DOF for me - some fish in the front are really sharp. -- Lerdsuwa 18:18, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree--Lmbuga ^{gl, pt, es: contacta comigo} 22:51, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I've seen much better, sadly not on commons yet... -- Lycaon 00:08, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I added a different image of the same subject. Is the second one better than the first? Jnpet 01:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I suggest you create a new nomination with this image. Alvesgaspar 08:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 4 support, 3 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 08:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Hanumanagundi Falls.jpg - not featured

Info created by Naveenbm - uploaded by Naveenbm - nominated by Naveenbm --Naveenbm 12:03, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
* Support --Naveenbm 12:03, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A little overexposed at the top --Digon3 20:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing special, overexposure. Freedom to share 16:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good composition. Nice image. Cary "Bastiq▼e" Bass ^demandez 16:46, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Hi-tacks 10:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 2 support, 3 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 10:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Eurypegasus draconis.JPG - not featured

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Jnpet --Jnpet 17:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jnpet 17:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Unfocused surroundings --Digon3 20:29, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Ditto to Digon3 on poor depth of field; a pity as otherwise it shows most of the fish very well - MPF 17:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose subject doesn't stand out against the background norro 12:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Subject shown in its natural environment. DOF does not bother me as it is not relevant, in fact, larger DOF would probably distract. Picture shows how subject blends in its natural environment.--Tomascastelazo 17:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with Tomascastelazo about the subject blending in the environment. However the fin is too much unfocused and there is a blurred distracting mass in the first plan. - Alvesgaspar 10:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per norro --odder 15:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lestat 22:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Unnatural colours (see Image:Eurypegasus draconis.jpg). DOF is not such a problem. Should have used a flash light however. Lycaon 09:48, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I disagree on the use of flash. Flash tends to flatten subject, volume and texture are lost. --Tomascastelazo 22:27, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Depends on the positioning of the flash(es). Under water colour is lost quite quickly with depth (red is first to go). To make a lifelike picture of an underwater creature, a flash or other auxilliary illumination is unavoidable... BTW, colour is the only good thing about my own picture, this one here is in all other aspects superior, but still far from FP material. -- Lycaon 00:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The surroundings are too much out of focus. Zzyzx11 22:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 2 support, 2 neutral, 6 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 21:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Yellowstone p1110169.jpg - not featured

Info created, uploaded and nominated by David Monniaux
Support --David.Monniaux 21:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support whoa, pretty ! Darkoneko 21:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Nice ! --Neuceu 21:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support ♦ Pabix ^ℹ 21:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (in French) J'aime pas qu'on me coupe l'herbe sous le pied, zut alors ♦ Pabix ^ℹ
Oppose Yes, nice, but I don't see anything exceptional about it... I think it has something wrong with composition - my attention is drawn to the trees, but I don't think they're main subject of this photo? --Erina 06:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose have to agree with Erina. It is nice...but still it looks rather like a random snapshot. I cant see a main subject or a special composition.--AngMoKio 08:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with Erina and AngMoKio. Composition is not interesting, with those trees right in the middle and no clear subject. - Alvesgaspar 08:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't mind the trees (which are Pinus contorta subsp. latifolia), but the road bridge and cars do detract a lot from the quality of the pic - MPF 17:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice image Cary "Bastiq▼e" Bass ^demandez 16:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Digon3 14:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 5 support, 5 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 21:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Yellowstone Grand Prismatic Spring p1110210.jpg - not featured

(I have more of them on Flickr, if you fill some would fill a gap on WP you may ask on my talk page.)

Info created, uploaded, nominated by David Monniaux
Support --David.Monniaux 15:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support / tsca @ 17:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful! Cary "Bastiq▼e" Bass ^demandez 20:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Nice ! --Neuceu 21:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Noisy sky, composition not exceptional. I really prefer this one - Alvesgaspar 23:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Boring Composition of an otherwise nice landscape -- Simonizer 07:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral i think the composition is not bad. Also the colours are not bad..but the overall quality (noise, sharpness) is unfortunatelly rather low --AngMoKio 13:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --odder 15:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lestat 22:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support--SimONE 07:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ack opposers -- Lycaon 10:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose we had a better one that didn't get featured --Ikiwaner 13:37, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support //moralist 15:11, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - much better than the one Ikiwaner cites, as it doesn't have human artefacts spoiling the natural landscape. I also like the clouds and background on this one - MPF 19:04, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Urban 06:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Opposeack Alvesgaspar. --MichaelMaggs 20:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Anna reg 00:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose composition. --Diligent 13:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ziga 14:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support alifazal 16:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- I think this is such a great photo which people have to know ! vote by anonymous user 84.100.142.139 - Alvesgaspar 19:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose composition -- Gorgo 14:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 13 support, 1 neutral, 7 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 00:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Dardel-dandyn.jpg - not featured

Info created by Nils von Dardel - uploaded and nominated by --Odengatan 23:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Odengatan 23:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too small Lestat 09:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose agree with Lestat --AngMoKio 09:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too small. This image is already in the web. - Alvesgaspar 10:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too small. --Digon3 14:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Lestat --odder 15:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 1 support, 5 oppose > not featured Alvesgaspar 00:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Baksei Chamkrong.jpg - not featured

Info created, uploaded and nominated by NeuCeu --Neuceu 16:14, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Neuceu 16:14, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, Beautiful picture ! Darkoneko 16:19, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Good composition, good subject. Cary "Bastiq▼e" Bass ^demandez 16:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't like the lighting and the colours. And just for me the composition is boring. norro 21:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Wrong colours, visible artifacts around the building. - Alvesgaspar 23:51, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong colours ? --Neuceu 13:05, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I mean "washed out". - Alvesgaspar 14:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I don't like the lighting and the colours.--Lmbuga ^{gl, pt, es: contacta comigo} 22:52, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 3 support, 3 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 15:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Bodensee panorama.jpg - not featured

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Bryan --Bryan 20:19, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Bryan 20:19, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Sky is overexposed, town is underexposed. howcheng {chat} 22:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with Howcheng. Dark parts are also noisy. - Alvesgaspar 23:28, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This would have been a perfect HDR shot. --Digon3 14:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Howcheng. --odder 15:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lestat 22:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Info HDR images usually don't get promoted here. Nevertheless have a look how this one might look as a HDR version: [3] --Ikiwaner 12:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But there have been some. And your HDR version is based on his edited version. The unedited version is here. The problems is the lighter the dark areas become, the more noise is visible. If he had taken 3+ different exposures for each shot this would not be a problem. Digon3 15:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did recognize that my version was an edit :-) That's why it's scaled down and overwritten by the original. The idea was to give the photographer an idea. I fully agree that this picture can't be fixed. When you increase brightness of the dark parts you see not only the stitching very well—there are also defective pixels in this camera (3x red 1x green) --Ikiwaner 17:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - ditto to howcheng - MPF 19:07, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Info Thank you for all your criticism and your comments how to improve the next time (and by the way, I have a new camera without dead pixels :). I think it makes no sense in leaving this open, thus I withdraw my nomination. -- Bryan (talk to me) 18:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

nomination withdrawn -  not featured Simonizer 10:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Medusa SFGAdv train.jpg - not featured

Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Dusso Janladde --Dusso Janladde 21:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dusso Janladde 21:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Wow, you can feel the speed :) but the train and the people just fill a small part of the picture and I would like to see the faces (shorter exposure time). norro 22:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the shutter speed was fast enough that the people were identifiable, their faces would have to be blurred out anyway, or the picture couldn't be used since model releases would have to be obtained from the people in the picture. Dusso Janladde 02:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Agree with norro. Also, I don't think this is the best place to make the shot. - Alvesgaspar 10:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per norro. --odder 15:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose average picture. Ss181292 16:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lestat 22:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral maybe a good crop could improve it--SimONE 07:37, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Hi-tacks 14:39, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 1 support, 1 neutral, 6 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 23:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:HD 69830 Planet.jpg - not featured

Info created by NASA/JPL-Caltech/SST - uploaded by WhileCrowd - nominated by Shizhao --Shizhao 02:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Shizhao 02:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose i think it is an average raytracing picture. Nothing really special. Sorry. --AngMoKio 08:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose agreed --Digon3 18:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with AngMoKio norro 18:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with AngMoKio Lestat 22:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --SimONE 07:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per above. --Thisisbossi 01:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 1 support, 6 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 09:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:USCGC Harriet Lane WMEC 903 moored at NS Guantanamo Bay.jpg - not featured

Info U.S. Navy photo by Photographer's Mate 1st Class Christopher Mobley. Nominated and uploaded by Dual Freq
Support I know it's a night shot, but I can't quantify what I like about it, maybe its the blue sky and water vs the white of the cutter or the blurred reflection. Dual Freq 02:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree this is a nice composition but unfortunately the main subject is too unsharp (I don't mean the radar antenae which should be rotating). - Alvesgaspar 10:10, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose don't like it at all --odder 15:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for a picture made by the military it is too unsharp --SimONE 07:35, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Awful composition. Rama 09:13, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like the colors, but I feel that the subject is not interesting enough. Using the entire bottom half for a faint reflection seems to feel more like empty space. However, cutting out the reflection would definitely ruin the picture. I would rather the ship be photographed at slightly more of an angle so that there is more interest toward the left and right of the image. --Thisisbossi 01:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 1 support, 5 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 09:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Trump International Hotel and Tower (New York).jpg - not featured

Info created, uploaded and nominated by OliverZena --OliverZena 20:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --OliverZena 20:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support (very strong). It's a beautiful picture! --「Twice^28.0 · contributi · talk」 20:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose framing -- Lycaon 10:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you elaborate on that? Just to make it more helpful for the photographer and people reading the page. --Dschwen 14:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunate cutting of the globe makes the picture less interesting than it could have been. Lycaon 15:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but this was the only way to take this picture, unless you like people's heads and road signals^^ --OliverZena 15:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Anna reg 23:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dual Freq 23:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support alifazal 16:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The cutting off of the sculpure on the left detracts, in my view. --MichaelMaggs 20:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good work, I like the angle pauliefred
Oppose the composition is so-so. The overall quality of the photo is rather low. --AngMoKio 11:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ack MichaelMaggs -- Simonizer 07:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good angle, but as has been said: cutting off key portions of the subject tends to detract from the image. --Thisisbossi 01:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 6 support, 5 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 20:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:CameronLakeAutumn.JPG - not featured

Info created by Noblesteed - uploaded by Noblesteed - nominated by Noblesteed --Noblesteed 20:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Noblesteed 20:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too much UV lighting Lestat 22:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The picture looks too hazy for me, colours lack saturation. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 17:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Hi-tacks 14:38, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose quality -- Gorgo 01:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This picture must be taken again with polarisation and uv-filter. And you have to pick up the old cigarette filters out of the water in front of you. --SvonHalenbach 00:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like it, but it's too hazy. Try adjusting the tones. Also considering photographing at other times and seasons. --Thisisbossi 01:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 1 support, 6 oppose >> not featured (rule of 7th day) Alvesgaspar 18:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Moon_Monster2.jpg - featured

Info created by RufusTeleStrat - uploaded by RufusTeleStrat - nominated by RufusTeleStrat --66.75.145.21 05:09, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --RufusTeleStrat 05:09, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Nice. Do you have a higher resolution avaiable? --Dschwen 08:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support but too small Lestat 08:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Excellent picture, but resolution is too low -- Simonizer 08:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support cool! --Jacopo86 08:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rama 09:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support despite low res. --Diligent 12:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. A shame there is no high-res version. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 17:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose resolution too low for a subject that far -- Gorgo 20:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC) Support now. But maybe even better if it was cropped a little bit (top, bottom) -- Gorgo 19:30, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support impressive --XN 21:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Javierme 21:32, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very interesting. It's to bad the resolution is somewhat lacking. -Gphoto 00:47, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Dori | Talk 04:38, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Low res and I don't see why it is interesting...--Hi-tacks 14:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Info high-res now available -- Gorgo 19:30, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The right one is the high res version. (3872 x 2592) --Digon3 17:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Digon3 17:07, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great -- Simonizer 17:36, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Alvesgaspar 19:12, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support / tsca @ 22:05, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support lightening and mood make this picture excellent --Ikiwaner 11:43, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really nice picture, almost looks like an UFO is going to fly throught the cloud :P //moralist 15:09, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's a cool picture... but, not technically a great one... I realize it doesn't need to fit into an article like on EN... but, it still doesn't quite make the grade for me. —the preceding unsigned comment is by Grenavitar (talk • contribs) 15:18, 5 November 2006
Oppose - don't care for nighttime cityscapes - MPF 19:30, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Urban 06:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This doesn't look quite right to me. Is this photo a composite? From the Exif data, it was taken with a lens at 52mm. At these focal lengths on an SLR, the moon usually looks like litte more than a dot. Perhaps, high cirrus is further diffusing the light from the moon before illuminating the mid level clouds. -- Solipsist 08:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is as it came out of the camera other than some straighting of the horizon. The shot was slightly tilted. Auto White balance, taken with my D200, and the 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5G ED-IF AF-S DX Zoom Nikkor that came in the kit. It was almost an afterthought shot. I had been wanting a long shot with the telephot to compress the shot, but the moon had come up obsured and not that great of a shot. Took a few, had removed my 80-200, and replaced it with the walking around lens, and the moon popped up and I saw it going towards the cloud bank. Click click and this is it.-RUFRufustelestrat 19:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ziga 14:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support alifazal 15:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support (Self-censoring banned template.) Jon Harald Søby 16:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice -- Lerdsuwa 18:34, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support The fact that someone thought it's a composite says a lot. – flamurai 21:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice Picture. I like the Sky as it is, but this picture is not in focus and a bit too grainy to be a featured pic. Please try again.--SvonHalenbach 01:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral It is a really neat picture, but I agree with others in that it is too blurry and grainy for an FP. I just like the picture too much to oppose it, though! Definitely try submitting more pictures such as this. --Thisisbossi 01:11, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support It was good enough that i chose it as my wallpaper. The blur is only visible at max res and only if you reduce it to half, you can't notice anything. --Arad 14:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 25 support, 1 neutral, 5 oppose >> featured Alvesgaspar 00:00, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Lion fish melb aquarium.jpg - not featured

Info Uploaded and nominated by Fir0002 (self nom)
Support --Fir0002 www 06:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't like the crop. Why not the whole fish? Alvesgaspar 11:21, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ack Alvesgaspar --Digon3 17:01, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lerdsuwa 18:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 2 support, 2 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 13:27, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Podarcis muralis (Jaszczurka murowa).jpg - not featured

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Lestat --Lestat 08:28, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lestat 08:28, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too dark, background uninteresting. I would suggest you take the picture at more of an angle. --Digon3 14:02, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too dark. --Lmbuga ^{gl, pt, es: contacta comigo} 22:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 1 support, 2 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 7th day) Alvesgaspar 18:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Medusa Bernini Musei Capitolini.jpg - not featured

Info created by Jastrow - uploaded by Jastrow - nominated by Diligent --Diligent 13:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Diligent 13:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Neuceu 15:37, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Thanks a lot to Diligent for his appreciation, but I don't think this picture is up to it. The framing is bad (the snake on the left gets a close shave) and there's a lot of noise due to poor light conditions. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 17:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I would tweak the color curve to make the image brighter. Also too tight crop on the left. -- Lerdsuwa 18:30, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The lighting can be changed but the problem with the left border cannot be fixed: the framing was bad to start with. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 19:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 2 support, 2 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 13:29, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Crocodylus acutus 07.jpg - not featured

Info created by User:tomascastelazo - uploaded and nominated by User:tomascastelazo 18:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support --User:Tomascastelazo 18:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose bad framing, lots of noise (high iso) -- Lycaon 21:38, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 1 support, 1 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 7th day) Alvesgaspar 18:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Crocodylus acutus 08.jpg - not featured

Info created by User:tomascastelazo - uploaded and nominated by Tomas Castelazo--Tomascastelazo 19:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo 19:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Mihael Simonič 20:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Not very clear at first sight. The subject looks like its environment but, after all, that mimetic feature has helped the crocodyle to survive. --Javierme 21:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Javierme - That is exactly the point... the subject in its environment and how it blends in. Up close and personal. To see a better example of this mimicing of the surroundings, see this picture Image:Crocodylus acutus 10.jpg --Tomascastelazo 21:35, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Interesting shot, pity DOF is a lacking and there is a too much noise. Lycaon 22:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Lycaon Yes, well, that is the way it is... next time I´ll ask the croc to stand still and say cheese, like dead crab shots in the safety and comfort of a cozy lab... :o) --Tomascastelazo 23:17, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yeah, i can feel the suspense. The reflections are well captured and the head of croco is a good diagonal through the picture. -- Simonizer 17:44, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support--MichaelMaggs 18:03, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too much grain and noise. - Alvesgaspar 17:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In the old days, high ISO speed films were used under low light conditions. Film was push-processed in order to gain contrast and detail, but always resulting in grainy images. In the new days, high ISO speeds are used under low light conditions, yielding what is called "noise" or the equivalent of grain. In this particular case, the subject was taken in its natural environment, late in the afternoon, under low light conditions. Using a lower ISO speed would have resulted in a blurred picture due to having to use lower shutter speeds. So, what do we want? a picture with noise (or grain) that is relatively sharp and considering the limitations of technology or a picture with low noise (or grain) that is blurred by movement? As in the old days, we have a grainy picture due to limitations of technology with a relatively frozen subject, and a bit low DOF that is not important in the general context of the image. So, the adverse conditions were: 1. low light 2. Hight ISO thus more noise 3. A moving subject and the result? 1. a relatively frozen subject. 2. A picture rich in content and context, 3. a close up of an elusive subject. Under adverse conditions, one must always sacrifice something. But point taken, next time I will carry studio equipment, tranquilizers and hire more crocs, and a platform to replace the mangrove so I can use a tripod... :o) --Tomascastelazo 16:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- One more comment, to consider not necessarily for this image, but all images in general. Difficulty degree in photography judging is almost always an important variable, and judges are required to read the clues that point to that. In this case, digital photography lacks the dynamic range of analog photography. Dynamic range is the capacity of film (or chip) to register tonal differences within an image. So, here we have a subject that belongs to the middle of the tonal range of a gray scale with acceptable detail, and in the shade. The water reflects the sky in a manner that it is represented by aprox zone IX in the gray scale. That means the the light differential between a subject in the shade and a subject outside the shade is basically short, as neither the main subject is blocked towards the low side of the scale, well within the texture range, and neither the sky is blocked toward the high end of the scale (during the day, the reflection of the sky would have been extremely overexposed). So we have two subjects that belong to two different light conditions (and scales), sharing one tonal scale, in a medium that is known for a short dynamic range... (and I will spare you the details of climbing over mangroves...) Draw your conclusions. --Tomascastelazo 17:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - MPF 14:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A FP is supposed to be an exceptional picture, created by the talent of the photographer and/or the reunion of certain (difficult) conditions which concur to achieve a unique image. In the present case, and although we do not have fully controlled conditions, we can still wait for a better opportunity: a better light, a more cooperative animal, a more sophisticated camera or simply a younger, more patient and courageous photographer capable of mounting a tripod near the nose of the beast and wait for the oportunity. Alvesgaspar 23:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Alvesgaspar – WOW!!!!!!!! I am blinded by the brilliance of your critique, I am left breathless by the depth of you vision and speechless by the clarity of your discourse. Of course my image cannot match the technical difficulties you must have encountered in creating this masterpiece of encyclopedic value Image:The photographer.jpg; furthermore, yes, age has taken a toll on me, and sadly enough, as I grow old, so does my cowardice, therefore, gone are the days where I could have attempted to match your intrepid and fearless valor that you must have mustered to face these ferocious beasts Image:Girl and cat.jpg, that I suspect, must have made the strongest of the strong quiver with fear, except, of course, you. I truly apologyze to you for having desecrated this holy site with my humble attempt to contribute an image of a lowly reptile with such evident flaws, and having put your two neurons to work. I hope one did not burn out. --Tomascastelazo 00:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Both of you - please re-read the above and Above all, Be polite --MichaelMaggs 18:59, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment I’m sorry if I have offended the readers of this page; that was not my intention. But I don’t like to be lectured about the way a picture should be evaluated and how I should act as a reviewer, especially by the author of the photograph under review. That is indeed a subtle form of impoliteness, much worse for me than any childish joke about my poor intelligence. Please forgive me of my mention to age. But again, I had no intention to offend; chances are that I’m much older than most reviewers here. Alvesgaspar 20:45, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I do not mind criticism, in fact, I welcome it truly, and my intention is not to lecture but to bring light into the world of photography. However, I firmly believe that there is a difference between liking a picture and evaluating a picture. Personal taste is just that, personal, and nothing can be said about that. If a person does not like cats, he/she just doesn't like cats, but it does not mean that a picture of a cat is either bad or lacks photographic merit. One must raise above personal likes or dislikes and recognize, according to well based criteria, the photographic merit of certain images, including those of subjects we may not like. In my opinion, value criteria is often either lacking or displaced. I read tons of oppose comments alluding to "technical flaws" such as noise or color or burned out areas or DOF, etc., etc., that make people miss the point of value of the image, specifically the encyclopedic value, on top of being totally baseless from the technical and photographic point of view, and depriving Wikipedia of a valuable opportunity to motivate people to participate and contribute. I see an over reliance of software trickery that hide the true nature of photographic talent and technique. Alvesgaspar, if you read my "lecturing" that brought about this unpleasant exchange, there was nothing in it that pointed to flaws in your judgement on the personal level, but was limited to technical explanations and well known photographic judging principles, in the spirit of raising awarness of how to judge photographs, not my photographs. I have been around photography for 35 years, and although I may not be the best photographer nor the most knowledgeable person in photography, I have accumulated lots of tricks and knowledge, which I will gladly share. This is not an arrogant statement, for whatever little knowledge I may have is useless to me, I already have it, it is only useful in the measure that it can be shared. I offer it to you and anyone who wants it. Just ask.--Tomascastelazo 04:01, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Look good. The pattern on its skin is amazing. Noise is not bad for such a large image. -- Lerdsuwa 18:28, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose leaf in the water and composition too narrow norro 19:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- - Comment These guys emerge at random, leaf in the water, well, it was there where the croc emerged... Composition too narrow? well, it is a full frame close up, it is the format of the camera, nothing was cropped out. --Tomascastelazo 20:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I withdraw nomination.--Tomascastelazo 22:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

nomination withdrawn -  not featured Alvesgaspar 00:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Knurling closeup.jpg - featured

Info created, uploaded and nominated by --Contributor 19:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any comments welcome. I'm expecting opposition for decreasing sharpness towards top/bottom - unfortunately I couldn't figure out to avoid this at the macro level using my off-the-shelf digicam. However, you may want to take into account that the object of interest basically is a recurring pattern, so I doubt any encyclopedic value or detail is lost by this. --Contributor 19:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose My problem with this picture is it is cut off on the left. Decreasing sharpness towards top/bottom is not that big of a problem. --Digon3 20:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Do you find the cut-off simply unpleasant (ie. image too narrow) or do you miss something? The problem is that the knurled part has a length of several centimeters and is therefore too large for full depiction at this close-up level with my equipment. So I had to make a choice and picked one of end points of the knurling to contrast it with the normal surface. Still, it is true that I cropped it even further on the left/right afterwards, mainly because I didn't feel there's any value in it if a) a full depiction is out of question and b) the main subject, ie. the diamond knurling pattern itself, but also the normal surface, stays exactly the same (no matter how wide the picture) anyway and c) perspective distortion was beginning was beginning to show at the farther l/r. Anyway, thanks for the input. --Contributor 21:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Was there one diamond patterned band or two? All you need to do is show the entire first band so the diamond pattern is not cut off in the middle. --Digon3 14:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is only one band. As I already tried to state above: due to its wideness I can't show it in its entirety at the necessery level of detail (=distance) with my current equipment. I am sorry should my English make this hard to comprehend - I'm still trying to improve it. --Contributor 21:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support The low depth-of-field is not a problem for me. In fact, I prefer it that way, it looks nice and gives some sense of three-dimensionality. Very nice encyclopedic image. Is it just my eyes, or is there a very slight clockwise tilt, though? —Ilmari Karonen 00:10, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I for myself couldn't spot a tilt (quickly aligned some horizontal guides in GIMP for comparison). --Contributor 21:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support I like the decreasing sharpness its natural and defines the shape of the object, an alternative view at 45^o would be interesting for comaprison. Gnangarra 06:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Simonizer 08:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support The current crop is good. I think showing the whole knurling would make the picture uninteresting. -- Lerdsuwa 18:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support – flamurai 02:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support A crop on the underside (just where the shadow begins) would be helpful. --SvonHalenbach 16:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it. Cary "Bastiq▼e" Bass ^demandez 18:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 7 support, 1 oppose >> featured Alvesgaspar 20:27, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Nebula on river Bistrica.jpg - not featured

Info created by Mihael Simonič - uploaded by Mihael Simonič - nominated by Mihael Simonič --Mihael Simonič 19:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support (good picture,licences good, resolution good) --Mihael Simonič 19:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose colours lack saturation, looks too white. Otherwise good picture. --Digon3 20:11, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose a good picture, yes, but even if the colours weren't a problem it's not sufficiently outstanding in my view to be FP material. --MichaelMaggs 18:38, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ~~I said good, not great~~ Oh --Digon3 15:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I think his comment was addressed to the supporter -- Simonizer 12:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Opposeack opposers -- Simonizer 12:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Be careful, the picture has changed since nomination -- Simonizer 07:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not much of a subject and as stated: not too much color. It has some promise, though. I'd recommend trying this location again at different times of day and season. Also, see if there is any way to reduce the amount of foreground branches at the top-left -- I'm not a particular fan of that. Try increasing the saturation, too; though I have a feeling that doing so might oversaturate the water. --Thisisbossi 01:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 1 support, 4 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 7th day) Alvesgaspar 18:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Red-headed Rock Agama.jpg - featured

Info created by Chris_huh - uploaded by Chris_huh --84.9.150.118 23:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --84.9.150.118 23:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC) please log in to vote Lycaon 21:41, 4 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]
Comment Excellent picture. But I think a crop should be tried to reduce the unfocused first plan. -Alvesgaspar 00:04, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Good picter, not so good DOF. Agree with Alvesgaspar. --Erina 11:48, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support / tsca @ 22:02, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - good pic, named species and location - MPF 18:54, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ack MPF — Lycaon 09:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I agree with Alvesgaspar. Zzyzx11 22:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral dito, i would crop about 15% at bottom and top -- Simonizer 09:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jon Harald Søby 16:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lerdsuwa 18:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree--Lmbuga ^{gl, pt, es: contacta comigo} 23:04, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Amrum 13:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose For the reason I explained above Alvesgaspar 23:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 7 support, 3 neutral, 1 oppose >> featured Alvesgaspar 22:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Sneznik.jpg - not featured

Info created by Klara Debeljak - uploaded by Slodave - nominated by Slodave --Slodave 06:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Slodave 06:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Increase saturation and darken it a bit --Digon3 16:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Boring, nothing special. --Erina 08:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agreed with above: the picture lacks a good subject. I could see this being interesting if there was an early snow during autumn, perhaps. Try doing what Digon3 recommended. --Thisisbossi 01:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 1 support, 2 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 7th day) Alvesgaspar 18:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Map Israel Judea 926 BC-pl.svg - not featured

Info created by Marcin n^® ☼ - uploaded by Marcin n^® ☼ - nominated by Marcin n^® ☼ --MARCIN N 13:30, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MARCIN N 13:30, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is not possible for me to fully review this map since I can’t read Polish. With SVG, it should be easy to produce an English version. Here are other hints: some titles seem too big (for example, FENICJA); the legend needs improvement; why is “D a n” written this way?; the numeric scale has no units and some numbers are in italic (why?). Also, I believe you could put a little more detail in the map. - Alvesgaspar 13:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support (Ale fakt, lepiej przetłumacz) --Erina 08:30, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ~~Why would a map describing the history of a country show only part of that country? Unless I am mistaken, the southern provinces are missing...~~ Got it: it is Samaria only and not the whole country + there is a bizarre thing happening: the title of the map reads Palestina or Bliski Wschod (sorry for my polish) depending on the enlargement i use to read it // in any case, not Samaria :-o ... --Diligent 12:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because putting "Made by Marcin.n" in the bottom corner is ugly. The good news is that someone should remove that and reupload (as per the license) pronto. It's not that you don't deserve great thanks for making it... but, I couldn't make something with such a watermark an FP. If that's removed make this a neutral. I can't support because I can't fact check this map since I can't read it. If it is all correct maybe someone could make an English translation? gren 15:11, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I am still opposing... but, since I removed the 'made by' I will oppose for difference reasons. This image is 0.9 MB, which is huge. This and a few other SVGs seems to not be utilizing text properly. That is, images like this one use the text tag... which, I think helps to reduce size... but, more importantly... makes it much easier to translate. So, if it was made with those tags I would support. gren 20:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose For the reasons I explained above. - Alvesgaspar 17:04, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Commons is multilimgual so being in polish isnt a problem, The key is well layed out and all aspects defined, small pick "Aser" in the key would have been better than "Dan" for layout. Gnangarra 06:30, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You certainly can read Polish. Otherwise it would have been a foolish thing (like an act of faith) to promote a map to FP just because it looks right, not knowing what his subject is (political, historical, ...?), as well as the meaning of its symbology and lettering. The message of a map is transmited using cartographic symbols and written text. To read it (and of course to evaluate it) you have to know the exact meaning of both. I believe it is crisp clear that I am not contesting the multilingual nature of Commons (by the way, English is not my mother language) - Alvesgaspar 09:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - the text is too small to read. And before anyone starts shouting about its being scalable, remember that for people who don't have svg-compatible software, it isn't. - MPF 14:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Umm... Isn't Inkscape free? -- Erina 17:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- ...so are plugins (check here) -- Lycaon 22:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - But see also here. I'm not willing to risk it, either. And even if I was willing to risk wrecking my computer, I wouldn't have a clue how to plug in the plugin, either. - MPF 23:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Crashing != wrecking. Also, I have had _many_ programs, include internet browsers crash my computer. There was a time when SVG wasn't well supported... that time is over... it's like advocating low resolution images because people's internet isn't fast enough to download 500KB images... gren 09:34, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  3 support, 3 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 15:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Earthshine Karonen.jpg - not featured

Info created, uploaded and nominated by myself —Ilmari Karonen 00:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Let's give this one a try. I'm the first to admit that it's not that great an image: it's only 800x600, fairly blurry, quite grainy even after denoising and suffers badly from compression artifacts when thumbnailed. Still, I feel it does a pretty good job of showing a somewhat elusive phenomenon. Perhaps that will make up for some of the flaws. —Ilmari Karonen 00:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose why even propose it when you know it is not flawless and there are so many better pictures of the moon to be featured? --Diligent 13:10, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment We have only two pictures of earthshine: this and Image:Earthshine 2005-09-01.jpg. I'm also hoping someone just might have some useful comments to make about it. —Ilmari Karonen 17:31, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ss181292 20:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC) - I know it's extremly difficult to make technically flawless photo (even simply good photo) of this phenomenon, but this is too low quality.[reply]
Oppose per nominator. Jon Harald Søby 16:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

* Oppose There are better images of the same subjegt e.g. Image:Lune reflex 50mm dèrriere occulaire 20 telescope 76mm.JPG --Ikiwaner 19:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Excuse me, I didn't get the subject. Despite I think there's no right of a subject to have a FP. --Ikiwaner 19:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It is low-res, blurry, grainy, and has some other issues -- just as stated by Ilmari Karonen. Firstly, for future submissions, definitely tend to fixing those. Secondly, I would like to see greater detail on at least one of the sides: bright or dark. Preferably the light side, because a detailed dark side would likely mean that the light side will be overexposed and thus bleed out the image... but hey if you can pull it off, that could be FP worthy. --Thisisbossi 01:01, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 1 support, 1 neutral, 4 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 7th day) Alvesgaspar 18:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Near Ouarzazate(Marocco).JPG - not featured

Info Picture taken in Marocco, near the city of Ouarzazate Photo taken by Maxme, ulpoaded by Maxme, nominated by Maxme. Fix nomination by --Jacopo86 12:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Nothing special, some noise visible in the clouds (Unless those are clouds). Needs a subject --Digon3 15:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with Digon3. I think it is noise. - Alvesgaspar 21:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - a pic that could be very useful on several geology-related topics in wikipedia - MPF 14:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is the picture of? --Digon3 15:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Esthetically, i don't find it breathtaking, technically, i cannot judge "noise" or else, encyclopedically, i've updated the categories but it still needs info update: what's the village down the cliff, what type of geology is the cliff about, etc. --Diligent 16:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Boring. --Wikimol 22:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 1 support, 1 neutral, 3 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 15:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Cheilinus fasciatus.JPG - not featured

Info Image of redbreast wrasse. Cheilinus fasciatus. Taken October 2006 at Lembeh Straights, North Sulawesi, Indonesia. Created, uploaded and nominated by Jnpet --Jnpet 03:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Poor technical quality: most of the fish is unfocused, lots of noise. - Alvesgaspar 08:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A bit surprised, I thought the focus was quite sharp in this image. The coloration in the fish scales may make it appear to be unfocused though on a quick glans. As for noise, I'm afraid that's going to be the case in most shots of wild life. The subjects tend to be very uncooperative and keep trying to blend in to the back-ground, or fleeing (I have so many worthless tailshots). C'est la vie! Jnpet 07:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral i can't really agree with Alvesgaspar. There is only little noise and the sharpness is ok. The photo only needs a bit of colour correction --AngMoKio 08:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Maybe you are right but part of the fish, including the tail and fin, looks unsharp. Could it be motion blur? - Alvesgaspar 08:58, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Perhaps it is not the most beautiful fish, but the picture has its technical merits. It is in very sharp focus, it is the color difussion of the fish that gives it an off-focus appearance, thus I suspect a camouflage technique. Noise does not bother me, as it is understood that poor light conditions underwater, coupled with a moving subject demands high ISO settings in order to get a shutter speed that can freeze subject. --Tomascastelazo 22:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lerdsuwa 18:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Poor technical quality --Lmbuga ^{gl, pt, es: contacta comigo} 23:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 2 support, 1 neutral, 2 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 07:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:HukouWaterfall4.jpg - not featured

Info Hukou Waterfall of Yellow River, Self nominated--Fanghong 03:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - nice pic, but I'd like to have seen it with a wider field of view if possible - MPF 15:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I really dont see what is special about this. The cliff are lacking in color and unfocused and you really dont see the waterfall --Digon3 01:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose i agree to Digon3 Metoc 18:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 0 support, 2 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 7th day) Alvesgaspar 18:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Taipei Eye cropped p1090701.jpg - not featured

Info created, uploaded and nominated by David.Monniaux 21:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support David.Monniaux 21:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Motion. Rama 23:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, I don't see more than a regular snapshot. - Alvesgaspar 23:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Also, some people are missing. Nothing special--Digon3 01:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cary "Bastiq▼e" Bass ^demandez 18:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Interesting, but not I think a FP. Too many dancers are obscured.--MichaelMaggs 07:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral nice idea, but not good enough quality--SimONE 07:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per above. --Thisisbossi 00:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose One individual doesn't stick out enough for it to be a portrait, and as a group shot, the composition is weak. – flamurai 07:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 3 support, 1 neutral, 5 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 23:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Jaguar head shot.jpg

Original version (left) - not featured

Info created, uploaded by en:User:Cburnett, nominated by norro 22:14, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support norro 22:14, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice shot --AngMoKio 22:51, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice work.--HereToHelp (talk) 23:23, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Yes, it is a nice shot, but not an exceptional one. The background is distracting due to its colour, too similar to the colour of the animal. (This edit was made by User:Alvesgaspar 23:45, 1. Nov. 2006 -- norro 00:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)) (Confirm. - Alvesgaspar 10:51, 5 November 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Oppose Nice shot, but in my opinion too less space between the eyes and the left border of the picture -- Simonizer 07:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support great for me --odder 15:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ack Simonizer. Ss181292 16:05, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice!!--yash
Support Lestat 22:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Same as norro. Besides, we already have a featured panthera onca and I personally expect the next one to fully represent the fierceness of this predator (a bit like this but w/ the head towards the viewer). --Diligent 12:28, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ack Alvesgaspar. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 12:37, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Alvesgaspar. --MichaelMaggs 18:34, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- How can you oppose per Alvesgaspar if he hasn't even voted?! :-) --Dschwen 08:22, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See first oppose, above.--MichaelMaggs 11:46, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree --Lmbuga ^{gl, pt, es: contacta comigo} 22:55, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Luc Viatour 11:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Alvesgaspar :-) --Dschwen 15:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ Beautiful. ;) Frozman 12:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

votes added after day 15 don't count (please see guidelines ;-)) Alvesgaspar 11:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]

 8 support, 7 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 23:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New version (right) - not featured

Info Edited on 16th november by User:SvonHalenbach, 17:10, 16 November 2006
Comment I think it was overdone. Look at the eyes. Alvesgaspar 11:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't know which color the eyes of a jaguar have. I can tint them whatever color you like ;-) --SvonHalenbach 12:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC) File:EyeoftheTiger-SvH1.jpg[reply]
- Nice joke, I enjoyed the picture but can't decide yet what colour to choose! What I meant is that some detail of the eyes in the original picture seems to be lost in the improved version. Alvesgaspar 13:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- At least you have some humor :) --SvonHalenbach 15:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice, clean and crisp picture. --SvonHalenbach 12:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now i see it myself, that i have overdone it. Like "cat fresh from the washing machine. too white." but i like the intense color. The third picture is a bit greenish-greyish and the most annoying is the bright piece in the background near the head on the left side. --SvonHalenbach 17:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Blown out highlights, details lost. This edit overdoes it, and the third image shows that more subtle yet color correcting edits are possible. --Dschwen 14:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 0 support, 1 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 7th day) Alvesgaspar 08:57, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Old edit by User:Olegivvit - not featured

Info There alredy was an existing edit which does not blow out the whites. Too bad I missed this nomination. This version should be either renominated or bumped up. The en.wp FPC has a section for delayed nominations, which is quite useful. --Dschwen 14:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is much better than the original, in terms of colouring and contrast. Still I don't like the background and the blank expression of the animal. Alvesgaspar 00:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 0 support, 1 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 7th day) Alvesgaspar 08:57, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:ButterflyOnFlowerInBotanicalGardens.jpg - not featured

Info created by pauliefred - uploaded by pauliefred - nominated by pauliefred --Pauliefred 00:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pauliefred 00:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose compsition: butterfly too small and akward angle. On top of that unnamed flowers and unnamed butterfly. Lycaon 06:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good resolution and detail. I know the butterfly is a monarch, but I'm not sure about the flower. --ClockFace 23:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose akward angle --Lmbuga ^{gl, pt, es: contacta comigo} 23:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too few butterfly for it the be the main subject, unpleasant background. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 20:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 2 support, 3 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 23:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Regensburg Uferpanorama 08 2006.jpg - featured

Info created by Grizurgbg - uploaded by Grizurgbg - nominated by Digon3 --Digon3 01:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Digon3 01:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --AngMoKio 08:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support MichaelMaggs 23:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support alifazal 15:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Anna reg 18:38, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --gnagnael 12 November 2006
Agree--Lmbuga ^{gl, pt, es: contacta comigo} 23:11, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support That is quite good.--SvonHalenbach 11:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Thisisbossi 00:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support outstanding! --TheBo 15:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Thermos 17:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I completely this picture. Cary "Bastiq▼e" Bass ^demandez 20:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 12 support, 0 oppose >> featured Alvesgaspar 08:53, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Cirrhitichthys aprinus.JPG - not featured

Info Image of a spotted hawkfish. Cirrhitichthys aprinus. Taken October 2006 in Lembeh Straights, North Sulawesi, Indonesia. Created uploaded and nominated by Jnpet --Jnpet 05:51, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too blurred, I'm afraid.--MichaelMaggs 07:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo 22:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Thisisbossi 00:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose see here Lycaon 08:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 2 support, 2 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 08:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:ErcinaLakeHorse2.JPG - not featured

Info created by Francisco M. Marzoa - uploaded by Francisco M. Marzoa - nominated by Simonizer 14:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good composition, good size and sharpness, great atmosphere because of the light. Good Work! -- Simonizer 14:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems kind of dark, horse is not named(just kidding). --Digon3 14:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The sun is not always shining -- Simonizer 08:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the horse has moved since here. Lycaon 16:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too dark and not sharp enough. -- Lycaon 16:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support i like the composition--SimONE 07:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support * Comment The horse is no longer mooning the photographer as in the previous FPC. Which makes this pic better. - MPF 11:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support alifazal 13:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like the composition, but the whole pic lacks sharpness.--SvonHalenbach 11:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose agree with Lycaon + don't like the composition norro 21:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I've been looking at this picture for some days before daring to write about it. For me this is a case where the positive aspects clearly take over the technical flaws (like the umsharpness of some parts). The composition (a little "by the book", maybe), the colouring and the light all give a strong impression of peace and harmony. The reflex in the water suggests that the sun is begining to hide behind the mountains. Great photo. Alvesgaspar 00:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Thisisbossi 00:50, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Guess it's OKay but the previous one was much better. The composition is boring. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 16:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 6 support, 4 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 14:26, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Fortepian - schemat.svg - featured

Info Drawn & uploaded by user:Orem, nominated by --WarX 18:26, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --WarX 18:26, 8 November 2006 (UTC) We have two FP mechanisms (english and wien), but only full piano plays :)[reply]
Support beautiful diagram. Love SVG's Cary "Bastiq▼e" Bass ^demandez 18:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support norro 19:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Przydałby się też schemat organów kościelnych:) Marcin n^® ☼ 20:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Support --Diligent 20:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support It is OK ! Gérard Janot 21:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support / tsca @ 21:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MichaelMaggs 07:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support— wonderful even though the front leg(wheel) is a handful of pixels longer than the back. Gnangarra 10:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ziga 14:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support K!roman | ☺‼↑♫♥☻ 17:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ss181292 20:19, 9 November 2006 (UTC) - simply great[reply]
Support Very nice illustration. --Contributor 21:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support But I would like so see an animation with the key mechanism working. Alvesgaspar 22:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support alifazal 15:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lestat 22:13, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I learned something new today. – flamurai 02:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Because the svg is made with Inkscape... and because of its quality,of course. ;-) --SvonHalenbach 10:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lycaon 14:10, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 19 support, 0 oppose >> featured Alvesgaspar 18:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Helcogramma striatum.JPG - not featured

Info Close up image of tropical striped triplefin, Helcogramma striatum, perched on a coral. Taken October 2006 at Lembeh Straights, North Sulawesi, Indonesia. Created, uploaded and nominated by Jnpet --Jnpet 01:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Fish too small in the frame and not shown from a good angle. --MichaelMaggs 07:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support However, I would crop it a bit to off-center the fish --Tomascastelazo 16:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I actually did do a crop already on this image. I kept the crop wide on purpose because I felt the ridged coral was a nice background for the fish and would give you a true sense of how small this fellow is. Also, noise being such a big issue for many reviewers, this is one of those shots where the standard background pattern would reduce that noise. I have added a further cropped version for a real close up. Is that better? Perhaps someone could do a better job at cropping the image? Jnpet 01:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose see here Lycaon 08:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 1 support, 2 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 09:19, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Lake near Sunnig Grat summit.JPG - featured

Info created by Simonizer - uploaded by Simonizer - nominated by --Gnangarra 08:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --This image was recently promoted to Quality Images, I think its really worthy of FP status. Gnangarra 08:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I strongly support the nomination. This is an excellent picture. Alvesgaspar 08:39, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Erina 09:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Great picture no doubt, but to me the water looked like a small puddle surrounded by some moss. Only after viewing it in full size and looking closely, I saw a bus and a power line and realised that I was wrong. BTW, there seems to be some dirt on the leftmost part of the lake which somehow looks unnatural. -- Kprateek88 12:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support depite puddle aspect and natural or unnatural dirt in lake. --Diligent 13:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Digon3 14:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --AngMoKio 14:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ziga 14:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo 16:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support K!roman | ☺‼↑♫♥☻ 17:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support MichaelMaggs 18:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --SimONE 07:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The dark green shrubs around the lake are Pinus mugo. BTW, the 'bus' is a hut or cabin of some sort (maybe something to do with the ski lift pole). - MPF 10:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks for nomination Gnangarra. For explanation: The "Power Line" is a transport cable for the "Sunniggrätli" hut (Image:View from Sunniggrätli hut.JPG) that is near by. The "bus" is the arriving station for this transport cable. The dirt is natural, some kind of alga, I guess. Thanks to all of you for your support Simonizer 11:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful. Did the EXIF data get lost during post-processing or is this an originally analog image? (just curious) --Contributor 13:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I corrected a stain in the upper left, maybe then the EXIF get lost, but i can post some infos if you like Simonizer 13:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support alifazal 13:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support / tsca @ 14:14, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Makes me miss CH! --Thisisbossi 00:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Amrum 13:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 17 support, 0 oppose >> featured Alvesgaspar 09:20, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Using the caliper new.gif (not featured) ------- Image:Using the caliper_new.gif (featured )

Info Using a vernier caliper to take measurements on a nut. Created, uploaded and nominated by Joaquim Alves Gaspar
Support --Alvesgaspar 11:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support--AngMoKio 14:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

* Support Good work -- Simonizer 14:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Ziga 14:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose That's a really nice animation, but in my opinion not excellent. The crucial point here is how to get to the 0.07 and that's is the only thing, that probably remains unclear to the layman. That has to be improved. Furtermore I think, animating is not necassary here. The last frame would be sufficient. Perhaps as SVG :) norro 17:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Info The "0,07" is read directly in the vernier (which is graduated in 1/100 cm), at the exact point where there is a coincidence between segments of the vernier scale and the main scale. - Alvesgaspar 17:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, I know that, but I can't imagine a layman understanding that. There is no hint, why it's 0,07. There is nothing in that animation that shows, what you explained here in written form. I like this animation, but I think, it can be improved to be really helpful for understanding how a caliper is used. norro 18:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. On second thought, the caption can clarify this. I cannot come up with a better way to visualize the "0,07" either :-). --Dschwen 18:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

* Support MichaelMaggs 18:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Ss181292 20:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC) - Ack norro.[reply]
Oppose aggree with norro, I also don't see why it has to be an animation, instead of just the last image -- Gorgo 00:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Supportmade very nice--SimONE 07:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Info The main objective of the animation is to show how the movable parts work: the verniers, as well as the outside jaws (big), the inside jaws (small) and the depth probe. A statitic svg version with legends is on the way. But no explanations will be given on how to read the verniers. I agree with Dschwen: it is better to use a good caption. Alvesgaspar 09:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support per se it belongs to featured. a separate fixed image can always be created and promoted later. It took me ages to understand the 0,07 but again, agree with others above: should be part of explanatory text. --Diligent 09:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - would like to have the last frame stay put for 3 or 4 seconds longer so one has time to look at the vernier scale more closely. It vanishes before you can see it properly. But otherwise very nice. - MPF 10:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment With the new version you have now much more time to look at the vernier. - Alvesgaspar 23:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Would be more explicit about this 0.07 thing if you had two frames for the 2.4 cm and the 0.07 later (perhaps seeing the arrow sliding along the marks until it find the two which match...). But it's already very good so I'll support anyway :) Rama 10:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That is a smart suggestion, putting the arrow sliding along the marks, thank you. But I'm not sure I have the time to do it now. Alvesgaspar 12:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose SVG would be much better. --Erina 16:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Info Withdraw nomination. Alvesgaspar 10:58, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Nomination withdrawn >> not featured Alvesgaspar 10:58, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New version (right)- featured

Info OK, here is an improved version which (I hope) will satisfy some critics. Thank you again, Rama. - Alvesgaspar 16:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alvesgaspar 11:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Even better.--MichaelMaggs 20:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support K!roman | ☺‼↑♫♥☻ 15:01, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

* Oppose It appears that the line above '0.07' moved a bit during animation to make them line up. -- Lerdsuwa 18:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Info Thank you, it's fixed now Alvesgaspar 18:52, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well made, informative, good representation that leads to understanding use. Perhaps naming the scales would help --Tomascastelazo 04:26, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support ack Tomascastelazo -- Lycaon 06:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Simonizer 12:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --AngMoKio 08:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support B.navez 18:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support one of the really best animations --Ikiwaner 19:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support very good. --SvonHalenbach 01:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support best job --Luc Viatour 09:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 11 support, 0 oppose >> featured Alvesgaspar 16:44, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Usambara2.jpg. not featured

Info created by Balraj A. Sohanpal - uploaded and nominated by Ali A. Fazal --alifazal 12:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --alifazal 12:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Overexposed, not enough color. --Digon3 13:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ack Digon3 --Erina 16:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is silly, the quality is a million miles from Featured Pic status! - Arpingstone 20:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lacking in colour, focus, and subjects of interest. --Thisisbossi 00:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"I withdraw my nomination". alifazal 21:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

nomination withdrawn -  not featured Simonizer 10:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:WeldingTransformer-1.63-640x480.png - not featured

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Marvin -- 14:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ss181292 22:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC) - PNG, should be SVG.[reply]
Oppose ~~if the sources are not given, the image should have a far better resolution~~ (it is said that the sources will be given later). Also, the magnetic circuit is difficult to see (it looks laminated, but it's hard to tell), and the wires don't have a very natural shape (especially in bendings). Is it normal that the external winding is so loose? CyrilB 12:51, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I would like to see a larger and more detailed picture, with legends (in svg, if possible). Alvesgaspar 13:38, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Larger would be nice. Furthermore I agree with CyrilB, the lighting is bad for the transformer core. It's nearly monochrome, therefore you can't really identify shape and lamination. norro 11:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Your comments are noted. The lighting of the core is really not perfect, and the outer winding is too loose. I could use help w lighting. -- 161.53.235.3 09:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 1 neutral, 3 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 7th day) Alvesgaspar 18:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Entorno del Atazar..jpg - not featured

Info Mountains in El Atazar, village in the centre of Spain, in Madrid. Created by Pavlemadrid - uploaded by Pavlemadrid - nominated by Pavlemadrid --Pavlemadrid · (Deja tu mensaje aqui) 21:23, 11 November 2006 (CEST)
Support --Pavlemadrid ·
Oppose I finally fix the template, and THEN I find out its too small. Overexposed sky --Digon3 21:04, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too low resolution. Ss181292 22:04, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose low res -- Gorgo 14:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ack others, bad aspect ratio is another argument. Wider ratios usually do better on landscapes. --Ikiwaner 19:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per above. --Thisisbossi 00:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Low res, agree with bad aspect ratio... the focal point is the tree, and it's too low in the frame – flamurai 06:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 1 support, 6 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 7th day) Alvesgaspar 11:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:136678683 8cc74d69b8 o.jpg - not featured

Info created by SqueakyMarmot - uploaded by João Felipe C.S - nominated by João Felipe C.S --João Felipe 03:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support --João Felipe C.S 03:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Crop is too tight. Snowwayout 05:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The image name is nonsense, and the angle the photo was took seems not right. Darkoneko 12:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Name, crop, angle, composition --Digon3 13:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ack Digon3. --Tomascastelazo 15:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Flickr, and I don't like it. Cary "Bastiq▼e" Bass ^demandez 17:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose name, crop, lighting – flamurai 06:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 1 support, 6 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 7th day) Alvesgaspar 15:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Panorama Rio de Janeiro.jpg - not featured

Info created by Edyoon - uploaded by João Felipe C.S - nominated by João Felipe C.S --João Felipe C.S 16:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --João Felipe C.S 16:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Stitching errors and colors seems a little dull (might just be the atmosphere). Use Hugin or panotools and increase contrast a bit. --Digon3 17:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose noisy, low contrast and most of the image is water norro 19:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have to cancel this voting. The image cannot be used on Commons. João Felipe C.S 01:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 nomination withdrawn >> not featured Alvesgaspar 11:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Rio de Janeiro Skyline.PNG - not featured

300px|Short description

Info created by Navinda - uploaded by João Felipe C.S - nominated by João Felipe C.S --João Felipe C.S 16:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support --João Felipe C.S 16:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like it, but there is a stitching problem (error?) at 1/3. Its a night shot so its a little too dark, and the horizon seems curved. ~~Also, I don't think it should be PNG~~ --Digon3 17:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Image:195141343 6e5b550de9 o.jpg JPG João Felipe C.S 18:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pikolas 20:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Stiching errors and tilted horizons can be fixed (está à espera de quê, João?...) Alvesgaspar 22:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Which picture is the correct color? --Digon3 22:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This Image:195141343 6e5b550de9 o.jpg João Felipe C.S 23:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have to cancel this voting. The image cannot be used on Commons. João Felipe C.S 01:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 nomination withdrawn >> not featured Alvesgaspar 11:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:St Patrick's cathedral NY.jpg - not featured

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Hu Totya -- Hu Totya 19:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hu Totya 19:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The image is tilted, probably because you took it from the side. Try to have symmetry like this and avoid the overexposure in the windows --Digon3 20:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes, the image is grainy and tilted, and there are some blown highlights. However, it is such a beatiful nave that it certainly deserves another shot. Alvesgaspar 20:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Definitely give it another try. This is just a snapshot, really, and doesn't do the setting justice. – flamurai 06:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - You are right with the tilting issue, I have to admit that. But I don't know what can I do with the overexposured highlights. If I shorten the exposure time (2.5 sec now) than the whole picture will be a lot darker. Maybe two shots merged together with photoshop? :-) And unfortunately I don't live in NY, so it's gonna take a while until I get there again. - Hu Totya 13:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Info Wait... until they turn the ugly light in the middle off or try shooting RAW which gives you one additional step in dynamic range. --Ikiwaner 23:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 1 support, 2 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 7th day) Alvesgaspar 19:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ile dentrée.JPG - not featured

Info created by Catherine T. - uploaded by Catherine T. - nominated by Catherine T. --132.204.125.82 14:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --132.204.125.82 14:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC) please log in to vote --Digon3 15:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Picture is blurred, unfocused, and of nothing special. Also, the horizon is tilted --Digon3 15:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not sharp, tilted and unfortunate composition (wires in foreground) -- Lycaon 17:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose just as Lycaon and Digon3 criticised. Metoc 18:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Same reasons as above --Thisisbossi 00:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per lycaon and digon3 – flamurai 18:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 0 support, 5 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 7th day) Alvesgaspar 18:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:PP 1280x1024.jpg - not featured

Info created by Don Bertone - uploaded by Arad - nominated by Arad --Arad 01:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support pi with 4000 digits --Arad 01:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why do we need 3 nominations of the same thing? IMHO it would be better to choose the best image and nominate just that one. Snowwayout 02:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well i don't know which one is the best but we can put all of them in one nomination. --Arad 02:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is a good idea. Alvesgaspar 09:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don’t agree that the depicted pi has 4 000 digits. The size of the digits is decreasing linearly becoming zero in the last fifth of the image. Assuming, for simplicity, that we have about 70% of the 1280 pixels available for representing the number (about 900 pixels), and that we assign one pixel to each digit and another to the space between them, the best we can do is represent about 450 digits, not 4000. Alvesgaspar 09:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To answer the person above of me. You are partially right because around 900(not 450) are fully visible. The rest are there but because if the glossy reflections on the glass and the irregular lighting, the rest of the numbers are overly bright. But I can guarantee you that there is 4000 numbers, If you are furthur interrested E-mail me and I'll give you the complete Maya file and you can see for yourself. The Author 07:10 EST, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment I'm sure you have considered all 4000 digits in the rendering application, but that is not the point. The point is to represent each of them as a separate graphical entity you need, at least, 2 pixels: one for the digit and the other for the space that follows. In the present case, you don't have enough pixels avaliable. But you could, at least in theory, make a new output with a much larger resolution in which all digits were visible. Alvesgaspar 11:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ss181292 11:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC) - Ack Snowwayout + boring subject.[reply]
Info As suggested by Arad, I have grouped all images in the same nomination. Alvesgaspar 11:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose — I only see the first 20-30 digits after that its just a multicoloured dimishing line, given that its suppose to be 4000 digits I'd expect to see clearly the first 10%. Additionally the choice of colouring creates and an optical illusion to the top portion of the 3 twisting it 90^o to the rest of the digit. Gnangarra 05:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Not much artistic value. FPs should be the best works available on commons. This can be created in two minutes. --Dschwen 10:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is just too simple Daniel78 23:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 1 support, 4 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 7th day) Alvesgaspar 09:44, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Antennarius pictus.JPG - not featured

Info Image of a Painted frogfish. Antenarius pictus. Taken October 2006 off Bunaken Island, North Sulawesi, Indonesia. Created, uploaded and nominated by Jnpet --Jnpet 08:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I truly like your work. It provides a window into marine life. The pictures are devoid of photographic tricks and depict marine life in a simple day to day manner. The photographer as an invisible observer, not interfering with the environment photographed. --Tomascastelazo 15:45, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Aside from that being one UGLY fish, I like it. --Digon3 20:12, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Lower part of the body is hidden and white dots (sand? dirt?) all over its body and the picture. Otherwise interesting and beautiful picture - so neutral. --Diligent 20:29, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Background is overexposed, too low DOF, noisy and dirty norro 19:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose i know underwater-images are hard to take, but in my eyes the quality of this one is not good enough. Metoc 18:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose see here Lycaon 08:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 2 support, 1 neutral, 3 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 12:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Girona.pont.eiffel.jpg - not featured

Info Typical view of the Iron Bridge in Girona, Catalonia. Created by Vilallonga - uploaded by Vilallonga - nominated by Vilallonga --Vilallonga · (digui digui) 09:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Vilallonga · (digui digui) 09:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nothing much Lestat 13:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Like the nominator said, Typical view --Digon3 13:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Erina 16:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose foreground overexposed, overexposed light spot on handrail, slight but noticable CCW tilt. --Contributor 16:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ss181292 22:07, 11 November 2006 (UTC) - cropping, tree in foreground (obstructing the subject... whatever it is)[reply]
Support Albertsab (In the catalan Wikipedia) 08:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per above. --Thisisbossi 00:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. – flamurai 06:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 2 support, 7 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 12:14, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Pterois volitans Manado.JPG

Info Image of a red lionfish sometimes also known as a common lionfish, Pterois volitans. Taken October 2006 in waters off Manado, North Sulawesi, Indonesia. Created, uploaded and nominated by Jnpet --Jnpet 04:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~{ I love the angle, but the fins (or spines) are unfocused, and one of the fins is cut off on the left. Otherwise a amazing picture --Digon3 15:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support wow...an impressive photo. The cut-off fin is a small and minor flaw...the rest I think is perfect.--AngMoKio 15:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC)~[reply]
Support This a most unusual angle that needs to be recognized no matter some obvious flaws. - Alvesgaspar 21:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

* Support. I agree.--MichaelMaggs 22:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Support Wow, can't belive, that this photograph is real. Fantastic. norro 23:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support but it's a pitty a fin is missing on the left. --Diligent 08:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Simonizer 12:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ziga 14:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo 16:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support This species has also become an invasive along the East Coast of the US Cary "Bastiq▼e" Bass ^demandez 17:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support alifazal 15:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 7 support, 0 oppose >> voting closed, waits for result of new version (below) Alvesgaspar 08:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  Final result: not featured Alvesgaspar 16:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New version (right) - featured

Comment I added a edited vesion with reconstructed fins. Olegivvit 17:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you, that is fantastic! Jnpet 01:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Even better --MichaelMaggs 20:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Much better --Digon3 22:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alvesgaspar 23:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow, can't belive, that this photograph is real. Fantastic. norro 10:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support great work--AngMoKio 11:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Simonizer 16:50, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree --Lmbuga ^{gl, pt, es: contacta comigo} 23:07, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Luc Viatour 15:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Diligent 17:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --SvonHalenbach 01:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support this is very hot ;) Metoc 18:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Thisisbossi 00:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose despite spectacular POV, oppose for unnatural colours. (see slight colour corrected low res version) Lycaon 19:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 12 support, 1 oppose >> featured Alvesgaspar 16:47, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Using the caliper new.gif (not featured) ------- Image:Using the caliper_new.gif (featured )

Info Using a vernier caliper to take measurements on a nut. Created, uploaded and nominated by Joaquim Alves Gaspar
Support --Alvesgaspar 11:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support--AngMoKio 14:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

* Support Good work -- Simonizer 14:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Ziga 14:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose That's a really nice animation, but in my opinion not excellent. The crucial point here is how to get to the 0.07 and that's is the only thing, that probably remains unclear to the layman. That has to be improved. Furtermore I think, animating is not necassary here. The last frame would be sufficient. Perhaps as SVG :) norro 17:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Info The "0,07" is read directly in the vernier (which is graduated in 1/100 cm), at the exact point where there is a coincidence between segments of the vernier scale and the main scale. - Alvesgaspar 17:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, I know that, but I can't imagine a layman understanding that. There is no hint, why it's 0,07. There is nothing in that animation that shows, what you explained here in written form. I like this animation, but I think, it can be improved to be really helpful for understanding how a caliper is used. norro 18:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. On second thought, the caption can clarify this. I cannot come up with a better way to visualize the "0,07" either :-). --Dschwen 18:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

* Support MichaelMaggs 18:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Ss181292 20:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC) - Ack norro.[reply]
Oppose aggree with norro, I also don't see why it has to be an animation, instead of just the last image -- Gorgo 00:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Supportmade very nice--SimONE 07:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Info The main objective of the animation is to show how the movable parts work: the verniers, as well as the outside jaws (big), the inside jaws (small) and the depth probe. A statitic svg version with legends is on the way. But no explanations will be given on how to read the verniers. I agree with Dschwen: it is better to use a good caption. Alvesgaspar 09:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support per se it belongs to featured. a separate fixed image can always be created and promoted later. It took me ages to understand the 0,07 but again, agree with others above: should be part of explanatory text. --Diligent 09:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - would like to have the last frame stay put for 3 or 4 seconds longer so one has time to look at the vernier scale more closely. It vanishes before you can see it properly. But otherwise very nice. - MPF 10:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment With the new version you have now much more time to look at the vernier. - Alvesgaspar 23:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Would be more explicit about this 0.07 thing if you had two frames for the 2.4 cm and the 0.07 later (perhaps seeing the arrow sliding along the marks until it find the two which match...). But it's already very good so I'll support anyway :) Rama 10:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That is a smart suggestion, putting the arrow sliding along the marks, thank you. But I'm not sure I have the time to do it now. Alvesgaspar 12:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose SVG would be much better. --Erina 16:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Info Withdraw nomination. Alvesgaspar 10:58, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Nomination withdrawn >> not featured Alvesgaspar 10:58, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New version (right)- featured

Info OK, here is an improved version which (I hope) will satisfy some critics. Thank you again, Rama. - Alvesgaspar 16:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alvesgaspar 11:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Even better.--MichaelMaggs 20:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support K!roman | ☺‼↑♫♥☻ 15:01, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

* Oppose It appears that the line above '0.07' moved a bit during animation to make them line up. -- Lerdsuwa 18:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Info Thank you, it's fixed now Alvesgaspar 18:52, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well made, informative, good representation that leads to understanding use. Perhaps naming the scales would help --Tomascastelazo 04:26, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support ack Tomascastelazo -- Lycaon 06:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Simonizer 12:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --AngMoKio 08:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support B.navez 18:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support one of the really best animations --Ikiwaner 19:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support very good. --SvonHalenbach 01:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support best job --Luc Viatour 09:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 11 support, 0 oppose >> featured Alvesgaspar 16:44, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Sweden lake.JPG - not featured

Info created by Freestyle nl - uploaded by Freestyle nl - nominated by Freestyle nl --Freestyle nl 18:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Freestyle nl 18:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral perfect exposure, but noise in the water and sky. Slight colour fringes in the corners, I'd wish a wider aspect ratio. --Ikiwaner 23:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - too dark, very gloomy looking - MPF 18:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not good enough as it is, but if you have more shots of the same picture from the same position, you can improve it with the HDR-technike. --SvonHalenbach 14:52, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I think it is very nice, but there is noise in the water. SvonHalenbach is right, this would have made an amazing HDR shot. --Digon3

 1 support, 2 neutral, 1 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 7th day) Alvesgaspar 16:42, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Azulejo da Fábrica de Loiça de Sacavém.jpg - not featured

Info created by Juntas - uploaded by Juntas - nominated by Fernando S. Aldado.
Oppose Bad crop; tilted; blurry; the cable at the top right is unfortunate. – flamurai 10:12, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Agree with flamurai. But I think the theme deserves a re-shot. Alvesgaspar 10:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Definitely. The lettering is superb. – flamurai 10:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very nice colours. Straighten it, crop it nicely and try again... Lycaon 23:09, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Yeah, please shot it again. This pic has some magic! --SvonHalenbach 11:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sorry, the subject is not avaiable anymore. Paulo Juntas 22:53, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 0 support, 3 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 7th day) Alvesgaspar 12:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:POL województwo łęczyckie IRP COA.svg - featured

Info created and uploaded by Bastianow; nominated by tsca
Support / tsca @ 14:04, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --WarX 14:06, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lerdsuwa 18:36, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lestat 18:43, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Hi-tacks 23:00, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poznaniak 15:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice, careful work - Alvesgaspar 15:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Shyam ^(T/C) 19:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support – flamurai 02:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Łęczyca is not by now a voivodship but only a county of Poland. It was from XIV to XVIII century a voivodship but I am not convinced that the modern style of this drawing would fit with an historical coat of arms. Pretty work but not encyclopedial.B.navez 14:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- As filename says - it's COA of województwo łęczyckie (voivodship) in IRP, what means 1st Republic of Poland - Poland in XVII-XVIII century. Best known in the world Polish COAs are drawn by Taduesz Gajl, and are fully modern, 20th century design, but noone says that they are unhistorical :)--WarX 11:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, but I don't understand : is it Bastianow's work or Gajl's ? Could you please translate exactly what is said on pl:Tadeusz Gajl about copyright rules : (Herby gajlowskie są bardzo często wykorzystywane bez wiedzy autora, czego nie uniknęła również angielska wersja Wikipedii, jednak autor zaakceptował pozostawienie w niej jego grafik w niskiej rozdzielczości.) My knowledge of polish language is so low that I could misunderstand its meaning. B.navez 15:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - This particular one was drawn by Bastianowm, based on some historical materials and has nothing in common with Gajl's COAs (except that they are modern). Problem with Gajl is/was that people think that his works are historical, so are PD, and use scans of his works. He was informed about it and agreed to use low-res versions on Wikipedia, but problem is unsolved, because if he agreed on GFDL for low-res, he agreed for vectorization those images to resolution independent format (as derivative work from GFDLed image). The quote is COAs drawn by Gajl are often used without knowledge (and permission), what happen even to en.wiki, but author accepted publication of low-res images--WarX 15:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support although I wish the name was in English. Cary "Bastiq▼e" Bass ^demandez 01:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- yup - English name made that nor Polish or English speakers would know what is it :P --WarX 11:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 10 support, 1 oppose >> featured  Alvesgaspar 15:40, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Billede 080-1.jpg - not featured

Info created by Peter Andersen - uploaded by Peter Andersen - nominated by Peter Andersen --Peter Andersen 11:53, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Peter Andersen 11:53, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This a nice flower, with beautiful colours. Pity that the picture is blurry in full resolution. Also, I think the crop is too tight. Alvesgaspar 12:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The petals lack sharpness and the framing is too tight. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 12:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Daniel78 23:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unsharp -Digon3 16:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 4 oppose, 1 support >> not featured (rule of the 7th day) Alvesgaspar 15:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Sep-okt-nov06 025.jpg - not featured

Info created by Calauer - uploaded by Calauer - nominated by Calauer --Calauer 14:40, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Calauer 14:40, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why do you think, this picture is special enough to be nominated as a featured picture? --SvonHalenbach 16:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - sorry, spoilt by the telephone wires and fence wire. - MPF 23:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose dull colors, no real focal point – flamurai 04:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lestat 16:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 3 oppose, 1 support >> not featured (rule of the 7th day) Alvesgaspar 15:36, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Orzech włoski z biedronką.JPG - not featured

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Lestat --Lestat 18:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lestat 18:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose background, cut leafs in the foreground norro 10:38, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ack norro --Digon3 20:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --WarX 14:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC) Problem is that fruits are on trees and trees have leaves :)[reply]
Look at this for example. You can compose the image the way, that there is no leaf in the foreground. norro 19:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The Coccinellidae bug in the very image center is unsharp. I'd prefer a more neutral light. --Ikiwaner 19:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 2 support, 3 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 18:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Lautumnale 01.jpg - not featured

Info Leucojum autumnale created by M.M. Paredes - uploaded by User:Mmparedes 11:10, 20 November 2006
Comment Caught at Alburquerque (Badajoz, Spain) close to Albarragena river.
Oppose The petals lack detail and the grass herbs near the borders are disturbing. All in all, nice but a bit dull. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 12:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 0 support, 1 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 7th day) Alvesgaspar 12:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Arothron mappa.JPG - not featured

Info Image of Map puffer. Arothron mappa. Taken off Bunaken Island, North Sulawesi, Indonesia. Created, uploaded and nominated by Jnpet --Jnpet 06:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure that a nominator can support an mage, if so, then I Support. If not, then please ignore this vote. Jnpet 02:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Rules are for everyone: nominators are allowed to vote. Your vote is valid. Lycaon 07:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Simonizer 15:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice --Digon3 15:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo 14:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cary "Bastiq▼e" Bass ^demandez 15:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Insufficient colour contast between fish and background; the stick is also distracting.--MichaelMaggs 18:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for reasons stated below Lycaon 19:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The lack of auxiliary illumination renders the colours very unnatural. The pictures to the right tries to remediate this problems, but fails as you can see e.g. here and here. Lycaon 23:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Please do not vote for the second picture: this is only a low res suboptimal attempt at fixing the above image. The only way to get it correct is to use a flash under water... Lycaon 19:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - FYI, flash was used in all instances. Jnpet 01:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too blue. --SvonHalenbach 10:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support natural environement --Luc Viatour 09:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too blue Evalutieambtenaar 11:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 6 support, 4 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 08:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Warsztat.svg - featured

Info created and uploaded by Bastianow; nominated by WarX
Support --WarX 10:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That seems to be an interesting and useful illustration, but someone has to add an english description. Otherwise I cannot support. norro 10:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - As above, I don't have a clue what the Polish means either, but that doesn't matter. What is important is that it is a good clear diagram, and the number tags are large enough to read even at quite small reproduction sizes (as in the thumb above) - MPF 17:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ss181292 22:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC) - nice piece of SVG work[reply]
Support look there for a real life usage. I think it is a "framed weaving machine", tak? - but this translation is provided by a French speaking czech, not really polish and whose knowledge of weaving is 0. --Diligent 02:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice graphic. Cary "Bastiq▼e" Bass ^demandez 17:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have a partial translation on the image talk page --Digon3 17:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I have made a partial german translation. --SvonHalenbach 14:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Prevert^(talk) 12:58, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 7 support, 0 oppose >> featured Alvesgaspar 10:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Warsztat pion.svg - featured

Info created and uploaded by Bastianow; nominated by WarX
Support --WarX 09:59, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That seems to be an interesting and useful illustration, but someone has to add an english description. Otherwise I cannot support. norro 10:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, that translation would be nice, but you are a bit english-centric - image is interlanguage ready and the only problem is to find specialists to prepare description in other languages --WarX 13:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are right. The problem is, I don't know, what is shown there. Therefore I can't judge, if it's well illustrated. norro 17:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Belive me - I'm Polish, but I don't understand 50% of description (neraly every part of this machine should have own article:P). Without native speaker who is weaving technician forget about translation :( --WarX 18:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support / tsca @ 12:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I don't have a clue what the Polish means either, but that doesn't matter. What is important is that it is a good clear diagram, and the number tags are large enough to read even at quite small reproduction sizes (as in e.g. the 200px thumb above) - MPF 17:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ss181292 22:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC) - nice piece of SVG work[reply]
Support I think it is a "standing weaving machine", tak? - but this translation is provided by a French speaking czech, not really polish and whose knowledge of weaving is 0. --Diligent 02:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's a neat depiction of whatever it is. Cary "Bastiq▼e" Bass ^demandez 17:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have a partial translation on the image talk page --Digon3 17:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support // Liftarn
Support Tidy, simple and attractive Please log in to vote -- Lycaon 18:32, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ziga 12:29, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Prevert^(talk) 12:58, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 9 support, 0 oppose >> featured Alvesgaspar 10:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nymphalis io - featured

Info created by Luc Viatour - uploaded by Luc Viatour - nominated by --Luc Viatour 15:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Luc Viatour 15:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice picture --Anna reg 15:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~ Support This is a nice composition and a beautiful picture. ~~Pity that numerous artifacts are clearly visible in full resolution. Can it be fixed?~~

Alvesgaspar 18:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not artifacts, in fact the scales are visible, to see here scale The original with the format raw without compression, shows the structure in scales --Luc Viatour 05:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question I have 2 questions: What iso did you use? Did you make that photo in a studio? The blue colour looks quite artifical. In general a good shot.--AngMoKio 19:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not in studio in my garden, with the sky and the roof of the slate house --Luc Viatour 05:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support "well-fed" ;) --XN 20:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great! -- Simonizer 07:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support j'applaudis aussi. --Diligent 02:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Blue is too distracting, looks artificial. Too many elements in and out of focus. --Tomascastelazo 15:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

for out of focus: in macrophotography it is impossible to have much depth of field! To see here: Macro photography --Luc Viatour 09:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am well aware of DOF difficulties in macro photography, as an inevitable result of camera to subject distance, lens focal length, etc., and te same applies to telephoto usage. However, the many elements of the plant compete with main subject darting in and out of focus, thus making the image too busy. Think of an autofocus camera that doesn´t quite know where to focus. That is the visual effect I get. Try croppng it. And the blue looks too artificial --Tomascastelazo 15:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~ Support I love the photo but please make the caption more explicit if you want I change my vote (is “Hamois” the location ? is it shot outside or in a greenhouse ? what is the plant ?) B.navez 18:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I corrected description: Butterfly Nymphalis io on the flowers of Prunus laurocerasus (Photographed in the countryside of Hamois in Belgium)in the open air --Luc Viatour 05:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Thisisbossi 00:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lycaon 08:54, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Malene Thyssen 18:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 10 support, 1 oppose >> featured Alvesgaspar 14:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Collared peccary - melbourne zoo.jpg not featured

Info Uploaded and nominated by Fir0002 (self nom)
Support --Fir0002 www 22:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose composition norro 23:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unbalanced composition – flamurai 06:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Compostion, poor shooting position, colours of background and animals are too similar. Alvesgaspar 08:32, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose composition --AngMoKio 08:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lestat 22:23, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 1 support, 5 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 7th day) Alvesgaspar 23:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Emu02 - melbourne zoo.jpg not featured

Info Uploaded and nominated by Fir0002 (self nom)
Support --Fir0002 www 22:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose distracting background norro 23:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Fir's day at the zoo, uploaded straight to FPC? Sorry, distracting background, not an exceptional pic. --Dschwen 23:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose background – flamurai 06:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the composition is nice but not enough for FP...--AngMoKio 08:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Clumsy nomination due to unhappy background and crop too tight. Fir0002 can do much better than this! Alvesgaspar 08:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose At least, the emu should have combed his hair. ;-) you got it on a "bad hair day" --SvonHalenbach 15:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lestat 16:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 1 support, 7 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 7th day) Alvesgaspar 23:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Asian elephant eating - melbourne zoo.jpg not feaured

Info Uploaded and nominated by Fir0002 (self nom)
Support --Fir0002 www 22:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose distracting background, overexposed norro 23:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose exposure, background, cropping. --Dschwen 23:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose trunk crop, primarily – flamurai 06:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose composition...the trunk is cut off--AngMoKio 08:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1 support, 4 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 7th day) Alvesgaspar 23:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Echidna - melbourne zoo.jpg not feaured

Info Uploaded and nominated by Fir0002 (self nom)
Support --Fir0002 www 22:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose composition, flat light (flash light) norro 23:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose flat flash lighting, white speckles from oversharpening. --Dschwen 23:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You sure that's not just Echidna dandruff? :) – flamurai 06:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as above – flamurai 06:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose agree with norro and Dschwen --AngMoKio 08:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lestat 22:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1 support, 5 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 7th day) Alvesgaspar 23:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Rose autumn.jpg -not featured

Info created by robek - uploaded by robek - nominated by 172.159.248.24 --172.159.248.24 21:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bad composition/angle, ~~rose looks too red~~, uninteresting and blurred background. --Digon3 23:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Info we could I guess argue about composition, but rose being too red? the levels have not been adjusted and colors are pretty much natural, should I pick less colourful flower next time? ;) --172.159.248.24 00:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was wrong when I said the colors weren't natural (bad monitor), but I still don't like the angle or composition, and outer petals are unsharp. (It would also be better in my opinion if the outer petals weren't wilted) --Digon3 20:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral I like it! But I agree that it has bad DOF (outer petals are unsharp) and composition could be better (if the rose was moved a little bit to the right...) --Erina 06:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support i like the composition and the colours (it could be a bit sharper though) --AngMoKio 08:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ss181292 22:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC) - too much out of focus[reply]
Oppose lacking of composition and of focusing B.navez 18:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the colours, focus and point of view. Composition is ok IMO, if you like something more expressive, you can crop / roatate it. --Wikimol 22:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It would make a great background photo on a desktop, but I agree with the above reasons for opposing this as a featured photo. --Thisisbossi 00:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 2 support, 1 neutral, 4 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 07:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Nerium oleander bud.jpg - not featured

White bud of an oleander

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Joaquim Alves Gaspar
Support --Alvesgaspar 14:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good composition, very nice picture--Digon3 17:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't see the composition. Background is distracting and upper blossom is cut. norro 20:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The image is very flat and dull. – flamurai 02:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. good. Darkoneko 12:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Downward position of subject, flat. --Tomascastelazo 15:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cary "Bastiq▼e" Bass ^demandez 17:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not illustrative enough, do not show the main features of an oleander to be recognizable B.navez 18:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per above. --Thisisbossi 00:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 4 support, 5 oppose - not featured Alvesgaspar 12:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:NMMP dolphin with locator.jpeg - not delisted

Info created by the US Navy - uploaded by Johantheghost - nominated by -Gphoto 15:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please link to the original FPC before delisting. This (and these votes) should be taken into consideration. Cary "Bastiq▼e" Bass ^demandez 15:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delist -- This picture's resolution is very bad, it is only 800px by 665px, and the composition is not very good. -Gphoto 15:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delist -- low res, bad composition. Lycaon 07:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Low resolution, bad composition. --Digon3 13:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC) - voted twice Cary "Bastiq▼e" Bass ^demandez 18:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC) oops, thanks for catching that --Digon3 17:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]
Delist ditto -- Gorgo 19:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Info This picture is now a candidadte to FP in Wikipedia. Alvesgaspar 23:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I could be tempted to support it on Wikipedia as it is kind of neat, but I don't feel it to be an FP here. --Thisisbossi 01:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Info - The resolution is not 800px by 665px. It's 1659×1994. So the size is no more a reason to delist --Arad 15:38, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's actually a unique photo. --Arad 15:38, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Info The size was changed by Cody.pope to 1659×1994 on Nov 15, a day after this picture was nominated for delisting. It was 800px by 665px when -Gphoto nominated it. --Digon3 18:40, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delist - didn't like the close cropping when it was originally nominated, and still don't - MPF 23:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delist It is a unique photo, but I don't like the cropping --Digon3
Keep - Agree with Arad, it is a unique photo despite the unhappy cropping. We should keep it Alvesgaspar 12:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - What's with all the sudden delistings? This is not an obvious candidate per the instructions. Cary "Bastiq▼e" Bass ^demandez 15:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --WarX 19:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Drini 19:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Who are you kidding ??? FP states we believe it is one of the finest images on the Wikimedia Commons, nobody is going to think we're serious if we don't update our criteria once in a while. I remember CGA/EGA days and when VGA arrived I found 256 colours 320x200 pics the world. Well, no longer... (the same holds for composition, DOF, POV, and all the other criteria) Lycaon 21:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --SvonHalenbach 11:29, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 6 keep, 6 delist >> not delisted Alvesgaspar 15:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Sailing.jpg delisted

300px|Short description

Info created by Daniel Mohorovic - uploaded by Aurevilly - nominated by Digon3 17:16, 14 November 2006
Comment Please link this to original FPC before delisting. Cary "Bastiq▼e" Bass ^demandez 15:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delist The reasons for delisting: there are artifacts in the water, water wrong hue (I think), the sky takes up most of the picture, the horizon is uneven and curved, and the picture really doesn't show anything special. --Digon3 17:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I agree with you, the picture suffers from some serious technical flaws. And still there is also some magic given by the haze and the unnatural colouring... - Alvesgaspar 18:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like the hue was changed in photoshop. --Digon3 20:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delist Ss181292 22:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delist quality, composition -- Gorgo 20:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like the colors, personally; but there is far too much sky. Crop it about a third of the way up. --Thisisbossi 01:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delist - ditto to Digon on the un-natural colours - MPF 23:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --WarX 19:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I find the composition more interesting than most "sky horizon" pictures. -- Drini 19:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delist not FP quality by far (may have been at time of selection though) Lycaon 00:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 2 keep, 1 neutral, 6 delist >> delisted Alvesgaspar 09:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:NYCSub ExpJoint.jpg - not featured

Info created by Dschwen - uploaded by Dschwen - nominated by flamurai – flamurai 02:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support My nomination and support for this image is as much for its informational merits as its artistic merits. Make sure you read the description before voting. – flamurai 02:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~ I didnt get it. What is the picture about and where can I see whatever there is to see? I also find the perspective very confusing. Maybe I´m a noob, but a good informative foto must be that good that even a noob can get some infos out of the picture. -- Simonizer 13:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Now I understand, thanks to Tomascastelazo, but i agree with the opposers -- Simonizer 09:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too many elements, confusing. --Tomascastelazo 15:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I believe we have to assume the good faith of all nominations. That is why I have retained my vote, waiting for some insight about the relevance of this picture (both aesthetically and in substance) or for someone who can explain it to me. Alvesgaspar 15:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- What would make you even imply this is a bad faith nomination?! Maybe because it's not a landscape or nature shot...? – flamurai 17:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Let me say again: I made that comment and did not use my vote because I am convinced this is a good faith nomination. But I failed, till now, to understand the beauty and/or the relevance of the picture as a FP. I understand how an expansion joint works but I don't see anything extraordinary is this illustration Alvesgaspar 21:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Alvesgaspar - You can see the shape of the rails, they are wedge type, one endng in a sharp point, that so whe they expand and contract, they do so in basically the same axis, so the contraction and expansion occurrs in a sliding action between joining rails thus retaining a straight line, otherwise, a buckling of the rails would occur, or a gap in case of contraction. --Tomascastelazo 17:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - useful photo, as per uploader. Railway lines expand when they get hot; if no expansion space is provided, they then buckle. The photo shows sliding contacts between two rails to allow for expansion without buckling. - MPF 16:37, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I can see why he nominated it, but I think a better angle can be shown. (straight on, no tilt) --Digon3 17:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Subject fills only a small part of the picture. Bad perspective and snow is distracting norro 19:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support very special case. Of course you have to think for some minutes to understand it. If you're not interested enough you might never understand. But for this subject the perspective is perfect: It's the way you would see it when standing in front of it. Subject exposure is perfect and the snow explains the cold (not distracting). I also like the artistic value. Colours are nice and you can loose yourself in the image because there is no horizon or scale. Given this subject any other picture will either be too technical or too artsy. --Ikiwaner 20:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Simple subjects require great photos. This has too many distracting features. Snowwayout 23:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral a helpful and interesting photo. But composition-wise it is a bit too distracting...maybe another angle might help --AngMoKio 07:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above Alvesgaspar 09:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Same as above. --Thisisbossi 00:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I was surprised to see this pic nominated here. Commons isn't as much about encyclopedic value as en:FPC. Anyways, I noticed this expansion joint for the first time on the GWB in NYC and took the pic out of curiosity. There was no way to get a better angle, and to my knowledge there was no picture of this contraption anywhere on wikimedia servers. It would loose context with tighter cropping and I feel it depicts the subject reasonably well. But quite honestly I don't think it deserves/needs to be a featured picture. --Dschwen 10:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lestat 22:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 3 support, 2 neutral, 8 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 09:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:The price of coffee 2.jpg - not featured

Info created and uploaded by Dominique Toussaint nominated by Alvesgaspar 11:59, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alvesgaspar 11:59, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support exellent! --Luc Viatour 12:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice Idea, but modelling wasnt´t very difficult and rendering could be made better. Also there is something wrong with the perspective! -- Simonizer 13:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice joke. --SvonHalenbach 16:39, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It is a nice idea, but I don't think its something for Featured pictures --Digon3 17:19, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ack Digon3 - Ss181292 17:39, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This looks like a graphic made for a TV news show... it doesn't use modern rendering technology. – flamurai 18:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - nice idea, but I'd not want to drink that! There is also inevitably a problem in that the proportions (particularly the tax take) will vary a lot from country to country, so the pic is only applicable in one country - MPF 21:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose price of coffee in which country?, why aggregate tax and transport: not the same thing. There is a minor translation mistake (Löhne = salary, not loan). There is an implicit message which i find wrong: "planters workers are badly paid", truth is that if you show the salaries of each subgroup (planter's, roaster's, vendor's, transporter's) they are probably paid there fair share of the final product, if it is (individually) low, it is most probably because third world economies are not efficient and mechanized, not because WE, end consumers, abuse the situation. To be harsh: encyclopedic value of the picture is not high and the picture itself... --Diligent 14:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lestat 19:35, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ack Diligent: No source of the data given. Taxes will be much higher in the US than in a european country. Image idea is nice except the "water surface". --Ikiwaner 19:54, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Info Withdraw nomination. Alvesgaspar 09:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 2 support, 9 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 09:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Crocodylus acutus 11.jpg - not featured

Info created by, uploaded by and nominated by Tomas Castelazo --Tomascastelazo 16:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo 16:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What can I say? I like crocs! --Tomascastelazo 16:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose norro 19:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support imho better than the previously nominated croco pics. --Contributor 19:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 2 support, 1 oppose >> not featured Alvesgaspar 16:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:porticoguardiagrele.jpg - featured

Porticato del duomo di Guardiagrele

Info created by Anxanum - uploaded by Anxanum - nominated by Anxanum --Anxanum 16:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Anxanum 16:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo 18:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting, even if it is a bit blurry and grainy. --SvonHalenbach 01:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Uninteresting, blurred and grainy. --Diligent 15:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Thisisbossi 00:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Amrum 13:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral photographically perfect but the subject is not clear. Why are the columns all different? This is what the picture is about isn't it?! --Ikiwaner 23:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like the careful composition and framing which is, I believe, the main theme of this photo (why B&W?). But the picure is too grainy, which could have been (maybe) avoided. Alvesgaspar 23:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I love the mistery of this picture, something to do with the grainB.navez 09:18, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support / tsca @ 13:06, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Luc Viatour 10:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like Cary "Bastiq▼e" Bass ^demandez 01:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lycaon 14:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Romary 09:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 10 support, 1 neutral, 3 oppose >> featured Alvesgaspar 16:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:The Eiffel tower, Paris, 4 août 2006.JPG

Info created by gnagnael - uploaded by gnagnael - nominated by gnagnael --Gnagnael 15:50, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Gnagnael 15:50, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose bad perspective (and isn't the light display copyrighted?). --Digon3 18:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Illuminations of Eiffel Tower are subject to authorizations. ♦ Pabix ^ℹ 18:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per Digon. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 18:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Digon. Cary "Bastiq▼e" Bass ^demandez 18:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- And yes, Pabix is right, the light displays are copyrighted. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 18:51, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, like Pabix. The illuminations of the Eiffel tower are considered an artwork and thus copyrighted. Apart from that, I don't like the perspective. darn, 3 editconflicts ¬_¬ guillom 18:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A diagonal composition would have improved the picture. --MichaelMaggs 20:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, ack Pabix. --Wikimol 13:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn: [4]. ZooFari 03:17, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]