Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/November 2008
This is an archive for Commons:Featured picture candidates page debates and voting.
The debates are closed and should not be edited.
Image:Pont de Brooklyn de nuit - Octobre 2008.jpg, Edit1 featured
[edit]Original, not featured
[edit]- Info created, uploaded and nominated by User:S23678. Please keep in mind the picture is at the maximum resolution as per the guidelines. Consider the size (55.8 Mpx) before judging the quality at 100% zoom. Thank you. --S23678 (talk) 05:19, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
- Info I posted some downsampled images to ease with the evalution of my image. --S23678 (talk) 01:48, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --S23678 (talk) 05:19, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support What can I say, this is amazing photography. Anonymous101 talk 08:07, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Full size is no mitigation for lack of noise reduction or glaring lights. Sorry. Lycaon (talk) 11:03, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support I like it, needs an english description though. -- Gorgo (talk) 11:45, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I will add one, but commons is multilingual, it doesn't need one ;) --S23678 (talk) 16:24, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
- yes it is, but I think a picture that is amongst the finest on commons should have an english description. -- Gorgo (talk) 16:28, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
- And without a second language the image would not have been multilingual :) /Daniel78 (talk) 23:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I will add one, but commons is multilingual, it doesn't need one ;) --S23678 (talk) 16:24, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- I like (Giligone (talk) 14:38, 18 October 2008 (UTC))
- Oppose Per Lycaon. I think it would benefit greatly from some down sampling. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 15:15, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I'll refer you to the first point in the guidelines. Please also look here where there was a clear support to an imperfect-but-full-resolution-FPC, over a sharper-but-smaller-FPC. Thank you. (My comment applies to downsampling) --S23678 (talk) 16:15, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
- Down sampling is allowed if it doesn't delete information and the picture isn't down sampled to an extended degree. Or do you think, that every panorama shown here is at its maximum resolution? As for the example..I didn't vote for that one, but I'm voting for this one. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 16:52, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I'll refer you to the first point in the guidelines. Please also look here where there was a clear support to an imperfect-but-full-resolution-FPC, over a sharper-but-smaller-FPC. Thank you. (My comment applies to downsampling) --S23678 (talk) 16:15, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Karelj (talk) 22:59, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support Wow! -- DarkAp89 Commons 10:39, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support Awesome. --Aktron (talk) 11:25, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support Though I must admit that it looks better in the preview than in full res. --MarPac (talk) 11:45, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Very good composition. Strong noise visible at preview, very weak technical quality. Sharpened highlight edges with inappropriate radius. Chromatic Aberration visible. sorry. --Base64 (talk) 14:05, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support, but please downscale it to approximately 8000x* pixels. --Aqwis (talk) 20:31, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
- Done here (2 Mpx, 3.6 Mpx and 5000 px wide) --S23678 (talk) 01:48, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry - would have liked to support, but I would expect an effort to be made to reduce the noise and to deal with the very noticeable CA. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:57, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose great composition and a beautiful image at preview size but technical problems as highlighted by Base64, very sorry -- ianaré (talk) 01:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose A nice image, but it requires more post processing and maybe some downsizing to remove some technical flaws. -- Pixel8 11:12, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support A very nice (and a classic) image with nice colours and mood to me. A bit weak from technical point of view, but I guess camera is at fault mostly. Considering the large size, technical flaws are mitigated. What are the dots on the upper left part ? is it a result of blending three exposures ? Benh (talk) 19:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Support--Avala (talk) 19:59, 27 October 2008 (UTC)too late - Benh (talk) 21:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
result: 10 supports, 6 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured (waiting for results on edit1). Benh (talk) 21:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- Info Lycaon has done a great job at noise reduction. As well he removed some artifacts from the sky (airplane trails of light, flare). --S23678 (talk) 14:40, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --S23678 (talk) 14:40, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Florent Pécassou (talk) 09:00, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Good edit Snowwayout (talk) 03:19, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Crusier (talk) 07:35, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Aqwis (talk) 08:29, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support cool lights Muhammad 16:56, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support Great pic. (also the one above) There is some extra ray of light above the building (that stands behind the middle of the bridge). Ufo? -:) One small light still remains on this image. Ziga (talk) 17:29, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support great work -- Gorgo (talk) 18:54, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support-- DarkAp89 Commons 14:52, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support--Avala (talk) 19:58, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Base64 (talk) 09:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support--Lmbuga gl, pt, es: contacta comigo 15:27, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support - Benh (talk) 21:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support /Daniel78 (talk) 23:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral Probably in the minority but I would have liked some more noise in there :) It looks too glossy now. --Dori - Talk 03:06, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose It appears that noise reduction was applied indescriminately and without proper masking masking, there is zero fine detail when scaled to the minimum height of a panorama. The bridge looks like it has a smooth concrete render instead of blocks. Noodle snacks (talk) 08:27, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
result: 14 supports, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Benh (talk) 10:32, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Image:Magnolia acuminata trunk.JPG, not featured
[edit]- Info created by Crusier - uploaded by Crusier - nominated by Crusier --Crusier (talk) 09:31, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- Info Trunk of Magnolia acuminata in Marki, Poland
- Support --Crusier (talk) 09:31, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, the composition is not suitable for featuring. Lycaon (talk) 09:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- I think you meant you don't like the composition?! --norro 16:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --norro 16:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Nothing special, common image, no reason for FP. --Karelj (talk) 17:06, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Composition, lack of contrast, colours, common subject, lack of wow. The FPX should've just been left there. –Dilaudid 18:16, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Considering the general difficulty for FPCs to become FP, it becomes easy to determine the images who will obviously not make it to FP. The purpose of FPX is to quickly remove images that will accumulate 9 days of "Oppose". FPX should have been left there IMO, and "support" should not be used to make a point against FPX. I would like, norro, that you explain why you think this image should be recognized as "the best of the best of Commons" (currently: 1400 FP over 3400000 media files = 0.04%)? --S23678 (talk) 13:19, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Although I would like to express support for norro's right to support the image, I don't see anything very special. --che 14:38, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I do not oppose the right to support a FPC, but I would like to know the justifications of norro to support this image ;) --S23678 (talk) 14:45, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I think only obvious technical flaws should be a reason to use FPX, that image is not that bad and there is nothing extremely wrong with it. And even if it stays here for 9 days and only gets opposing votes .. so what. Composition is quite a subjective matter and everybody thinks different about that, please use the FPX-template with care, as it might seem quite offensive to someone new here. -- Gorgo (talk) 22:03, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose As above. How do you turn this on (talk) 19:36, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose It's just a tree trunk and no wow. --Mr. Mario (talk) 01:21, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
result: 2 supports, 7 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured. Benh (talk) 19:48, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Image:FraxernPano.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 31 Oct 2008 at 09:48:24
- Info A view over blooming cherry trees towards the centre of the austrian village Fraxern in Vorarlberg. Pano with 11 Pics.
- Info created,uploaded and nominated by -- Böhringer (talk) 09:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Böhringer (talk) 09:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Aqwis (talk) 17:07, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Nice pic, would like to support, but there are quite visible stitching marks (vertical line approx. 1/4 from the right, where sharpness changes suddenly). Try using better stitching software! --MarPac (talk) 10:39, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral My concerns here are subjective, but not enough to oppose. First, about the panorama: I don't think the left third of the image has anything valuable to be showned. Second is about the picture itself: I would expect a little more from this scenery: wheather, light condition, etc, to give a "mood" to the picture. It is a very good picture, but the scene has the potential for more I think. --S23678 (talk) 13:02, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Good image, but just large village, no WOW. --Karelj (talk) 17:14, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral Great view, good composition, nice colours. Great picture. I would support it when the clearly visible and allready mentioned stiching error is corrected --Simonizer (talk) 18:44, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support How do you turn this on (talk) 19:33, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support--Avala (talk) 20:01, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
result: 4 supports, 2 opposes, 2 neutrals => not featured. Benh (talk) 19:49, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Image:1907 Panic.png, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 1 Nov 2008 at 08:57:29
- Info created by Unidentified - uploaded by Evian Pepper - nominated by Милан Јелисавчић -- Милан Јелисавчић (talk) 08:57, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Милан Јелисавчић (talk) 08:57, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Old picture of Wall Street. I see a crowd gathering, but no "panic" as per the title (at least, not visible). I do not think this is an exceptional picture. Good value to Commons, but not FP. --S23678 (talk) 12:42, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Comment - it was uploaded by JayHenry. I, Evian Pepper, enhanced the colour settings to remove the sepia tone. EvP (talk) 15:50, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose As S23678. --Karelj (talk) 17:17, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support Historically interesting image. How do you turn this on (talk) 19:32, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
result: 2 supports, 2 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured. Benh (talk) 10:21, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Image:Musée Massey (Tarbes, 65).JPG, not featured
[edit]- Info created by Florent Pécassou - uploaded by Florent Pécassou - nominated by Florent Pécassou --Florent Pécassou (talk) 20:46, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Florent Pécassou (talk) 20:46, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Gaël Le Mab (talk) 15:18, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Not very sharp and heavily compressed --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 16:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Fimport (talk) 22:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- Weak support Could have better focus, but not a big issue. How do you turn this on (talk) 19:31, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Good image, but not enough quality for FP, no WOW. --Karelj (talk) 20:27, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose In addition to previous opposers, composition issues : the statue in fron of the building is lost in the trees. --S23678 (talk) 00:11, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
result: 4 supports, 3 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured. Benh (talk) 10:22, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Image:Chantilly1 tango7174.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 1 Nov 2008 at 21:24:05
- Info created by Tango7174 - uploaded by Tango7174 - nominated by Tango7174 -- Tango7174 (talk) 21:24, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Tango7174 (talk) 21:24, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- a soft and cloudy color space!--Farzaaaad2000 (talk) 21:39, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support I like this one. --Aktron (talk) 22:18, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support How do you turn this on (talk) 19:31, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Too flat, maybe image with better light conditions will pass. --Karelj (talk) 20:45, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Florent Pécassou (talk) 17:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support-- DarkAp89 Commons 17:53, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Light not the best and too tight crop/resampling (?) which reduces possible details. Lycaon (talk) 08:29, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
result: 5 supports, 3 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured. Benh (talk) 10:22, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Image:Chantilly2 tango7174.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 1 Nov 2008 at 21:26:01
- Info created by Tango7174 - uploaded by Tango7174 - nominated by Tango7174 -- Tango7174 (talk) 21:26, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Tango7174 (talk) 21:26, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Not a well done crop --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 16:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Florent Pécassou (talk) 21:06, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Fimport (talk) 22:46, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support How do you turn this on (talk) 19:29, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
result: 4 supports, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Benh (talk) 10:23, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Image:Sunset near Salinas 3.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 2 Nov 2008 at 04:20:57
- Info created, uploaded, and nominated by :):(:|:/ This is good too! -- Mr. Mario (talk) 04:20, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Mr. Mario (talk) 04:20, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral -- Peut être plus intéressant que la seconde image. Florent Pécassou (talk) 16:01, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Other FP's of sunsets are much better --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 16:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose sunset --che 23:43, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Not particularly outstanding. How do you turn this on (talk) 19:28, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose simply not good enough.--Avala (talk) 19:56, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Per previous opposers--Lmbuga gl, pt, es: contacta comigo 15:39, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose User: Pierregunther
- Comment please state reason for opposition as a courtesy to the author/uploader. Lycaon (talk) 19:44, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose nothing spectacular in this --Man On Mission 11:58, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 7 opposes, 1 neutral => not featured (could have been because of rule of 5th day). Benh (talk) 10:24, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Image:US Flag in Salinas.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 4 Nov 2008 at 04:42:55
- Info created by Mr. Mario (talk) - uploaded by Mr. Mario (talk) - nominated by Mr. Mario (talk) -- Mr. Mario (talk) 04:42, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Mr. Mario (talk) 04:42, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose, it's just an American flag. --Aqwis (talk) 09:46, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose composition; nothing special -- Gorgo (talk) 18:41, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Nothing outstanding or interesting about this. Plus the top is missing. How do you turn this on (talk) 19:04, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose -- idem Florent Pécassou (talk) 10:10, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Not interesting. --Turzh (talk) 14:47, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: of dull colours, composition and lack of wow. –Dilaudid 15:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC) | Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed. |
- No American voters are voting yet... --Mr. Mario (talk) 01:16, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- What does this have to do with nationality? A good piture is a good picture is a good picture. Basta! --Heptagon (talk) 17:28, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose User: Pierregunther
- Comment please state reason for opposition as a courtesy to the author/uploader. Lycaon (talk) 19:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose i see no composition. sorry --Heptagon (talk) 16:55, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Per FPX --S23678 (talk) 04:44, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
not featured because of FPX - Benh (talk) 10:49, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Image:Uprooted coconut tree.JPG, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 9 Nov 2008 at 11:36:42
- Info created by Man On Mission - uploaded by Man On Mission - nominated by Man On Mission -- Man On Mission (talk) 11:36, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Man On Mission (talk) 11:36, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Overexposed. Diti (talk to the penguin) 11:40, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Chaotic compositon, poor quality, size.. --Karelj (talk) 17:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose --Lestat (talk) 23:10, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: it has blown highlights and chromatic aberration. MER-C 01:08, 1 November 2008 (UTC) | Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed. |
Image:Silvereye.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 2 Nov 2008 at 07:29:18
- Info created by Noodle snacks - uploaded by Noodle snacks - nominated by Noodle snacks -- Noodle snacks (talk) 07:29, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Noodle snacks (talk) 07:29, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Crusier (talk) 07:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support, we have a winner! --Aqwis (talk) 08:30, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Florent Pécassou (talk) 09:02, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- Agree--Lmbuga gl, pt, es: contacta comigo 14:58, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Lošmi (talk) 16:08, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 16:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support I love it! How do you turn this on (talk) 19:27, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support-- DarkAp89 Commons 14:51, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Karelj (talk) 13:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support--Lmbuga gl, pt, es: contacta comigo 15:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 11:31, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Lestat (talk) 17:02, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support ■ MMXXtalk 07:39, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -> Simply awesome! --Man On Mission
result: 15 supports, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Benh (talk) 10:25, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Image:Long Billed Corella Beak.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 2 Nov 2008 at 07:49:23
- Info created by Noodle snacks - uploaded by Noodle snacks - nominated by Noodle snacks -- Noodle snacks (talk) 07:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Noodle snacks (talk) 07:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, it is too small (it is 1.9Mpx and 1:5 downsampling is not per guidelines). Lycaon (talk) 08:37, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- Your maths is a bit of a joke... It is over two megapixels and I reserve the right to maintain the non-downsampled photographs for private sale. Noodle snacks (talk) 08:39, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- I'm no mathematician, but I was always taught >2 megapixels is not equal to 1.9 megapixel. Flying Freddy (talk) 08:46, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- 1415x1415 = 2002225 pixels. --Aqwis (talk) 08:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- 1 Mpx = 1024 kpx and 1kpx is 1024 px. Am I missing something? And BTW, guidelines state that downsampling should not be encouraged. You are perfectly welcome to upload small versions of your images, but don't expect them to be featured then. The private sale argument is a non-issue. If some want to use your picturse commercially and don't want to stick to the free licenses, they will pay anyway. Lycaon (talk) 09:01, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- 1 Mpx = 1000000 pixels not 1048576 pixels. Flying Freddy (talk) 09:10, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, maybe I confused with Mb ;-). Still the downsampling is 1 on 5, which is IMO unacceptable. Instead of uploading the largest possible size (as per guidelines), some users make it a game to upload the smallest possible size they can get away with and that is sad and pitiable. Lycaon (talk) 09:20, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- Actually the image is a square crop from the original rectancular frame, so 1:5 is an exagguration. The actual scaling means its more than 50% the size of the original on each dimension. If you have a look at some of my other current nominations there are some quite large ones there, so it varies from image to image. Noodle snacks (talk) 09:27, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, maybe I confused with Mb ;-). Still the downsampling is 1 on 5, which is IMO unacceptable. Instead of uploading the largest possible size (as per guidelines), some users make it a game to upload the smallest possible size they can get away with and that is sad and pitiable. Lycaon (talk) 09:20, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- 1 Mpx = 1000000 pixels not 1048576 pixels. Flying Freddy (talk) 09:10, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- 1 Mpx = 1024 kpx and 1kpx is 1024 px. Am I missing something? And BTW, guidelines state that downsampling should not be encouraged. You are perfectly welcome to upload small versions of your images, but don't expect them to be featured then. The private sale argument is a non-issue. If some want to use your picturse commercially and don't want to stick to the free licenses, they will pay anyway. Lycaon (talk) 09:01, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- 1415x1415 = 2002225 pixels. --Aqwis (talk) 08:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- I'm no mathematician, but I was always taught >2 megapixels is not equal to 1.9 megapixel. Flying Freddy (talk) 08:46, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- Your maths is a bit of a joke... It is over two megapixels and I reserve the right to maintain the non-downsampled photographs for private sale. Noodle snacks (talk) 08:39, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Aqwis (talk) 08:31, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Donarreiskoffer (talk) 13:56, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Excessive downsampling --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 16:53, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support we have guidelines and if the image meets the guidelines, it should be supported. The author should have the right to downsample his images. Muhammad 06:37, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- Maybe you should read the guidelines about downsampling... :( Lycaon (talk) 06:46, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- "Images should not be downsampled (sized down in order to appear of better quality)." Mentions nothing about downsampling to maintain a commercial license. FWIW, the example image on the guidelines page for downsampling is a FP. Muhammad 18:03, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose smallish resolution -- Gorgo (talk) 18:52, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support would prefer larger, but no big deal. How do you turn this on (talk) 19:27, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Size of image and composition. --Karelj (talk) 09:17, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- Weak support -- DarkAp89 Commons 17:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
result: 6 supports, 4 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured. Benh (talk) 10:25, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Image:Brown Tree Frog 2.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 2 Nov 2008 at 07:52:14
- Info created by Noodle snacks - uploaded by Noodle snacks - nominated by Noodle snacks -- Noodle snacks (talk) 07:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Noodle snacks (talk) 07:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Aqwis (talk) 08:31, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support Muhammad 06:36, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support How do you turn this on (talk) 19:26, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - Good technique, decent quality but the white background kills it for me. I (almost) understand that in WP:FPC this kind of depiction in considered of good EV, but here, the so-called "wow factor" prevails. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:38, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose there is something missing - in think it's a natural background --Richard Bartz (talk) 11:46, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Twdragon (talk) 19:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose As Alvesgaspar. --Karelj (talk) 20:38, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Econt (talk) 23:31, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
result: 6 supports, 3 opposes, 0 neutral => featured. Benh (talk) 10:26, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Image:Cercophonius squama.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 2 Nov 2008 at 07:53:27
- Info created by Noodle snacks - uploaded by Noodle snacks - nominated by Noodle snacks -- Noodle snacks (talk) 07:53, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Noodle snacks (talk) 07:53, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Aqwis (talk) 08:31, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support good quality and composition Muhammad 06:36, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support And again. How do you turn this on (talk) 19:25, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - Good technique, decent quality but the white background kills it for me. I (almost) understand that in WP:FPC this kind of depiction in considered of good EV, but here, the so-called "wow factor" prevails. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:36, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose 2 harsh details and reflection caused by flashlight kills it --Richard Bartz (talk) 11:43, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Twdragon (talk) 19:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose As Alvesgaspar. --Karelj (talk) 20:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
result:65 supports, 3 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured. Benh (talk) 10:27, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Image:Bridgewater Causeway.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 2 Nov 2008 at 07:56:29
- Info created by Noodle snacks - uploaded by Noodle snacks - nominated by Noodle snacks -- Noodle snacks (talk) 07:56, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Noodle snacks (talk) 07:56, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support, great pictures. --Aqwis (talk) 08:31, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- Agree--Lmbuga gl, pt, es: contacta comigo 14:55, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Lošmi (talk) 16:02, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 16:54, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Fimport (talk) 22:45, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support Excellent. --Aktron (talk) 09:01, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support Again. How do you turn this on (talk) 19:25, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Good image, but not enough for FP. --Karelj (talk) 20:41, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support Florent Pécassou (talk) 10:25, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Richard Bartz (talk) 11:43, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support-- DarkAp89 Commons 14:50, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support--Avala (talk) 19:56, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support--Lmbuga gl, pt, es: contacta comigo 15:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Kjetil_r 18:10, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support –Dilaudid 21:56, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support - Benh (talk) 22:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 11:30, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Heptagon (talk) 17:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Lestat (talk) 23:12, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Don't like the HDR look, saving it as progressive doesn't help either. --Dori - Talk 03:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Javier ME (talk) 22:34, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support --S23678 (talk) 04:20, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
result: 21 supports, 2 opposes, 0 neutral => featured. Benh (talk) 10:28, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Image:Narbonnemediatheque.jpg, not featured
[edit]- Info created by Florent Pécassou - uploaded by Florent Pécassou - nominated by Florent Pécassou --Florent Pécassou (talk) 09:08, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Florent Pécassou (talk) 09:08, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Tilted and overexposed parts --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 16:55, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Fimport (talk) 22:48, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Don't really like the angle. How do you turn this on (talk) 19:22, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Gaël Le Mab (talk) 17:49, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Please geocode it. --Kjetil_r 18:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- It's done. Florent Pécassou (talk) 20:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose strongly. At below 2 megapixels it's too small, it's artefacty, it's noisy, it suffers from perspective & barrel distortion, it's overexposed, the light's not right, the composition's unbalanced and the wall in front harms the image. Supporters, could you please explain yourselves? –Dilaudid 14:05, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose User: Pierregunther
- Comment please state reason for opposition as a courtesy to the author/uploader. Lycaon (talk) 19:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Too small for an easy shot like this. --S23678 (talk) 04:22, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
result: 3 supports, 5 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured. Benh (talk) 10:29, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Image:Château de Montaner (64) 2.JPG, not featured
[edit]- Info created by Florent Pécassou - uploaded by Florent Pécassou - nominated by Florent Pécassou --Florent Pécassou (talk) 09:29, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Florent Pécassou (talk) 09:29, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Tilted among other things --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 16:55, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support Very nice castle Fimport (talk) 22:44, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose I don't like the perspective here. Perhaps with some different POV the image could be much more interesting. --Aktron (talk) 09:03, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose composition --che 23:44, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support Fine for me. How do you turn this on (talk) 19:21, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Tilted, needs perspective correction. –Dilaudid 15:36, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Please geocode it. --Kjetil_r 18:08, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- It's done. Florent Pécassou (talk) 20:06, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose --Not geocoded, tilt, perspective distortion --Twdragon (talk) 19:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- Now geocoded. Florent Pécassou (talk) 20:08, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose User: Pierregunther
- Comment please state reason for opposition as a courtesy to the author/uploader. Lycaon (talk) 19:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Crop too tight --S23678 (talk) 04:23, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
result:' 3 supports, 7 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured. Benh (talk) 21:16, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Image:Rodin brama piekła detal.JPG, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 2 Nov 2008 at 09:44:48
- Info created, uploaded and nominated by Albertus teolog -- Albertus teolog (talk) 09:44, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 09:44, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support JukoFF (talk) 23:00, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Npthing particular. Fimport (talk) 09:39, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Too noisy --B.navez (talk) 14:31, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- Info The photo was taken in the museum, without a flash - light gas-discharge lamps's. Albertus teolog (talk) 21:10, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Too much noise I'm afraid. How do you turn this on (talk) 19:20, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose User: Pierregunther
- Comment please state reason for opposition as a courtesy to the author/uploader. Lycaon (talk) 19:47, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose No wow --S23678 (talk) 04:24, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
result:' 2 supports, 5 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured. Benh (talk) 21:17, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Image:Eurasian Coot.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 2 Nov 2008 at 11:11:49
- Info created by Noodle snacks - uploaded by Noodle snacks - nominated by Noodle snacks -- Noodle snacks (talk) 11:11, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Noodle snacks (talk) 11:11, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Aqwis (talk) 12:37, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Unnatural flash light --B.navez (talk) 14:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support How do you turn this on (talk) 19:19, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose head is blurry - especially the nice red eye, sharpening made the animal 2 grainy, oe reflections on the feet is KO here --Richard Bartz (talk) 11:33, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Unnatural flash light--Lmbuga gl, pt, es: contacta comigo 15:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
result:' 3 supports, 3 opposes, x neutral => not featured. Benh (talk) 21:17, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Image:Mount Pleasant Radio Telescope.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 2 Nov 2008 at 11:13:25
- Info created by Noodle snacks - uploaded by Noodle snacks - nominated by Noodle snacks -- Noodle snacks (talk) 11:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Noodle snacks (talk) 11:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Aqwis (talk) 12:35, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support impressive --norro 16:39, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support Done well. --Aktron (talk) 08:59, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --B.navez (talk) 14:29, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support Great composition. --Kosiarz-PL 14:57, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support mmm... Brooding landscape. --Elucidate (talk) 21:12, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support Noodlesnacks, your pics are fantastic! How do you turn this on (talk) 19:18, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - Fantastic mood but also some technical weakness: for this small size we would expect a razor sharp detail; colours in the foreground are washed out; geometric distortion of the building is disturbing. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- The base of the building is level, and it looks geometrically accurate to me. What is misleading is the sloped hillside. Noodle snacks (talk) 09:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support Not 2 piky on the tech flaws, fantastic mood and good comp -- cool ! --Richard Bartz (talk) 11:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support-- DarkAp89 Commons 14:50, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support Lycaon (talk) 15:01, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support I love how you get such amazing skies. Superbe use of wide angle and HDR (again shall I say) in my opinion. Benh (talk) 22:00, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose User: Pierregunther
- Comment please state reason for opposition as a courtesy to the author/uploader. Lycaon (talk) 19:47, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support plus: great encyclopaedic calue --Heptagon (talk) 17:26, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Lestat (talk) 23:14, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Don't like the HDR effect. --Dori - Talk 02:58, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support --S23678 (talk) 04:26, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
result: 15 supports, 2 opposes, 0 neutral => featured. Benh (talk) 21:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Support— Ferrer 09:29, 3 November 2008 (UTC) too late - Benh (talk) 21:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Image:Bench Grinder Brush 1.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 2 Nov 2008 at 11:14:26
- Info created by Noodle snacks - uploaded by Noodle snacks - nominated by Noodle snacks -- Noodle snacks (talk) 11:14, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Noodle snacks (talk) 11:14, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Donarreiskoffer (talk) 13:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Lošmi (talk) 16:05, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support Slightly too narrow at the left, but otherwise wonderful. --norro 16:41, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 16:56, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support JukoFF (talk) 23:00, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --B.navez (talk) 14:25, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Elucidate (talk) 21:12, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support How do you turn this on (talk) 19:15, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Tight crop, no wow. Lycaon (talk) 21:01, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Florent Pécassou (talk) 10:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- Comment please state reason for opposition as a courtesy to the author/uploader. Lycaon (talk) 19:48, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support-- DarkAp89 Commons 17:51, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose User: Pierregunther
- Comment please state reason for opposition as a courtesy to the author/uploader. Lycaon (talk) 19:48, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Javier ME (talk) 22:29, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose I would have prefered a less "random" crop --S23678 (talk) 04:29, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
result: 11 supports, 4 opposes, 0 neutral => featured. Benh (talk) 21:20, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Supportnice work, at least it gives me a little "wow, nice work!" --Kanonkas(talk) 15:32, 3 November 2008 (UTC) too late - Benh (talk) 21:20, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Image:Richmond Bridge Panorama Restitch.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 2 Nov 2008 at 11:18:56
- Info created by Noodle snacks - uploaded by Noodle snacks - nominated by Noodle snacks -- Noodle snacks (talk) 11:18, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Noodle snacks (talk) 11:18, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Florent Pécassou (talk) 11:35, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support, perfect image quality, great composition. --Aqwis (talk) 12:35, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- Agree--Lmbuga gl, pt, es: contacta comigo 14:53, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Gaël Le Mab (talk) 15:27, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Fimport (talk) 22:43, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --B.navez (talk) 14:24, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support Fantastic! How do you turn this on (talk) 19:11, 26 October 2008 (UTC)´
- Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:20, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support-- DarkAp89 Commons 14:49, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Lestat (talk) 16:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --D-Kuru (talk) 22:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --S23678 (talk) 04:31, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
result: 13 supports, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Benh (talk) 21:24, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Image:Domestic Goose.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 2 Nov 2008 at 11:21:14
- Info created by Noodle snacks - uploaded by Noodle snacks - nominated by Noodle snacks -- Noodle snacks (talk) 11:21, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Noodle snacks (talk) 11:21, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Florent Pécassou (talk) 11:56, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Aqwis (talk) 12:36, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 08:33, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support Smart --B.navez (talk) 14:23, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Elucidate (talk) 21:10, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- Agree--Lmbuga gl, pt, es: contacta comigo 01:16, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support Lovely shot! How do you turn this on (talk) 19:11, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Technically good but this busy & sad background doesn't make my blood boil --Richard Bartz (talk) 11:27, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support-- DarkAp89 Commons 14:48, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Composition, no wow. --Karelj (talk) 22:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support Good DOF, background & colours. –Dilaudid 21:50, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Richard. Benh (talk) 22:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support I like the background and the image. /Daniel78 (talk) 23:37, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 11:28, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Background not that great. --Dori - Talk 02:51, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral I would support a full resolution image. It seems that much information was lost in the downsampling --S23678 (talk) 04:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
result: 12 supports, 4 opposes, 1 neutral => featured. Benh (talk) 21:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Support— Ferrer 09:28, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Image:Orchidacea Cymbidium.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 2 Nov 2008 at 13:10:21
- Info created by Flying Freddy - uploaded by Flying Freddy - nominated by Flying Freddy -- Flying Freddy (talk) 13:10, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Flying Freddy (talk) 13:10, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Too busy background and in need of a cultivar name. Lycaon (talk) 13:15, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Aqwis (talk) 14:58, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support Very nice Muhammad 06:35, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose As a very common florist's flower, sharpness and light should be much much better. --B.navez (talk) 14:22, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- You surely mean DOF, not sharpness, right? The flower that is actually in focus (lowermost) is almost obscenely sharp. --Aqwis (talk) 21:13, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- I meant clearly sharpness cause I find the way it has been sharpened makes it odd. We could expect more details on the organs, not something whose colors seem to have been gently smoothed. --B.navez (talk) 14:11, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Elucidate (talk) 21:10, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support Nice shot; opposing comments don't concern me. How do you turn this on (talk) 19:10, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Twitchy background --Richard Bartz (talk) 11:22, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support-- DarkAp89 Commons 14:48, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Per previous opposers--Lmbuga gl, pt, es: contacta comigo 17:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Per opposers. –Dilaudid 21:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Could you try to be more specific with opposes, B.Navez's oppose I take is a issue with lighting as there is nothing wrong with sharpness although you could argue DOF. If you are agreeing with "twitchy background" could you please try to explain it a bit more precisely. Opposing comments should be an opportunity for a photographer to learn, but this is impossible if they don't understand the grounds of opposition.Flying Freddy (talk) 00:04, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Twdragon (talk) 16:10, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
result: 7 supports, 5 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured. Benh (talk) 21:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Image:Vilagarcía 051008 39GDFL.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 2 Nov 2008 at 15:27:29
- Info created by Lmbuga - uploaded by Lmbuga - nominated by Lmbuga -- Lmbuga gl, pt, es: contacta comigo 15:27, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Lmbuga gl, pt, es: contacta comigo 15:27, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Aktron (talk) 09:34, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support--Farzaaaad2000 (talk) 15:09, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Elucidate (talk) 21:10, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Purple fringing present on the cranes (see green lines). --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 23:13, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support How do you turn this on (talk) 19:09, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - Nice photo, but not special enough for FP. Some obvious fringing. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:10, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support-- DarkAp89 Commons 14:48, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose The CA fringes really! Lycaon (talk) 00:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Per other opposers. –Dilaudid 21:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Composition of the leftside boats. /Daniel78 (talk) 23:35, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Daniel78 --S23678 (talk) 04:38, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
result: 6 supports, 6 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured. Benh (talk) 21:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Image:Oxya yezoensis 08Oct7.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 2 Nov 2008 at 15:33:06
- Info created by 池田正樹 - uploaded by 池田正樹 - nominated by 池田正樹 -- 池田正樹 (talk) 01:33, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- 池田正樹 (talk) 01:33, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Crusier (talk) 05:25, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Elucidate (talk) 21:06, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Lošmi (talk) 00:54, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Lmbuga gl, pt, es: contacta comigo 00:55, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Posterization in background, sorry. -- Laitche (talk) 06:09, 26 October 2008 (UTC)-- Laitche (talk) 10:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)- Info--Thank you for the your Advice.
- Support How do you turn this on (talk) 19:07, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - Bells aren't ringing. Correct photo but not exceptional, considering the high level of existing insect FP's (not because of posterization, which I can't see) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:08, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Technically fine but composition isn*t exciting. --Richard Bartz (talk) 11:14, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Grass is in a strange position (horizontal) and composition is not too exciting for me. Lycaon (talk) 00:08, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Posterization is fixed but per opposers. -- Laitche (talk) 10:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support-- DarkAp89 Commons 17:50, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
result: 7 supports, 4 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured. Benh (talk) 21:27, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Image:Drill scheme.svg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 3 Nov 2008 at 06:06:47
- Info created by Kosiarz-PL - uploaded by Kosiarz-PL - nominated by Kosiarz-PL -- Kosiarz-PL 06:06, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Kosiarz-PL 06:06, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 08:34, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Useful and well-done work but nothing exceptionnal IMO. --B.navez (talk) 14:20, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Technical but just no 'Wow'. --Elucidate (talk) 21:07, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Nothing exceptionnal--Lmbuga gl, pt, es: contacta comigo 01:14, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Very simple --libertad0 ॐ (talk) 13:37, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Doesn't look exceptional. How do you turn this on (talk) 19:06, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Florent Pécassou (talk) 10:16, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- Comment please state reason for opposition as a courtesy to the author/uploader. Lycaon (talk) 19:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support It's exceptionally valuable figure for illustrating, e.g. the verb wikt:ru:сверлить in Russian and other Wiktionaries. There is (I think) too little number of simple figures (without unnecessary details as in photo) for illustration usual actions. -- AKA MBG (talk) 21:41, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- EV is not questioned, but this rationale is fit for wikipedia, not necessarily here. Lycaon (talk) 00:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose per opposers. Lycaon (talk) 00:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose User: Pierregunther
- Comment please state reason for opposition as a courtesy to the author/uploader. Lycaon (talk) 19:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Valuable, way beyond my drawing talents, but no wow --S23678 (talk) 04:40, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
result: 3 support, 9 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 21:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose — Ferrer 09:27, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Image:Bratislava, Staré Mesto, Slavín, socha rudoarmějce.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 3 Nov 2008 at 09:31:14
- Info created by Aktron - uploaded by Aktron - nominated by Aktron -- Aktron (talk) 09:31, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Aktron (talk) 09:31, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Fimport (talk) 09:37, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- Comment please state reason for opposition as a courtesy to the author/uploader. Lycaon (talk) 19:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Too harsh contrast. --B.navez (talk) 14:17, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- Weak support I like it, and don't find the contrast too harsh. How do you turn this on (talk) 19:05, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- Info - No "weak" or "strong" support/oppose are considered here. All votes have the same value for the final count. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- And could you please use the template ? I was about to close this nom when I noticed your support. Templates help people closing noms to do it faster. Benh (talk) 10:48, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Can you geocode it? --Kjetil_r 18:06, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose No wow --S23678 (talk) 04:43, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 22:00, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 7 Nov 2008 at 14:12:48
- Info created by Mr. Mario (talk) - uploaded by Mr. Mario (talk) - nominated by Mr. Mario (talk) -- Mr. Mario (talk) 14:12, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Mr. Mario (talk) 14:12, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose User: Pierregunther
- Comment please state reason for opposition as a courtesy to the author/uploader. Lycaon (talk) 19:52, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Disruptive tree on the bottom side, lower side of photo underexposed, poor composition (position of the skyline, for instance). Diti (talk to the penguin) 23:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: of poor composition and overall lack of detail and sharpness -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:58, 1 November 2008 (UTC) | Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed. |
- Oppose Wrong geocoding, and per Alvesgaspar --S23678 (talk) 05:15, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
- No wrong geocoding. --Mr. Mario (talk) 15:11, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
- Quite wrong indeed: the pointer ends up in the middle of the Anadaman Sea. Lycaon (talk) 16:02, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
- It's an island off the Thailand coast. People don't expect to see small islands in a small world map. --Mr. Mario (talk) 14:33, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- My sources are from both Google Maps and Yahoo Maps. Where is your sources from? --S23678 (talk) 15:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Image:Chantilly4 tango7174.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 7 Nov 2008 at 14:57:05
- Info created by Tango7174 - uploaded by Tango7174 - nominated by Tango7174 -- Tango7174 (talk) 14:57, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Tango7174 (talk) 14:57, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose User: Pierregunther
- Comment please state reason for opposition as a courtesy to the author/uploader. Lycaon (talk) 19:52, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Interesting composition, but CA, noise, stitch errors, and poorly done erasing of annoying details in the bottom (other stitch errors?) doesn't make it featurable material to me. Benh (talk) 22:20, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose per BenH, the composition is good though. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 12:40, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Frame not complete --S23678 (talk) 05:20, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer (talk) 22:03, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Image:DusseldorfGermany.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 8 Nov 2008 at 13:24:09
- Info created by, uploaded by and nominated by Massimo Catarinella -- Massimo Catarinella (talk) 13:24, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
It might not be an image of the most exciting subject on earth, but I think I've captured the square in a nice manner. I think the image possesses a dynamic composition and is worthy of becoming a FP.
- Support -- Massimo Catarinella (talk) 13:24, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Crop pavement. Albertus teolog (talk) 14:25, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose -- the lamp isn't standing straight. its just a little bit, but i think for an fp it should be better. the same for the church tower. the horseman has some too bright parts. Manuel R. (talk) 16:23, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
- The lamp is not leaning due to the perspective, otherwise I would have corrected it. The tower is not a church tower, but the tower of the town hall. As for the bright parts..I don't see them. I guess some people are just pickier than others. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 16:40, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose not the best view because the sculpture which dominates the location isn't in focus --Mbdortmund (talk) 20:40, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose The fence is cut off to the right and too much ground in the lower part of the image. /Daniel78 (talk) 22:12, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose per Daniel78. - Till (talk) 22:24, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Poor composition, no WOW. --Karelj (talk) 17:01, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Not bad, but missing a wow. --S23678 (talk) 20:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer (talk) 22:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 8 Nov 2008 at 18:38:23
- Info created by User:Farzaaaad2000 - uploaded by User:Farzaaaad2000 - nominated by User:Farzaaaad2000.Sarkis Cathedral in Tehran cnr Nejatollahi and Karim Khan-e Zand Sts, Valiasr Sq Area, capital of iran.there is main church for Armenian Iranians. -- Farzaaaad2000 (talk) 18:38, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Farzaaaad2000 (talk) 18:38, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose I do not see anything spectacular about this image. The colors seem to bleak. /Daniel78 (talk) 22:08, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: it is of very poor image quality, with extensive chromatic noise -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:56, 1 November 2008 (UTC) | Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed. |
Image:Colorium Duesseldorf.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 8 Nov 2008 at 22:08:14
- Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Till Niermann -- Till (talk) 22:08, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Till (talk) 22:08, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - Quality is not good enough due to obvious noise and lack of detail. I would prefer a symmetrical composition and am not very found of the angle. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:52, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- Comment In my view this picture does have a symmetrical composition: the center line is exactly perpendicular. - I don't see anything unsymmetrical apart from the distribution of the colored elements, but those are part of the building. - Till (talk) 19:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose — Ferrer 09:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Interesting perspective, but the crop is too tight and the top of the building is tilted. --S23678 (talk) 20:30, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Sorry, I can't manage to see a tilt at the top of the building... - Till (talk) 19:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer (talk) 22:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Image:Dictionary indents headon.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 8 Nov 2008 at 22:18:28
- Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Till Niermann -- Till (talk) 22:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Till (talk) 22:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Nothing specialities --Twdragon (talk) 16:11, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral I like it very much, but it is a bit narrow on the lower left and the lighting is not too good. --norro 17:13, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Good idea, but the lighting and sharpness (DOF too shallow) isn't very good. --Dori - Talk 02:44, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose No wow. --S23678 (talk) 20:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer (talk) 22:10, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 9 Nov 2008 at 21:30:06
- Info created by User:Farzaaaad2000 - uploaded by User:Farzaaaad2000 - nominated by User:Farzaaaad2000 -- Farzaaaad2000 (talk) 21:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC).shadow of Cyperus alternifolius.
- Support -- Farzaaaad2000 (talk) 21:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral Looks like a pattern on the, uh… towel? Diti (talk to the penguin) 21:51, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: subject is not clear and composition is poor - Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:41, 1 November 2008 (UTC) | Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed. |
Image:Blasting frankfurt.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 6 Nov 2008 at 00:58:27
- Info created by Heptagon - uploaded by Heptagon - nominated by Heptagon -- Heptagon (talk) 00:58, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support The demolition of a chimney of a former brewery in Frankfurt/Germany. Between the first an last picture are approx 6 seconds, the time it took the chimney to collapse. There are 2 other bad quality versions in recent. This is a new compilation from the original files I´ve found on my harddrive. I am aware that the quality of the chimney is not superb - I needed to crop it out because I didn´t want to lose ist during the collapse due to too high zoom. --Heptagon (talk) 01:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Aqwis (talk) 06:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Crusier (talk) 06:31, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support MER-C 07:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Twdragon (talk) 10:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Karelj (talk) 13:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support-- DarkAp89 Commons 17:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Kjetil_r 18:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support wow ! Benh (talk) 21:58, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support A clear case of wow mitigating rather poor quality. Lycaon (talk) 14:56, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Lestat (talk) 16:57, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- Amazing --D-Kuru (talk) 22:44, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support Albertus teolog (talk) 14:27, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support ■ MMXXtalk 07:33, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Farzaaaad2000 (talk) 08:26, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support FP JukoFF (talk) 13:42, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - Sorry to row against the flood but the quality is quite poor. Maybe making it a gif animation would improve. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:01, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- A GIF animation would be worse because only 256 colors would be used. Diti (talk to the penguin) 15:15, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- 256 colours and some clever dithering algorithm would be just fine here. There are only blues and browns involved. Lycaon (talk) 10:28, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
- A GIF animation would be worse because only 256 colors would be used. Diti (talk to the penguin) 15:15, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- Question Can you describe the equipment you used, and possibly upload an original frame so we can judge the difficult conditions of the shot? --S23678 (talk) 04:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose per Diti. The quality is quite poor, and an animation would probably do better. diego_pmc (talk) 08:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
- You can see the parable of the fall and see how the gravity acelerates it. I´m not really a friend of gif-animations. Not smooth enough. If I would have wanted that I´d have used a high-speed video camera.
- Support --Mr. Mario (talk) 15:13, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support — Ferrer 09:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Base64 (talk) 10:52, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Result: 19 Support, 2 Oppose --> featured --Mr. Mario (talk) 04:18, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Image:Rila 7 lakes circus panorama edit1.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 5 Nov 2008 at 22:55:34
- Info created by Anthony.ganev - uploaded by User:Martyr - nominated by User:Laveol -- Laveol (talk) 22:55, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Laveol (talk) 22:55, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Heavily cloned sky top right (see: de:Bild:Rila 7 lakes circus panorama edit3.jpg) Noodle snacks (talk) 23:38, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Aqwis (talk) 06:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support-- DarkAp89 Commons 17:49, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Noodle snacks. --Lošmi (talk) 20:53, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Un-necessary downsampling (since the original file from Commons is 4X bigger), and per Noodle --S23678 (talk) 04:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Result: 3 Support, 3 Oppose --> not featured --Mr. Mario (talk) 04:16, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Image:El pobaleko burdinola.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 5 Nov 2008 at 17:45:10
- Info created by kurtxio - uploaded by Assar - nominated by Assar -- Assar (talk) 17:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Assar (talk) 17:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Florent Pécassou (talk) 18:38, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- Comment please state reason for opposition as a courtesy to the author/uploader. Lycaon (talk) 19:51, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose A strong image, but I wonder how much post-processing went into the creation of the light beam. I may be wrong, but it looks too parallel to be natural, and doesn't light up the brickwork where you would expect. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Karelj (talk) 22:29, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- Weak support Good image, but (perhaps by necessity) rather noisy. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:48, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Too noisy. Lycaon (talk) 00:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Not good looking scene from this viewpoint --Twdragon (talk) 10:49, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support-- DarkAp89 Commons 17:50, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose User: Pierregunther
- Comment please state reason for opposition as a courtesy to the author/uploader. Lycaon (talk) 19:51, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support weak. Noise isn't annoying to me. Very nice picture. Benh (talk) 22:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support - Agree with Benh, the composition is super. Back to the old analog pictures with grain. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:04, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support Per Benh, the graininess works for pictures like these --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 15:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Not really much to it besides the beam, and the beam is not really highlighting anything special so as to make the composition. --Dori - Talk 20:27, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support I forgive technical downfalls. What a great ambiance! --S23678 (talk) 04:48, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Result: 8 Support, 6 Oppose --> not featured --Mr. Mario (talk) 04:14, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Image:Église de Prat (09).JPG, not featured
[edit]- Info created by Florent Pécassou - uploaded by Florent Pécassou - nominated by Florent Pécassou --Florent Pécassou (talk) 09:29, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Florent Pécassou (talk) 17:33, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Gaël Le Mab (talk) 17:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose, rather unsharp, heavily distorted, uncomfortable composition. --Aqwis (talk) 18:17, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose As Aqwis. --Karelj (talk) 22:25, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose As above, plus perspective correction needed --Twdragon (talk) 10:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Perspective correction needed. –Dilaudid 15:26, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose User: Pierregunther
- Comment please state reason for opposition as a courtesy to the author/uploader. Lycaon (talk) 19:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose perspective. --Lestat (talk) 23:15, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Overexposition, among other things --S23678 (talk) 04:45, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Result: 2 Support, 7 Oppose --> not featured --Mr. Mario (talk) 04:12, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Image:Anthurium scherzerianum 2.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 5 Nov 2008 at 11:12:53
- Info created by Noodle snacks - uploaded by Noodle snacks - nominated by Noodle snacks -- Noodle snacks (talk) 11:12, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Noodle snacks (talk) 11:12, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- Question The colours, DOF, composition and quality are on spot, but is this downsampled? –Dilaudid 15:33, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I wish to retain the ability to sell higher resolution copies for a small fee. Noodle snacks (talk) 22:07, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Downsampling. –Dilaudid 15:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- That really is not a valid reason to oppose ; size is above requirements. Many many people downsample their pictures here, and don't get opposed for that. Benh (talk) 22:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- In that case the guidelines should be rephrased, they currently say "it is important that nominated pictures have as high a resolution as possible" and to me that sounds as downsampling actually is a valid reason to oppose. /Daniel78 (talk) 23:33, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- Its time the guidelines be changed then. Muhammad 11:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- I think the guidelines should say something about downsampling, otherwise this discussion will arise again and again./Daniel78 (talk) 19:19, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- Comment You might not get money for putting your pictures on Wikipedia, but you will get a whole lot of free publicity everyday. Millions of people use Wikipedia on a daily basis and see your work. Further more, every large editor who will be interested in your pictures wants a Tif-version of the photo. Since all files are jpg, large editors will probably not use them (correct me if I'm wrong here). I also sell my pictures and still make enough money with them. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 16:32, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- I think the guidelines should say something about downsampling, otherwise this discussion will arise again and again./Daniel78 (talk) 19:19, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- Its time the guidelines be changed then. Muhammad 11:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- In that case the guidelines should be rephrased, they currently say "it is important that nominated pictures have as high a resolution as possible" and to me that sounds as downsampling actually is a valid reason to oppose. /Daniel78 (talk) 23:33, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- That really is not a valid reason to oppose ; size is above requirements. Many many people downsample their pictures here, and don't get opposed for that. Benh (talk) 22:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Downsampling. –Dilaudid 15:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I wish to retain the ability to sell higher resolution copies for a small fee. Noodle snacks (talk) 22:07, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Twdragon (talk) 10:50, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support great image, above the 2mp requirement Muhammad 11:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Downsampling. –- Lycaon (talk) 19:40, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- Comment We really have got to rephrase that part of the guidelines about the size. To me the opposes aren't justified here because the picture is > 2mpix. No matter what hardware was used, the result is good. Had this picture been taken with a 2mpix camera, no one would have opposes. And if it's the best Commons can offer on the subject, why would we reject it ? I suggest Noodle Snack to buy a 2 mpix camera, to take the same pictures with it, and renominate them here to avoid these sorts of votes. Benh (talk) 22:29, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Downsampling ! I have no absolute religion against downsampling, but if you put a featurable downsampled version on Commons and keep another not downsampled version for selling, then you will get big confusion about published pictures. As featured images are to be widely scattered, we must do it very clear. Author rights apply to the work, not to the pixels. That's my opinion. --B.navez (talk) 03:33, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
- Your opinion is irrelevant as far as the law is concerned. There is a huge list of current downsampled featured pictures, oppositions based on downsampling are a case of bias more than anything else. Take a look at the top 10 photographs for the Commons Picture of the Year last year. Only one was clearly not downsampled, and one may have been a crop or a downsample. The remainder were clearly downsampled. Voting fairly against downsampling in all cases would knock out a majority of the best images on commons (including all of fir0002's contributions and I believe a majority of Diliff's). Noodle snacks (talk) 05:02, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
- Maybe another way to look at "downsampling" opposes is that since 35 mm film can capture at ~10 MPix ( a guess for sure, but current digital cameras can) then a downsampled version, say ~2 Mpix, can easily be remade with better quality.--Commander Keane (talk) 06:46, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
- Your opinion is irrelevant as far as the law is concerned. There is a huge list of current downsampled featured pictures, oppositions based on downsampling are a case of bias more than anything else. Take a look at the top 10 photographs for the Commons Picture of the Year last year. Only one was clearly not downsampled, and one may have been a crop or a downsample. The remainder were clearly downsampled. Voting fairly against downsampling in all cases would knock out a majority of the best images on commons (including all of fir0002's contributions and I believe a majority of Diliff's). Noodle snacks (talk) 05:02, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Perhaps we can take the downsampling issue at the discussion page instead of having separate discussions on every image that get such votes ? /Daniel78 (talk) 22:05, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support I'm not a fan of downsampling, because it often obscures details in a picture, but that is not the case with this one. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 01:02, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support Barabas (talk) 00:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Result: 5 Support, 3 Oppose --> not featured --Mr. Mario (talk) 04:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 15 Nov 2008 at 04:34:26
- Info created by Mr. Mario (talk) - uploaded by Mr. Mario (talk) - nominated by Mr. Mario (talk) -- Mr. Mario (talk) 04:34, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Mr. Mario (talk) 04:34, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: of an overall lack of quality (focus, details, over/underexposure) | Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed. |
--S23678 (talk) 05:06, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 14 Nov 2008 at 11:55:47
- Info created by Bamse - uploaded by Bamse - nominated by Bamse -- bamse (talk) 11:55, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: the image is less than 2 megapixels and contains vignetting. —Diti (talk to the penguin) 12:05, 5 November 2008 (UTC) | Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed. |
Voting period ends on 13 Nov 2008 at 21:02
- Info created, uploaded Luc Viatour - nominated by Paris 16 --Paris 16 (talk) 21:02, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral I am not a fan of the effect caused by low focal length lenses, and their resulting chromatic aberration. Diti (talk to the penguin) 21:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Tilt!. The horizontal lines should at least be horizontal--Simonizer (talk) 22:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - Too distorted to my taste. I like the sky though. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Merci pour le soutien de mes photos, mais celle-ci n'est pas ma meilleure et pas vraiment une bonne candidate à FP ;) --Luc Viatour (talk) 07:22, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: it is tilted, distorted and the subject is cut off unnecessarily. MER-C 01:02, 5 November 2008 (UTC) | Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed. |
Voting period ends on 13 Nov 2008 at 15:08:07
- Info created by JasonHise - uploaded by Cumulus - nominated by Mr. Mario (talk) -- Mr. Mario (talk) 15:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Mr. Mario (talk) 15:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: another version of this animation is already a FP -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC) | Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed. |
Supportand delist old - much more interesting than the old one. Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC)- Comment FPX stands: Delist and replace should be done under Delisting. Please do not canvas your preferences this way. (see here). Lycaon (talk) 20:58, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- Info - Also notice that another version of this same animation went through a nomination recentely and failed (by the way, that version was cleaner than the present one). -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:42, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 13 Nov 2008 at 13:28:41
- Info created by Tango7174 - uploaded by Tango7174 - nominated by Tango7174 -- Tango7174 (talk) 13:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Tango7174 (talk) 13:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: extensive noise -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC) | Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed. |
Voting period ends on 13 Nov 2008 at 13:25:50
- Info created by Tango7174 - uploaded by Tango7174 - nominated by Tango7174 -- Tango7174 (talk) 13:25, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Tango7174 (talk) 13:25, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Noise and sharpness. --S23678 (talk) 18:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: of extensive noise -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC) | Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed. |
Voting period ends on 13 Nov 2008 at 01:28:38
- Info created, uploaded and nominated by Albertus teolog -- Albertus teolog (talk) 01:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 01:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: the sky is blown out. MER-C 06:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC) | Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed. |
- Info created by M.Jackson - uploaded, restored, and nominated by Adam Cuerden. -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 06:58, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support I think this is one of the best historical illustrations of New Zealand we have, and I spent literally hours restoring it, to get it as good as I possibly could Adam Cuerden (talk) 07:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Twdragon (talk) 10:49, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Heptagon (talk) 13:55, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose User: Pierregunther
- Comment please state reason for opposition as a courtesy to the author/uploader. Lycaon (talk) 19:51, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Beyond silence 16:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
result: 4 supports, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Benh (talk) 22:35, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Image:Thunder-like chaotic fireworks.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 6 Nov 2008 at 10:45:40
- Info created, uploaded, nominated by Twdragon -- Twdragon (talk) 10:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Twdragon (talk) 10:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- Conditional support I can't support this if there's another FP with this type of firework, but otherwise think this is useful, despite the blown highlights (Pretty sure nothing could be done there) Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:10, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Handheld firework shot. Creates an artistic effect, but looks quite random --S23678 (talk) 04:58, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
- Info Sorry, but it isn't a handheld shot --Twdragon (talk) 17:59, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
result: 2 supports, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Benh (talk) 22:36, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Image:Star Trek fans convent 2008 - Fireworks.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 6 Nov 2008 at 10:46:56
- Info created, uploaded, nominated by Twdragon -- Twdragon (talk) 10:46, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Twdragon (talk) 10:46, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- Conditional support Conditional on no similar, better, pre-existing FPs being found. Wonderful detail, though some unavoidably blown highlights. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Conditional supportSupport If you could fix the small light fragment which doesn't belong to the main bundle of light. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 12:42, 30 October 2008 (UTC)- Done --Twdragon (talk) 13:27, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- Yuuh, not very well done ! Benh (talk) 20:45, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- Done --Twdragon (talk) 13:27, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose I'm sorry, but this has nothing extraordinary... It's not so hard to catch fireworks. So to me, the differentiating criteria is composition, and I don't like it here. Benh (talk) 20:45, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose ac Benh --Lestat (talk) 23:10, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- DarkAp89 Commons 17:03, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Way better than the other one, but I must oppose for the crop and for the subject itself : more fireworks color would have given a better effect IMO --S23678 (talk) 05:05, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose As Benh. --Karelj (talk) 19:56, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
result: 4 supports, 4 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured. Benh (talk) 22:37, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Image:Paryż inwalidzi ludwik.JPG, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 6 Nov 2008 at 12:48:18
- Info created, uploaded and nominated by Albertus teolog -- Albertus teolog (talk) 12:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 12:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Noisy, not very sharp and ca --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 16:05, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Half a degree off level and not centered. Wronkiew (talk) 18:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose User: Pierregunther
- Comment please state reason for opposition as a courtesy to the author/uploader. Lycaon (talk) 19:51, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --B.navez (talk) 14:06, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Too wide angle to be a picture about the elements in the front of the church, to tight angle to be about the architecture of the church. As well, I would apply some perspective correction, since the side of the frame is intersecting vertical elements. --S23678 (talk) 05:09, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
result: 2 supports, 4 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured. Benh (talk) 22:38, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Image:Rosa na kapustě.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 6 Nov 2008 at 13:34:26
- Info created by Karelj - uploaded by Karelj - nominated by Karelj -- Karelj (talk) 13:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- Info Dew on leaves of brussels sprout
- Support -- Karelj (talk) 13:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support Rosa na kapuście, zrozumiałem :) Crusier (talk) 15:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose The leaf in the upper right corner and centric composition make me to oppose. It still is a nice image, certainly QI. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 16:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose User: Pierregunther
- Comment please state reason for opposition as a courtesy to the author/uploader. Lycaon (talk) 19:51, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose --Lestat (talk) 16:56, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral Idea is very good to me, and mood is nice. Miss something though (perhaps composition is a bit messy), so I don't support ; sadly :( Benh (talk) 22:21, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support-- DarkAp89 Commons 19:37, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Nothing special in this image for FI --Twdragon (talk) 18:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
result: 3 supports, 4 opposes, 1 neutral => not featured. Benh (talk) 22:39, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 6 Nov 2008 at 14:19:57
- Info created by W.J. Morgan & Co. Lith. - uploaded and nominated by Adam Cuerden (talk) -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:19, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support This is a lithograph. It might be a bit faded (though characteristically so), but I decided that I actually rather liked the more subtle colours when I started to go about adjusting them. But poke me if you disagree, and I'll make an alternate. -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:19, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Aqwis (talk) 14:30, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 16:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Twdragon (talk) 19:51, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Lošmi (talk) 17:55, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
result: 5 supports, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Benh (talk) 22:39, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Image:Metro Letňany 1.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 9 Nov 2008 at 21:08:27
- Info created by Karelj - uploaded by Karelj - nominated by Karelj -- Karelj (talk) 21:08, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- Info One of the last opened stations of Prague Metro (Underground railway)
- Support -- Karelj (talk) 21:08, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Too much noise for a featured picture. Diti (talk to the penguin) 21:49, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Quite dark (tripod could make less noise and much lighter picture). --Aktron (talk) 12:32, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 2 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of the 5th day). Benh (talk) 22:47, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Image:Gladiolus close up(0000086).JPG, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 10 Nov 2008 at 13:05:41
- Info created by Calvin yeung - uploaded by Calvin yeung - nominated by Calvin yeung -- Calvin yeung (talk) 13:05, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support Good detalisation and interesting viewpoint --Twdragon (talk) 17:36, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Not properly identified, CA visible even in thumbnail. Lycaon (talk) 10:17, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Some CA. --Mr. Mario (talk) 15:09, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
- Question What is "CA" any place I can find the meaning of "CA"? Maybe I can improved that?Calvin yeung(talk) 12:33, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- Comment CA = Chromatic aberration --Simonizer (talk) 17:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- CommentYes, I agree that there are little CA at some part of the edge of the petal. It appears where black background meets pink petal. However I do not agree that it is visible in thumbnail. The image appear sharp in normal size also. Only in enlarge view we can see the CA (purple fringe) merge into the black background.Calvin yeung(talk) 5:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 2 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of the 5th day). Benh (talk) 22:47, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Image:Moon clouds.JPG, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 10 Nov 2008 at 17:29:53
- Info created by Kprateek88 - uploaded by Kprateek88 - nominated by Kprateek88 -- Kprateek88 (talk) 17:29, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Kprateek88 (talk) 17:29, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Good artwork, but no chance to be featured because none special interest for common users --Twdragon (talk) 17:39, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose No wow, almost invisible moon; only advantage in comparison of Image:Jmpznz - MuadDib (by-sa).jpg is resolution. Diti (talk to the penguin) 17:49, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 2 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of the 5th day). Benh (talk) 22:48, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Image:Memphis Brooks Museum of Art.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 10 Nov 2008 at 22:27:35
- Info created by Michael Gäbler - uploaded by Michael Gäbler - nominated by Michael Gäbler -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:27, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:27, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose The shadows (in front) killing the otherwise good expression. --Niabot (talk) 20:16, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose I agree with Niabot. /Daniel78 (talk) 21:10, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
- Info Thank you Niabot and Daniel78 for your helpful opinion. I uploadet a new version of this file with some fixes: I made a new cutting and took the shadows in front away, I brightened the sky up and I made little changes in the garden on the left side of the image. At this time the thumbnail did not show the new version. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 16:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC). - Now I can see the right thumbnail.--Michael Gäbler (talk) 18:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- I guess you will need to shoot a new picture of the museum. Now the front figurine is cut in half. :-( --Niabot (talk) 18:31, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- Have a look: here is the full figurine! No shadows are killing the good expression!--Michael Gäbler (talk) 23:29, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- I guess you will need to shoot a new picture of the museum. Now the front figurine is cut in half. :-( --Niabot (talk) 18:31, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 2 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of the 5th day). Benh (talk) 22:48, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Image:Crested Tern Tasmania.jpg, Edit 1 featured
[edit]Original, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 2 Nov 2008 at 11:15:32
- Info created by Noodle snacks - uploaded by Noodle snacks - nominated by Noodle snacks -- Noodle snacks (talk) 11:15, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Noodle snacks (talk) 11:15, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support Interesting subject and fantastic composition. -- Flying Freddy (talk) 11:39, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support, per above. --Aqwis (talk) 12:36, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Donarreiskoffer (talk) 13:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support wow! this guy looks like he flew from a cartoon:) --Lošmi (talk) 16:01, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support fantastic --norro 16:39, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose A very nice composition, but excessive levels of noise especially present on the wings. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 16:48, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- I am not really sure how to add an edit here, but Image:Crested Tern Tasmania (edit).jpg was a selective noise reduced version from the enwiki nomination ages ago. Noodle snacks (talk) 23:08, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --B.navez (talk) 14:24, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support--Lmbuga gl, pt, es: contacta comigo 01:34, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support Lovely shot, can't see any noise myself. How do you turn this on (talk) 19:15, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Ttox
- Oppose - As Maximo: excessive noise in the wings and beak. Also, I would like to see a larger photo with more detail. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:13, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose for this size it isn't sharp enough and as Alves mentioned the noise isn't advantageous here, otherwise i have the strange feeling that the BG is
fakeoverprocessed --Richard Bartz (talk) 11:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC) - Support-- DarkAp89 Commons 14:49, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Size of image and some noisy parts. --Karelj (talk) 22:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose per last three opposers. Lycaon (talk) 00:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Beautiful, but too noisy & unsharp :( –Dilaudid 21:53, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose beautiful, but not so sharp and noisy. By the way, if you could "spread" your nominations a little... I would appreciate, as it's likely I will close them, and it seems you are going to have a lot of them featured ! ;) Benh (talk) 22:06, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support It is pretty good, the bird is beautiful. Crapload (talk) 05:23, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Dori - Talk 02:54, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
result: 13 supports, 7 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured (waiting for results on edit1). Benh (talk) 21:23, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- Info Noise reduced version which I mentioned. Noodle snacks (talk) 23:46, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support It is pretty good, the bird is beautiful. Crapload (talk) 05:22, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Aqwis (talk) 09:36, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
- Info The background is so blurred due to its large distance from the subject (have a look at the geocoding, its about 300 meters) Noodle snacks (talk) 09:40, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support-- DarkAp89 Commons 19:39, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Don't think the NR is doing any good here. Just removing detail. --Dori - Talk 02:55, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support Interesting image, good for common users, surely can be featured --Twdragon (talk) 17:48, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Mr. Mario (talk) 14:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support Still noises are there. But the image is spectacular --Man On Mission (talk) 9:30, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Lošmi (talk) 02:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support well done. —αἰτίας •discussion• 02:07, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- TanPhat Nguyen (talk) 04:12, 9 November 2008 (UTC).
result: 9 supports, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured — Lycaon (talk) 21:48, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Image:Grand-Palace-in-Tsaritsyno-Moscow.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 7 Nov 2008 at 13:17:46
- Info created by Helen Filatova (talk) 13:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC) - uploaded by Helen Filatova (talk) 13:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC) - nominated by Helen Filatova (talk) 13:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC) -- Helen Filatova (talk) 13:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Helen Filatova (talk) 13:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, of strong distortion and obvious stitching errors. –Dilaudid 14:09, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose User: Pierregunther
- Support -- Florent Pécassou (talk) 20:06, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Stitching errors and variable quality from frame to frame --S23678 (talk) 05:13, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Tilted horizon, stitching errors, visible exposure difference between the source frames --Twdragon (talk) 18:30, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
result: 2 supports, 4 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured. Benh (talk) 22:40, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Image:Chantilly3 tango7174.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 7 Nov 2008 at 14:53:05
- Info created by Tango7174 - uploaded by Tango7174 - nominated by Tango7174 -- Tango7174 (talk) 14:53, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Tango7174 (talk) 14:53, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose User: Pierregunther
- Comment please state reason for opposition as a courtesy to the author/uploader. Lycaon (talk) 19:52, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Karelj (talk) 22:06, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - Nice composition but poor quality -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:29, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 09:09, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Nice image with poor quality and great noise amount --Twdragon (talk) 16:13, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Sadly, quality issues mentioned above. --S23678 (talk) 05:18, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
result: 3 supports, 4 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured. Benh (talk) 22:40, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Image:Ronda panoramic view.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 7 Nov 2008 at 17:38:44
- Info created by Pom² - uploaded by Pom² - nominated by Pom² -- Pom² (talk) 17:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Pom² (talk) 17:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support Stunning panorama. Elucidate (talk) 18:31, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Aqwis (talk) 20:02, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support Excellent view of the Ronda region. -- MJJR (talk) 21:46, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Very well. I suppose the black points in the sky are flies?! Manuel R. (talk) 16:31, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Only birds :) --Pom² (talk) 12:06, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support-- DarkAp89 Commons 19:37, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support JukoFF (talk) 13:42, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Karelj (talk) 16:58, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support big WOW factor --Lestat (talk) 23:08, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Great11 (talk) 01:30, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support though it conjures up feelings of an old image, can't figure out why. --Dori - Talk 02:48, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry about that, but, even with great quality (a lot of details) and color, there is better panoramas as for the subject itself. Very subjective for opposing. --S23678 (talk) 05:26, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support — Ferrer 09:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support Wonderful.--Assar (talk) 21:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
result: 13 supports, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Benh (talk) 22:41, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 7 Nov 2008 at 21:55:08
- Info created by Pom² - uploaded by Pom² - nominated by Pom² -- Pom² (talk) 21:55, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Pom² (talk) 21:55, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support Albertus teolog (talk) 23:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support Thank you for sharing this wonderful photo with us! --Caspian blue 03:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry, but the colours are not very realistic ([1] [2]). Lycaon (talk) 07:30, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Lens flare (upper right corner) and lack of detail (see sculptures) make me oppose. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 12:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support-- DarkAp89 Commons 19:35, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose High luminance noise amount, great color saturation, but bright colors distructs the details in view. --Twdragon (talk) 17:46, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- Question Why the downsampling? --S23678 (talk) 05:32, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Cause I think original size don't bring more details --Pom² (talk) 12:08, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Karelj (talk) 20:01, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support — Ferrer 09:20, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
result: 6 supports, 3 opposes, 0 neutral => featured. Benh (talk) 22:42, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
OpposeMissing something, and not very detailed. Benh (talk) 22:34, 7 November 2008 (UTC) I came too late, luckily ;) - Benh (talk) 22:42, 7 November 2008 (UTC)- Support -- Es.ntp (talk) 04:06, 9 November 2008 (UTC).
Image:Dresden-Landgericht-gp.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 7 Nov 2008 at 22:43:34
- Info created and uploaded by Kolossos - nominated by D-Kuru -- D-Kuru (talk) 22:43, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support even it looks a bit strange -- D-Kuru (talk) 22:43, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support very nice --Heptagon (talk) 00:03, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose This is a spherical projection. Rectilinear or cylindrical would be much less distorted. --Romwriter (talk) 08:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose, I assume the projection was intentionally chosen, but I can't say I like it. "Special" projections are fine for some artistic/landscape pictures, but not for a plain photo of a building. --Aqwis (talk) 09:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose by autor. I, the photograph, would also like to promote some other new images from me. The light is not optimal, I was too near with my gigapan-imager-bot on the building and I cut some steps of the stair. The resolution is only 1/9 of the original resolution. So too many things are not optimal. On the other side I want to use the features images process to make en:Gigapan more popular in the Commons Community. I would like to promote Image:Dresden-Wallpavillion-gp.jpg, Image:Dresden-Nymphenbad-gp.jpg or Image:Dresden-Semperoper-gp.jpg with better light and more natural perspective. Alternative I would like to promote Image:Dresden-Hauptbahnhof2.jpg in his original resolution of 520 Megapixel. :-D --Kolossos (talk) 15:27, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
- Comment The project should be en:Mercator projection, which is cylindrical projection. --Kolossos (talk) 16:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose High vertical distortion --Twdragon (talk) 17:45, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Projection issues --S23678 (talk) 20:23, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
result: 2 supports, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. --D-Kuru (talk) 19:23, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Image:Anime Girl.svg, featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 8 Nov 2008 at 20:18:23
- Info created, uploaded and nominated by Niabot -- Niabot (talk) 20:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
- Info Note that i provided also an PNG-Version (right image) of this drawing, because the current renderer of Wikipedia (librsvg) makes some errors while rendering SVG-Images. -- Niabot (talk) 20:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support see the KEB talk at german wikipedia for the reasons, too tired to translate :p HardDisk (talk) 22:44, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support very nice. ■ MMXXtalk 07:29, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support G.A.S 07:51, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support WOW (SVG version). --libertad0 ॐ (talk) 13:10, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose -- it seems that the wow factor is very high here. but its much below 2 mp and the value isn't clear for me. to illustrate the manga style, you could nearly take any manga picture. Manuel R. (talk) 18:25, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- Comment SVG files are resizable to infinity. Transform it to a 100,000,000px-wide PNG picture if you want. Diti (talk to the penguin) 18:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- Comment As already noted, this file is resolution independent. Look at the exported PNG file it exceeds your limit at ease (>6 mp). An you cant use any picture. Other language versions need free pictures, because they cant use "fair use". --Niabot (talk) 18:56, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- Amazing SVG file and beautiful result for Inkscape! Diti (talk to the penguin) 18:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support very nice, I also like the fact that it's svg (even though wikipedia doesn't render it correctly) -- Gorgo (talk) 00:53, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - Please make a different section for each version. This way it is impossible to decide which one is being supported or opposed -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:54, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- Both are the same Pictures, that should be ideally equal. The only difference is storage format. The better and more valuable file is the SVG version (left image), even if the renderer of wikipedia sucks in displaying it. This is the real work. A with Inkscape exported version is the better looking PNG-File. So all votes count for the first (left) image, even if you may use the PNG-Version for an article, because the wp renderer sucks (but maybe improved over time). --Niabot (talk) 13:27, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- If, as you claim, the Wiki renderer sucks, then how can we assess objectively that the SVG version was properly constructed? My own SVG's (which, I admit, are far less complex) render just fine. Lycaon (talk) 10:23, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
- You can use any newer Version of Opera, Firefox or Inkscape to verify the result of the SVG-File. But be patient, the renderingspeed of Firefox and Opera is not very good. The results are just fine, even if Firefox does only implement about 50% of the SVG standard. --Niabot (talk) 17:47, 2 November 2008 (UTC) PS: We have many images that are showing bugs with librsvg. So take a look inside Category:Pictures showing a librsvg bug.
- If, as you claim, the Wiki renderer sucks, then how can we assess objectively that the SVG version was properly constructed? My own SVG's (which, I admit, are far less complex) render just fine. Lycaon (talk) 10:23, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
- Both are the same Pictures, that should be ideally equal. The only difference is storage format. The better and more valuable file is the SVG version (left image), even if the renderer of wikipedia sucks in displaying it. This is the real work. A with Inkscape exported version is the better looking PNG-File. So all votes count for the first (left) image, even if you may use the PNG-Version for an article, because the wp renderer sucks (but maybe improved over time). --Niabot (talk) 13:27, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support Wow factor -- DarkAp89 Commons 17:01, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Lošmi (talk) 00:11, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Romwriter (talk) 18:15, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support --D-Kuru (talk) 14:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support very nice, must be quite hard to make such an image! --Kanonkas(talk) 15:28, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support Great quality for SVG work --Twdragon (talk) 18:28, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Econt (talk) 21:50, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Can't load it, can't support it, sorry (Firefox 3.03). Lycaon (talk) 22:44, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- Dont know why, but im running Firefox 3.0.1 (Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; de; rv:1.9.0.1) Gecko/2008070206 Firefox/3.0.1) and it works just fine. But it takes a while until the image is displayed. Btw. cant load, cant support? cant load, cant vote? --Niabot (talk) 00:46, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- Comment If you couldn't load the image, how did you vote ?! ■ MMXXtalk 07:07, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- Comment If the SVG would rendering anything like the png version, I'd support happily. But this will (likely) be on the front page and if only 10% of users or casual visitors cannot access the file properly, then it is bad publicity for Commons, and hence not the best of the best we can offer. Lycaon (talk) 07:34, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- Comment This applies to any SVG-Image, since internet explorer can't handle SVG at all and it's market share is over 50%. But i modified and Uploaded the SVG-Version again. Now it passes the strict SVG validator, that ensures that the file itself has no errors. If your version of Firefox isn't able to display it, then somthing is messed up with your software. --Niabot (talk) 09:36, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support Beautiful, I use Firefox as well and am able to open it. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 11:14, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Tintero (talk) 20:16, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support nice --Richard Bartz (talk) 22:59, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support too good to be true --Grootmoe (talk) 17:01, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
result: 17 supports, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Benh (talk) 08:34, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Image:Kluft-photo-CSXT-2004-amateur-space-launch.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 9 Nov 2008 at 03:31:24
- Info created by Ikluft - uploaded by Ikluft - nominated by Ikluft -- Ikluft (talk) 03:31, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- Info photo caption: The "CSXT Space Shot 2004" by the Civilian Space eXploration Team (CSXT) was the first amateur rocket launch to space. The rocket launched at 11:12AM US Pacific Time on May 17, 2004 at the Black Rock Desert in northwestern Nevada. The rocket reached an altitude of 72 miles (115km), the first amateur rocket to exceed the Karman Line of 62 miles (100km) required to claim a space flight. Ikluft (talk) 11:38, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support as nominator -- Ikluft (talk) 03:31, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- Amazing YES! Crusier (talk) 06:33, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Photo is watermarked, a pity for a featured picture. Diti (talk to the penguin) 08:23, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Should've been FPX. Picture is not eligible (size, watermark). Lycaon (talk) 08:40, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- Info The watermark was inadvertent - sorry about that. It was automatically inserted by the web site where I first posted it, and was small enough that I didn't see it in the scaled-down review copy. A non-watermark image will be uploaded immediately following this comment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ikluft (talk • contribs) 09:22, 31 October 2008) (UTC)
- Comment Main issue remains: size << 2Mpx. Lycaon (talk) 09:37, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- Done Watermark removed. Size cannot be improved - this is the resolution my camera was set for at the time of the launch. There is no public image of better resolution. Didn't have a chance to check the resolution setting because I was operating a radio up to T minus one minute (ending with me saying "Range Safety is GO for launch") and then another volunteer handled the radio so I could get a picture. Ikluft (talk) 09:51, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- Info I should clarify about "no public image of better resolution": I have no better image. There was a still photo taken by a professional photographer which was zoomed in tight on the rocket lifting off while still at the launch pad. This view framed with the sky and mountains is unique - no one else got any view similar to this shot. This is the best resolution available on this view. Ikluft (talk) 10:57, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support - It is a really nice photo of a historic event. The 2 mpx rule is not absolute (one can disregard it if there are “strong mitigating reasons”, and I believe there are). --Kjetil_r 09:59, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- Info FYI - though we'd all have preferred to have an image in higher resolution, this is the same image and resolution that is posted framed in the lobby of the headquarters of the American Radio Relay League (ARRL, US national Amateur Radio organization) in Newington CT. Ikluft (talk) 10:03, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - maybe you should geocode it? --Kjetil_r 10:01, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- Done OK, I've now added a location tag to the page. Ikluft (talk) 10:12, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Too small, insufficient mitigating reasons. MER-C 10:41, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support, even though file is under the required 2 megapixels. This is an unique photo. Diti (talk to the penguin) 11:03, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support Strong mitigating reason. --Mr. Mario (talk) 14:19, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - As above -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:09, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support Weak, for me it should be little bit more darker and more contrast, size ... but il looks great. --Karelj (talk) 17:12, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Even under two MPX, the quality is bad. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 17:23, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support i think i just fall in love :) Sterkebaktalk 17:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose -- I think the fact that the picture has only 1.5 mp is too bad. more deatils should be visible on the rocket. i think the picture is very valuable. therefore i would nominate it as a valued image, but for an fp, the quality is too low. Manuel R. (talk) 18:09, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- This is the best picture available of this unique historic event. Owen DeLong 18:31, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support As comment above. --Lošmi (talk) 19:51, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose, I feel it is too small. --Aqwis (talk) 20:21, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose low res -- Gorgo (talk) 21:42, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support /Daniel78 (talk) 00:05, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Valuable, not FP quality. Too bad they didn't think of getting a better shot of it. --Dori - Talk 02:38, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- DarkAp89 Commons 16:58, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Very wide vertical viewfield, so the rocket is not truly recognizable, no WOW --Twdragon (talk) 17:43, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- Info I think (and hope I can convince enough others) that there's "wow" in the event and experience it conveys. That wide field of view was actually an intentional part of the presentation, the way I hoped the shot would turn out. My experience from photographing high-power (hobby) rocket launches was that you don't zoom in too much on a supersonic rocket's launch without highly increased risk of getting a picture of the smoke at the pad with the rocket long gone. Here's an example. And even when you get some of those close-ups, you get better variety of the views with wider shots if you can get the rocket near the top of the frame. It's a tough shot to get, because these kinds of rockets are nearly or already supersonic by that point. But it's a more rewarding view. (I did also get a shot of the CSXT launch at liftoff still at the pad as shown in the photo presentation of the launch.) A benefit of a wider shot like this is that it also shares with the viewer what it was like to be there at the historic moment. Ikluft (talk) 19:20, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support --B.navez (talk) 08:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support I am ready to forgive the technical flaws because of the nature of this picture and as well because I like it. --S23678 (talk) 20:45, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Resolution too low, and rocket very small in frame which makes it worse. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support impressive picture of unique event, low resolution can be tolerated --che 02:38, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support WoW, --Tintero (talk) 20:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose I'm really frustrated by not being able to magnify it more ! Benh (talk) 23:29, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- Info Yeah, that's generally why there's a 2 megapixel guideline. Some votes here could see past that and accept the history it records as a mitigating factor, which the rules do allow. I wish some had considered more favorably that this is a good shot of a very difficult subject since the rocket was around transonic speed (breaking the sound barrier) at the time of the photo. The event is nothing short of "WOW" - that is the value of this photo and the reason why I offered it. But right now it's falling well short of the 2/3 mark and will fail if there aren't a lot of support votes in the last day of voting. I was advised on my talk page to take this to Wikipedia where it exceeds the minimum resolution there. And the topic area is also given more weight. So that's probably what I'll do. Thanks for considering it. Ikluft (talk) 02:59, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support Enough wow and value for migitating reasons. -- Klaus with K (talk) 15:17, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose too small (but exciting)--Grootmoe (talk) 17:00, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support Weak technical quality, however still a stunning picture. —αἰτίας •discussion• 02:04, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
result: 17 supports, 12 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured. Benh (talk) 08:39, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Supportper "main goal" ~ R.T.G 04:00, 9 November 2008 (UTC) too late ! - Benh (talk) 08:39, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
It's nevver too late Benny. :( first amateur rocket in space, free pics, worthy? na... (RASBURRY) ~ R.T.G 09:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Image:Statue in Oppeln.JPG, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 9 Nov 2008 at 10:39:36
- Info created, uploaded by and nominated by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 10:39, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Pudelek (talk) 10:39, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 20:27, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - Poor light, washed-out colours, unfortunate background and crop too tight on subject. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:48, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Per previous opposer --S23678 (talk) 20:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose per Alvesgaspar. —αἰτίας •discussion• 02:03, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
result: 2 supports, 3 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured. Benh (talk) 08:40, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Image:ConcertgebouwMuseumpleinAmsterdam.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 9 Nov 2008 at 17:29:38
- Info created by, uploaded by and nominated by Massimo Catarinella -- Massimo Catarinella (talk) 17:29, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Massimo Catarinella (talk) 17:29, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral Massimo, Your night pictures are good technically (that's why I'd be sad to oppose again), but I believe you don't take them at the right moment, I'd try at dusk instead. I'd also choose a cooler white balance (but I'm not so sure here). - Benh (talk) 10:53, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
- Agree on the dusk comment (As I said at enwiki). If the lamps are low pressure sodium though (which they probably are for cost reasons) there'd be little point altering the white balance as the spectrum of the light would be pretty close to monochromatic anyway apart from two lines at around 590nm. Noodle snacks (talk) 10:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Twdragon (talk) 22:11, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support — Ferrer 09:18, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose I would probably have supported if it was not of the large green band. Vehicle lights are good at creating an impression of a "river of light" when took with long exposures, which can really improve a picture. However, with shorter exposures, or when the lights stop in the middle of the frame, they become more of a nuisance. I have less problems with red lights, but the green one is too big. --S23678 (talk) 21:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support Awesome composition, awesome quality. --Aktron (talk) 12:33, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support-- DarkAp89 Commons 20:05, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose I find the lighting not optimal. Estrilda (talk) 08:36, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- What's wrong with the lighting? --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 15:30, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Nice image, but not so exceptional for FP. Nothing special, no wow. --Karelj (talk) 19:40, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support Not bad. --Mr. Mario (talk) 14:40, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Es.ntp (talk) 04:07, 9 November 2008 (UTC).
result: 7 supports, 3 opposes, 0 neutral => featured. Benh (talk) 08:40, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Image:Dresden-Wallpavillion-gp.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 9 Nov 2008 at 22:22:14
- Info created, uploaded and nominated by -- Kolossos (talk) 22:22, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support — well, nice image quality! --Euphoriceyes (talk) 16:34, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support Only one head on the left side distracted my view. ;-) Otherwise excellent motive and result. --Niabot (talk) 19:20, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Overexpossed sky. Masur (talk) 09:44, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose too late (sun was gone in wrong direction)--Grootmoe (talk) 16:58, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Due to weak technical quality (cf. Masur's comment above). —αἰτίας •discussion• 02:01, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- TanPhat Nguyen (talk) 04:10, 9 November 2008 (UTC).
result: 3 supports, 3 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured. Benh (talk) 08:42, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 10 Nov 2008 at 23:38:19
- Info Flies on flowers of Purple Saxifrage; created, uploaded and nominated by LC-de -- LC-de (talk) 23:38, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- LC-de (talk) 23:38, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Twdragon (talk) 18:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - Almost there, but the flower in the background and the dark forms of the flies on it kill it for me. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Nice picture but composition is 2 busy (strange cut, distracting elements) --Richard Bartz (talk) 22:56, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support Nice colors. Estrilda (talk) 08:37, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose I'm in perfect agreement with Richard Bartz here. Whilst the picture is nice, there are too many distracting elements. —αἰτίας •discussion• 01:57, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose It's not very clear -- TanPhat Nguyen (talk) 04:10, 9 November 2008 (UTC).
Image:Mauskogen.png, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 12 Nov 2008 at 13:12:23
- Info Swedish map of the Mau forest in Kenya. Created, uploaded and nominated by Rotsee2 -- Rotsee2 (talk) 13:12, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Discovered miss spelled name ('t' missing in Marsabit), changing own vote to oppose. Rotsee2 (talk) 06:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral Good work, but no potential for non-Swedish people. Maps are usually in SVG format, which allows the image to be freely resizable and internationalizable. Diti (talk to the penguin) 14:32, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- Two good points. Internet is too slow here to upload the .svg version, that'll have to wait until I'm in a country better connected next time. Should make it a bit more useful, of course. Rotsee2 (talk) 15:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose nothing special to get a featured picture.. --Euphoriceyes (talk) 20:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support For contrast and color -- Es.ntp (talk) 04:03, 9 November 2008 (UTC).
result: 1 support, 2 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured. Benh (talk) 08:44, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Image:Serment du jeu de paume.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 16 Nov 2008 at 07:00 (UTC)
- Info created by Jacques-Louis David - uploaded by Paris 16 - nominated by Paris 16 (talk) 06:58, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: the image is too small | Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed. |
Lycaon (talk) 09:41, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
FPX, not featured - Benh (talk) 08:44, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Image:Cafeteria-science-museum-london.JPG, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 16 Nov 2008 at 23:26:29
- Info created by stel92 - uploaded by stel92 - nominated by stel92 -- Stel92 (talk) 23:26, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Stel92 (talk) 23:26, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral It's a very nice subject but there is something odd about the seats in the background. Maybe make the sauce bottles the subject from more above and try to drown out the chairs. (make sense?) ~ R.T.G 02:30, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: the image is much too noisy. | Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed. |
Lycaon (talk) 09:42, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
FPX not contested, not featured Benh (talk) 08:45, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 17 Nov 2008 at 02:06:29
- Info created by StaraBlazkova - uploaded by StaraBlazkova - nominated by RTG --
- Support V Nice pic ~ R.T.G 02:20, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I would take it the tagging here refers to the exposure on the street lighting but that would be a pity because the subject is clear as a bell and the lights themselves only foreground for me and a very beautiful picture. Are focal areas and lens points not artistic matters? Distorted by a wide angle lens and unsharp about the streetlighting only? I wonder if you compare it to the odler version how nice a picture you may think. Isn't this sort of tag for a machine which seems incapable of producing a nice picture? The glare is a nice effect when seen with the roof lighting. I dare say that of such a beautiful building, no more pretty a picture coulb be taken. The items refered to in this tag may appear to be perspective and glow. (artifacts? I hope you don't mean the leaves :D) ~ R.T.G 03:43, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: it suffers from distortion, chromatic aberration, artifacting, underexposure and is generally unsharp. MER-C 06:28, 8 November 2008 (UTC) | Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed. |
FPX not contested, not featured Benh (talk) 08:45, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Image:AcueductoSegovia04.JPG, not delisted
[edit]Voting period : from 13 Oct 2008 to 22 Oct 2008 (included)
- Info Several problems have been identified on the discussion at the English Wikipedia, which have been fixed in the suggested replacement. (Original nomination)
- Replace -- diego_pmc (talk) 11:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- Original Edited one --Mr. Mario (talk) 02:34, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- Keep -- Crapload (talk) 04:04, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
- Delist Original. Neutral on the corrected one (I think it should go through the normal FPC process, since there's big differences between the original and the modified one). According to me, quite a random picture; noting bad, but no wow. --S23678 (talk) 16:36, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
- Original Edited one -- DarkAp89 Commons 10:54, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
result: 4 Delists, 1 Keep, 0 neutral => Original not delisted Benh (talk) 23:07, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Image:ЗИЛ Panorama.jpg, not featured
[edit]Original, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 9 Nov 2008 at 19:46:48
- Info created, uploaded, nominated by Twdragon -- Twdragon (talk) 19:46, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Twdragon (talk) 19:46, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Lošmi (talk) 22:45, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support interesting. --Lestat (talk) 23:09, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Interesting indeed and enough wow, but unfortunately technically insufficient: artefacts, blown highlight, noise, CA. Lycaon (talk) 08:14, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral There are no compression artifacts on this picture in my kind, all stitching artifacts was successfully corrected, something blown highlights is presented, but due to poor lighting conditions I cannot do anything with these facts. So, I will try to reduce maximum noise amount in this image, but there is no assurance for success. --Twdragon (talk) 12:32, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - Inteesting composition but extensive overblown areas. Maybe with HDR. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:45, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support Interesting topic. --Kolossos (talk) 10:49, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- DarkAp89 Commons 16:57, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 12:16, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support — Ferrer 09:17, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose agree with Lycaon and Alvesgaspar --Simonizer (talk) 22:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose As obove. --Karelj (talk) 13:16, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose I have to agree with Alvegaspar. --Aktron (talk) 09:09, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose You should really remove the white line above the orange bridge ... --Pom² 09:43, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- Done --Twdragon (talk) 10:33, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- Question What was the projection method? --Base64 (talk) 10:47, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral Cylindrical projection with perspective correction --Twdragon (talk) 12:17, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
result: 7 supports, 6 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured (waiting for results on edit). Benh (talk) 08:41, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Edit 1, not featured
[edit]- Info Crop, brightness and contrast correction, noise reduction have done. --Twdragon (talk) 14:28, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- Question
What has changed with edit one? It might make it clearer to someone having a cursory glanceNoodle snacks (talk) 13:45, 5 November 2008 (UTC) - Oppose There's something really appealing about this picture, from the wide range of colors in contrast with the heavy industrial work that's taking place. You have my wow. However, there's some issues. Quality-wise, the right column is not vertical. Perspective-wise, the angle of view is too wide IMO for rectilinear projection. There's heavy distortion at both sides with nothing really interesting to be shown. --S23678 (talk) 05:16, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
result: 0 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of the 5th day). Benh (talk) 22:17, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Image:Irving Johnson aground.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 10 Nov 2008 at 21:06:41
- Info created by Mike Brodey (US Coast Guards) - uploaded by DanMS - nominated by le Korrigan →bla 21:06, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- le Korrigan →bla 21:06, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- coolness diego_pmc (talk) 08:26, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Actually I just noticed that the horizon is tilted. If this is a problem, can someone please fix this ? I'm not too good with photo retouching. Thanks, le Korrigan →bla 09:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 12:16, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - Tilted horizon -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:54, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Tilted. --Mr. Mario (talk) 15:08, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Karelj (talk) 20:08, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support — Ferrer 09:17, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - Tilted horizon -- Lycaon (talk) 08:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- Comment There's a straight version now. le Korrigan →bla 09:42, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support I like USA flag on boat. :) -- AKA MBG (talk) 18:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support-- DarkAp89 Commons 20:03, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support nice. Hope they got it going again :) ~ R.T.G 02:40, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Luc Viatour (talk) 09:50, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Please Separate nominations. Neither of the two pictures will gain enough supporting votes this way. Lycaon (talk) 09:55, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry I don't know well the nomination process, but I assumed that votes were for the improved version, and that any previous votes would count for the improved version too. It seemed logical to me. How do you separate votes, on a separate page ? Does it start fresh ? It's not easy for people not accustomed to FPC :-/ le Korrigan →bla 11:55, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- IMO it would be best to withdraw the current (original) image and start afresh with the edited one, then without opposing votes. As apart from correcting the tilt, the edit has also more compression, we cannot assume all support votes from before the correction to be carried over. Lycaon (talk) 21:39, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support both Technically not perfect, however interesting picture overall. —αἰτίας •discussion• 01:59, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
result: 10 supports, 3 opposes, 0 neutral => featured (edit). Benh (talk) 20:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Image:3000WSP final 3.JPG, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 19 Nov 2008 at 11:27:43
- Info created, uploaded and nominated by Albertus teolog -- Albertus teolog (talk) 11:27, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 11:27, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: the image is very noisy. | Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed. |
Lycaon (talk) 11:32, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
FPX not contested, not featured. Benh (talk) 20:40, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
===Image:Phyllodoce lineata.jpg===, not delisted
Voting period : from 5 Nov 2008 to 14 Nov 2008 (included)
- Info Far too small, noisy and unsharp (Original nomination)
- Delist -- Noodle snacks (talk) 07:59, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- Keep It might be a small picture, but it still is a great one. It was featured with a reason. I wouldn't feature it today with the knowledge of the resolution of today's cameras, but since it was elected in the past it mitigates the size. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 22:02, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- Why wouldn't you feature it today? Are you saying that people, who cannot afford good cameras, but still take "great" (your words) images have not a chance to make their images featured, even if the images are rare, unique and available only in a low resolution? It is just a w:Rhetorical question--Mbz1 (talk) 03:41, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Image esthétique et surtout techniquement difficile. Sujet encyclopédique et rare. Merci à Lycaon pour cette image --Luc Viatour (talk) 07:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Rare, encyclopedic, interesting, but also an easy (dead) subject with only half of it shown on the image. BTW, if this image were taken by somebody else, Lycaon would have been the first one to support delisting nomination.Sorry, Hans, could not resist.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:40, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- Keep /Daniel78 (talk) 00:40, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Good for underwater pictures.--Mr. Mario (talk) 14:43, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Aesthetic and encyclopedic. I am against any delisting that denies previous obvious supportings. Let's show consideration for historical construction of Commons. Otherwise in five years we could delist all present pictures. Though that's a shame Hans there is no article yet about this species even in vlaams --B.navez (talk) 08:33, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - Wow, someone who shares my view on the historical construction of Commons FP! I think we are the only two cruzaders left... Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:31, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Comment For the record, I too agree on this. An image promoted in 2008 should not be delisted in 2018 because it's not up to standards then. I think such an image should be considered as a "FP of 2008" with all what that means in terms of existing technology and standards./Daniel78 (talk) 17:02, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Comment That's what I'm trying to say in the above. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 21:16, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Comment For the record, I too agree on this. An image promoted in 2008 should not be delisted in 2018 because it's not up to standards then. I think such an image should be considered as a "FP of 2008" with all what that means in terms of existing technology and standards./Daniel78 (talk) 17:02, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - Wow, someone who shares my view on the historical construction of Commons FP! I think we are the only two cruzaders left... Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:31, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Keep --Richard Bartz (talk) 15:24, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Keep --Manco Capac (talk) 12:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- Keep ■ MMXXtalk 17:06, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- Keep --Mbdortmund (talk) 16:55, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
result: 1 delist, 9 keep, 0 neutral => not delisted--Massimo Catarinella (talk) 23:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
===Image:Ha long bay.jpg===, delisted
Voting period : from 4 Nov 2008 to 13 Nov 2008 (included)
- Info Too small, barely passed original nomination. (Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Ha long bay.jpg)
- Delist -- Mr. Mario (talk) 14:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- Delist Quality problems --S23678 (talk) 15:11, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- Delist --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 20:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- Delist -- DarkAp89 Commons 20:06, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- Delist Weak quality. —αἰτίας •discussion• 02:08, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Because it's not always glorious in Halong Bay, Vietnam. The sky and the weather seem to be soft during the day. So this image is about the true beauty, standard light of this place -- TanPhat Nguyen (talk) 13:20, 11 November 2008 (UTC).
- Keep --Karelj (talk) 20:40, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
result: 5 delist, 2 keep, 0 neutral => delisted --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 23:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
===Image:Dandelion clock.jpg===, delisted
Voting period : from 4 Nov 2008 to 13 Nov 2008 (included)
- Info Too small; does not pass requirements. (Original nomination)
- Delist -- Pbroks13 (talk) 06:29, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- Delist --Mr. Mario (talk) 14:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- Delist Size --S23678 (talk) 15:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- Delist --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 20:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- Delist --Beyond silence 22:37, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- Delist Size, distracting background. —αἰτίας •discussion• 02:09, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
- Delist --Karelj (talk) 20:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
result: 7 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => delisted --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 23:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Image:Miñiques panorama.jpg, not featured
[edit]Original, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 8 Nov 2008 at 22:22:01
- Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Till Niermann] -- Till (talk) 22:22, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Till (talk) 22:22, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
- Comment There are quite a few visible stitching errors in this, which isn't so good for such an easy subject (from a stitching perspective) Noodle snacks (talk) 00:38, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- Never noticed any. Could you point them out for me? --Till (talk) 06:10, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- I don't really think bands in the sky matter, they are barely noticable, but i have highlighted some potential errors i can see (ignore scribbled out one). I'd recommend "smartblend" (google it), if you aren't using it already. Good thing about panoramas is that restitches are possible (if you keep the originals) Noodle snacks (talk) 14:18, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- As a hint, if you're posting an image to point out flaws, don't save it at such a high compression rate as you can no longer tell the compression problems from the original ones. --Dori - Talk 02:42, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for showing me - this comes as a surprise to me. I'll see what I can do to fix this if I have time in the next few days. - Till (talk) 20:46, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
- Please see Info comment below.- Till (talk) 19:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- I don't really think bands in the sky matter, they are barely noticable, but i have highlighted some potential errors i can see (ignore scribbled out one). I'd recommend "smartblend" (google it), if you aren't using it already. Good thing about panoramas is that restitches are possible (if you keep the originals) Noodle snacks (talk) 14:18, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- Never noticed any. Could you point them out for me? --Till (talk) 06:10, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - Too noisy sky, stitching band in the sky, visible in thumb size -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 07:59, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Aqwis (talk) 20:22, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Karelj (talk) 20:51, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support I think it's good enough, amazing place. --Dori - Talk 02:42, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose -- As above. Manuel R. (talk) 12:30, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- DarkAp89 Commons 16:59, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Stitching flaws. --B.navez (talk) 11:53, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose No wow, sorry. Probably an amazing place to see, but it doesn't reflect on the picture. Crop a little too tight over the mountain also. --S23678 (talk) 20:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
result: 5 supports, 4 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured. Benh (talk) 08:34, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Edit 1, not featured
[edit](fixed stitching errors, smoothed out noise in sky, removed stitching band in the sky) - Till (talk) 19:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- Info I have uploaded an enhanced version of the image, visible to the right of the original image above. Please reconsider. - Till (talk) 19:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)Comment moved here by me, since I separated the 2 edits. --S23678 (talk) 20:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support--Lošmi (talk) 11:34, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support Yeah, technically not perfect, but still a stunning picture. —αἰτίας •discussion• 02:06, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Dori - Talk 01:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support That'll do it for me Noodle snacks (talk) 12:17, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
result: 4 supports, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Benh (talk) 11:00, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Image:Elephant seals fighting.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 13 Nov 2008 at 20:39:32
- Info created by Mike Baird - uploaded by Calliopejen - nominated by Keta -- Keta (talk) 20:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support Informative, illustrative, and overall quite awesome -- Keta (talk) 20:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Twdragon (talk) 17:56, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral Good action picture but the huge splash makes it 2 nonspecific 4 my taste --Richard Bartz (talk) 22:53, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support--Lošmi (talk) 02:57, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support --B.navez (talk) 17:00, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose possibly a brutal rape. Oppose these brutal raping blob creatures (it's awful. I know these ones are fighting before go rape but it's all nasty business altogether) ~ R.T.G 02:37, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support Excellent capture. Freedom to share (talk) 23:51, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support Lively image -- Es.ntp (talk) 03:55, 9 November 2008 (UTC).
- Support --Kosiarz-PL 09:11, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Luc Viatour (talk) 09:48, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Alephalpha (talk) 14:25, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 16:54, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
result: 10 supports, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Benh (talk) 11:02, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Image:Parks Tanzania.svg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 14 Nov 2008 at 12:02:00
- Info created by bamse - uploaded by bamse - nominated by bamse -- bamse (talk) 12:02, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support Very nice work. Diti (talk to the penguin) 12:09, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Could you double-license it under {{GFDL}} plus {{CC-BY-SA-3.0}} for instance? GFDL is highly unrecommended for pictures. Though, since the template states that it can be licensed under “any later version” of the GFDL, and the 1.3 does allow us to redistribute this picture under CC by-sa, is it ok? Diti (talk to the penguin) 12:09, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Some texts over the lines, very simple --libertad0 ॐ (talk) 18:12, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose As The Photographer. VI perhaps. /Daniel78 (talk) 19:54, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 2 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured. Benh (talk) 11:02, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Image:Black Mulberry Female Flowers.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 14 Nov 2008 at 13:43:38
- Info created by Noodle snacks - uploaded by Noodle snacks - nominated by Noodle snacks -- Noodle snacks (talk) 13:43, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Noodle snacks (talk) 13:43, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Downsampled. Lycaon (talk) 13:47, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Twdragon (talk) 17:57, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support /Daniel78 (talk) 19:57, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support-- DarkAp89 Commons 20:02, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose, harsh flash light. --Aqwis (talk) 22:16, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- I'd beg to differ, the main source of light was a 33in shoot through umbrella inches away (about as soft as it gets) Noodle snacks (talk) 00:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support Muhammad 15:27, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Motivic quiet interesting, realization so so, expect more finer details. This lighting here is 2 harsh & murky 4 my taste. --Richard Bartz (talk) 22:51, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Karelj (talk) 19:50, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose too hard light (but almost good anyway)--Grootmoe (talk) 16:56, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Alvesgaspar has been striking this user's votes out in other nominations as a sockpuppet so I've assumed he has checkuser or something and that this is the case. Noodle snacks (talk) 05:14, 14 November 2008 (UTC)Joaquim has no CU. Lycaon (talk) 19:00, 14 November 2008 (UTC)- So why are you not reversing the strike outs in all the other nominations? The user has done nothing but vote at FPC, which is probably what Alvesgaspar was going on. You should reverse them all if you seriously believe that this isn't a sockpuppet, otherwise this is you having more than your fair share of votes. Noodle snacks (talk) 00:58, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support —αἰτίας •discussion• 01:52, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support Has the wow for sure; very interesting. - Noumenon talk 21:59, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
result: 8 supports, 4 opposes, 0 neutral => featured. Benh (talk) 11:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Image:WattensWikipedia.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 14 Nov 2008 at 16:05:45
- Info created, uploaded and nominated by Know Nothing (talk) 16:05, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Know Nothing (talk) 16:05, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Please categorize and fix geolocation. Thnx. Lycaon (talk) 16:47, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- i dont know how to do Know Nothing (talk) 17:28, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- 7°N 11°E is somewhere in africa, certainly not in austria or tirol. You can use http://tools.freeside.sk/geolocator/geolocator.html to locate the place you took the picture from and follow #3 -- Gorgo (talk) 19:09, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- I've inserted the geodata and categorized the image. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 23:11, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- 7°N 11°E is somewhere in africa, certainly not in austria or tirol. You can use http://tools.freeside.sk/geolocator/geolocator.html to locate the place you took the picture from and follow #3 -- Gorgo (talk) 19:09, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- i dont know how to do Know Nothing (talk) 17:28, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support, despite unsharp areas. --Aqwis (talk) 17:10, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Twdragon (talk) 17:57, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support-- DarkAp89 Commons 20:02, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Alephalpha (talk) 13:03, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support--Lošmi (talk) 02:56, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support--Paris 16 (talk) 09:37, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support ■ MMXXtalk 15:42, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Simonizer (talk) 18:01, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support Ideal timing so that the town is lit up but the mountains are still visible. Freedom to share (talk) 23:54, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support per Aqwis, nice picture. —αἰτίας •discussion• 01:51, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
result: 11 supports, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Benh (talk) 11:05, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Image:A rose.JPG, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 15 Nov 2008 at 04:39:34
- InfoA rose (The hybrid tea rose "Double Delight".proof) Created by Mr. Mario (talk) - uploaded by Mr. Mario (talk) - nominated by Mr. Mario (talk) -- Mr. Mario (talk) 04:39, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support Please vote.-- Mr. Mario (talk) 04:39, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose This isn't sharp even when scaled down considerably, it will avoid misconstrued downsampling votes though :). The aperture chosen seems appropriate, so either focus was missed or the blur is camera shake related. I'd suggest bumping up your ISO from 100 to 200 or 400 to raise the shutter speed and reduce the probability of this happening as 1/320th is fairly borderline as far as getting sharp shots at 200mm goes. I also feel the crop should probably be a little tighter, I am not sure if your equipment's maximum magnification comes into play there. The natural lighting is quite nice but I think a little fill flash would not have gone astray so the stem and base of the rose were more visible. Identification of the rose would be nice too, w:Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Plants is quite useful for that purpose. Noodle snacks (talk) 05:11, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- Previous Nomination 1
- Previous Nomination 2
- Oppose Already failed twice before. /Daniel78 (talk) 18:54, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- Second time was lame (1-0 vote) and organism is identified now. --Mr. Mario (talk) 19:00, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- Specimen has not been identified properly (which cultivar?). Should be a little effort. Moreover, the flower is not crisp and the composition rather trivial. Lycaon (talk) 13:50, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- Corrected the name of the species. --Mr. Mario (talk) 15:09, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- I knew you'd find it eventually ;-). Technical issues however stand. Lycaon (talk) 15:37, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- Corrected the name of the species. --Mr. Mario (talk) 15:09, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- Specimen has not been identified properly (which cultivar?). Should be a little effort. Moreover, the flower is not crisp and the composition rather trivial. Lycaon (talk) 13:50, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose The aperture choice (or the distance) is a little bit unfavorable (the focal plane should be a little bit wider). It could be a tad sharper. The centered composition isn't thrilling, really --Richard Bartz (talk) 23:03, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral The background of this image must be faded so as to shift the rose -- Es.ntp (talk) 03:59, 9 November 2008 (UTC).
- Support I don't know what you have against this pic, I think it is nice. As a thumb or viewed in full, I think the quality is fine. --Aktron (talk) 11:11, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
result: 2 supports, 3 opposes, 1 neutral => not featured. Benh (talk) 11:07, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Image:Flower October 2008-1.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 15 Nov 2008 at 15:42:14
- Info Flower and leaves of a Greater Celandine (Chelidonium majus), of the Papaveraceae family. A native Eurasian species, it was taken to America in the 17th century as a herbal remedy for skin problems. The plant is toxic containing coptisine and other alcaloids, but it has various therapeutic uses in pharmacology and herbalism. During the antiquity and Middle Ages, it was used for treating eczema, blood disorders, blindness and the plague. Created & nominated by Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:42, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:42, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support Excellent detail sharpness, nice composition. I wish I made that picture myself... -- MJJR (talk) 22:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry, i'am mad about flashlight pics. Available light (and/or a different angle) would be much better to show it's plasticity. --Richard Bartz (talk) 22:46, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- Are you sure it's flashlight? Or is it simply sunlight? -- MJJR (talk) 20:57, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- Sunlight has a different color temperature --Richard Bartz (talk) 15:08, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Never heard of white balance then... Noodle snacks (talk) 22:21, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- Sunlight has a different color temperature --Richard Bartz (talk) 15:08, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Are you sure it's flashlight? Or is it simply sunlight? -- MJJR (talk) 20:57, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support Interesting. --Lošmi (talk) 02:55, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Good picture, but not exceptional for FP. No wow for me. --Karelj (talk) 19:32, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose agree with Richard. --AngMoKio (talk) 19:45, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Richard. Flashlight and drop shadow are annoying to me Benh (talk) 23:27, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support I find it rather pretty good. --Mr. Mario (talk) 14:37, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose too sharp (shadows)--Grootmoe (talk) 16:54, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support For contrast -- Es.ntp (talk) 03:56, 9 November 2008 (UTC).
- Oppose Per Richard Bartz. - Noumenon talk 21:57, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
result: 5 supports, 6 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured. Benh (talk) 11:08, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Image:04 Bodegas.JPG, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 15 Nov 2008 at 22:49:25
- Info created and uploaded by Litox - nominated by Mr. Mario (talk) -- Mr. Mario (talk) 22:49, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Mr. Mario (talk) 22:49, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose No wow, dull colors and intrusive elements (plants) --S23678 (talk) 22:53, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Washed out details through strange post processing, and as S23678 mentioned ... its very dull/sad. A english description would be very nice --Richard Bartz (talk) 23:10, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Rüdiger Wölk (talk) 04:45, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose --Chromatic aberration, low sharpen level --Twdragon (talk) 11:49, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose white balance is wrong --che 18:49, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Opposetoo late (the sun is already gone)--Grootmoe (talk) 16:53, 8 November 2008 (UTC)- Too obvious sockpupet -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:32, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Weak technical quality, no wow. —αἰτίας •discussion• 01:49, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Interesting subject, yet the lighting is very poor. --Aktron (talk) 11:14, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 7 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured (could have been rule of the 5th day). Benh (talk) 11:11, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Image:Senlis NDame4 tango7174.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 16 Nov 2008 at 14:52:02
- Info created by Tango7174 - uploaded by Tango7174 - nominated by Tango7174 -- Tango7174 (talk) 14:52, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Tango7174 (talk) 14:52, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Nice stained glasses but same goes for many of them. Trivial shot so at least I'd like to see brigher walls. Benh (talk) 23:24, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of the 5th day). Benh (talk) 11:18, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Image:Senlis NDame5 tango7174.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 16 Nov 2008 at 14:54:28
- Info created by Tango7174 - uploaded by Tango7174 - nominated by Tango7174 -- Tango7174 (talk) 14:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Tango7174 (talk) 14:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Nice stained glasses but same goes for many of them. Trivial shot so at least I'd like to see brigher walls. Black part on lower left corner (a result of perspective correction ?) annoys me Benh (talk) 23:24, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Opposetoo similar (to previous photograph)--Grootmoe (talk) 16:51, 8 November 2008 (UTC)- Too obvious sockpupet -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:30, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of the 5th day). Benh (talk) 11:19, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Image:AcueductoSegovia edit1.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 16 Nov 2008 at 23:14:24
- Info created and uploaded by Manuel González Olaechea - modified by diego_pmc - nominated by Benh (talk) 23:14, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- Info This was proposed as replacement on delisting section, but original didn't get enough votes to be unfeatured. I'm nominating the edit here instead. Please don't forget the context before voting, this is to replace an old FP, which may not be bad enough to be delisted, but which may not be good enough to get featured by today standards. Benh (talk) 23:14, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral -- Benh (talk) 23:14, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose I think quality (sharpness) for the smallish size disqualifies the picture according to current standards. Re-election is doubtful, maybe you should've left it at the replace-with-improved-version stage. Delisting would (and will) always be a risk for this one I'm afraid. Lycaon (talk) 09:47, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I don't really understand why an already existing FP should not be replaced by the same picture, only improved. Anyway, I really don't think there is a point in having this pictured featured, while the other one is featured as well. I would rather reopen the delist nom. diego_pmc (talk) 17:01, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- I don't know any clear "deliste/replace" rule here. I wanted to replace the old FP by the improved version, but, despite consensus was for a replace, there wasn't enough delist votes on the delist nomination. I wanted to go ahead and replace it, but I had to follow the rules. I will work on a slight improvement of them tonight to avoid this happening again. Benh (talk) 09:57, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral Whilst the technical quality is quite weak, I really like the composition. All in all not enough for a support, unfortunately. —αἰτίας •discussion• 01:48, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
result: 0 support, 1 oppose, 2 neutral => not featured (rule of the 5th day). Benh (talk) 11:20, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Image:Catholic_moving_cross.jpg, not featured
[edit]- Info created by Adrille - uploaded by Adrille - nominated by Adrille --Adrille (talk) 22:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Adrille (talk) 22:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: image is too small. | Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed. |
Lycaon (talk) 22:54, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- that's a fact that this picture does not really respect exactly the size standarts, but this is not "small" , moreover, the movement is the interesting thing in this picture, that's why I keep thinking this could be a featured picture Adrille (talk) 16:08, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
- It's easily possible to retake this image with higher resolution and less noise (noise is even visible in the thumbnail), so there are no mitigating circumstances like age or "once in a lifetime chance". -- Gorgo (talk) 14:41, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
FPX uncontested, not featured - Benh (talk) 11:20, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Image:Pingyao city wall.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 20 Nov 2008 at 03:10:25
- Info created by Gisling - uploaded by Gisling - nominated by Dingar -- dingar (talk) 03:10, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- dingar (talk) 03:10, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: of blown highlights and harsh lighting. MER-C 07:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC) | Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed. |
- FPX restored. The only allowed way to remove it is through a support vote! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:38, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral Contrast is very harsh ; composition seems to lack a focal point --JY Rehby (talk) 04:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
FPX uncontested, not featured. Benh (talk) 11:21, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Image:Christos Acheiropoietos.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 16 Nov 2008 at 16:41:08
- Info created by Sk - uploaded by Lokal Profil - nominated by The Deceiver -- The Deceiver (talk) 16:41, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- The Deceiver (talk) 16:41, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Opposetoo religious (christ on the first page?)--Grootmoe (talk) 16:49, 8 November 2008 (UTC)- Too obvious sockpupet -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:28, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support This work of art is 900 years old and is a good example of the Russian Novgorod School preserving the Byzantine traditions. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 01:23, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Am I seeing JPG artifacts, or damage to the artwork? 65.175.52.130 14:09, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- It is most certainly damage to the artwork. Old icons typically have many cuts and scratches. The Deceiver (talk) 20:56, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- Weak support Historically interesting, but the visual interest is a bit low. Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:46, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
result: 3 supports, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Benh (talk) 22:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Image:Katowice - Kościół NMP - Gargulec 01.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 17 Nov 2008 at 10:26:21
- Info created, uploaded and nominated by Lestat -- Lestat (talk) 10:26, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Lestat (talk) 10:26, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Opposetoo blue (too much air)--Grootmoe (talk) 16:48, 8 November 2008 (UTC)- Too obvious sockpupet (btw, welcome back!) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:29, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support Pretty one. --Aktron (talk) 19:58, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Due to weak technical quality at full resolution. —αἰτίας •discussion• 01:45, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral Too much blue, but fine otherwise. Please let me know on my talk page if a crop is created. Thanks How do you turn this on (talk) 22:33, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 11:54, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Per above, I like the composition and idea. If you can re-shot it (preferably in RAW), I would support it. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 18:47, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support, nice. --Kjetil_r 00:12, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
result: 4 supports, 2 opposes, 1 neutral => not featured. Benh (talk) 22:01, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Image:Schrammtor LC0181.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 17 Nov 2008 at 12:42:01
- Info created, uploaded and nominated by Jörg Hempel (talk) 12:42, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- LC-de (talk) 12:42, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral Nothing special, but not bad also. --Aktron (talk) 19:58, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Weak technical quality, no wow, nothing special. —αἰτίας •discussion• 01:43, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
- As I'm always interested in improving my skills I would be very pleased, if you could specify your opinion "weak technical quality" more precisely. --LC-de (talk) 13:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support Fine. How do you turn this on (talk) 22:31, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Good image, but why for FP? --Karelj (talk) 21:56, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
result: 2 supports, 2 opposes, 1 neutral => not featured. Benh (talk) 22:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Image:Farine Carrier-Belleuse Petit Palais PDUT01445.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 17 Nov 2008 at 17:40 (UTC)
- Info created by Louis Carrier-Belleuse - uploaded by Jastrow - nominated by Paris 16 (talk) 17:39, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Paris 16 (talk) 13:55, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Aqwis (talk) 23:47, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose I want to support, but it's not clear whether color blotches come from noise reduction or not. I have the feeling it comes from NR (I don't think Nikon D70 is good at high sensitivities). Noise is annoying to me on a painting reproduction - Benh (talk) 10:02, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Too tight crop (especially on top). Lycaon (talk) 21:16, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support This is a great image. How do you turn this on (talk) 22:30, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Luc Viatour (talk) 09:46, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Lycaon --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 19:30, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support It is impossible to retake the picture, so a minor issue with the crop can stand. Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:45, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
- Question Could you elaborate? Why is it impossible? Several copies found on the internet show almost all of the lamp for instance. Why would you feature an incomplete painting? Lycaon (talk) 15:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
result: 5 supports, 3 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured. Benh (talk) 22:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Image:Réunion Piton des Neiges Lune.JPG, not featured
[edit]- Info created by B.navez - uploaded by B.navez - nominated by B.navez (talk) 18:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support --B.navez (talk) 18:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Very weak technical quality, no wow, nothing special at all. —αἰτίας •discussion• 01:42, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Such a colors don't convince me. --Aktron (talk) 11:10, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
- Natural and faithful real colors at this early morning hour. --B.navez (talk) 11:18, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
- Well yes, many pictures here do have natural lighting but you know... but they are also not FP. Come on, I've done so many pictures in such a way and their nomination was not successful. Just because there is something to be interesting in the pic in order to have it FP... like good arangements of objects, or unique POV of the camera. --Aktron (talk) 22:03, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
- Natural and faithful real colors at this early morning hour. --B.navez (talk) 11:18, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support Looks great, disagree with opposers. How do you turn this on (talk) 22:27, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 11:53, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose The quality isn't very good. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 17:10, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
result: 3 supports, 3 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured. Benh (talk) 22:03, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Image:Marpissa muscosa 4 Luc Viatour.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 17 Nov 2008 at 19:26:23
- Info created by an uploaded by Lviatour - nominated by D-Kuru --D-Kuru (talk) 19:26, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- D-Kuru (talk) 19:26, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support I hate spiders, but I must vote for this image -- Es.ntp (talk) 03:52, 9 November 2008 (UTC).
- Support ■ MMXXtalk 07:51, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Lošmi (talk) 13:05, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Laveol (talk) 15:58, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support Wow, great shot! How do you turn this on (talk) 22:25, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support--Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Very good but not good enough. Lighting isn't balanced and seems harsh in that way it lost it's plasticity ... 4 my taste --Richard Bartz (talk) 15:00, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose It looks very good as a thumbnail, but the quality isn't that stunning at full size. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 17:09, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support mais je préfère la nouvelle version que j'ai proposé plus haut. Merci à D-Kuru pour l'intérêt qu'il porte a mes photos ;) --Luc Viatour (talk) 21:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose C'est joli, mais je pense aussi que l'éclairage n'est pas très esthétique, et peut-être un peu fort/dur. Je trouve dommage que l'abdomen soit flou (mais je comprends bien que c'est difficile de si près. Ca n'est pas la raison pour laquelle je suis contre). Benh (talk) 22:24, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Support--CPacker (talk) 19:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)sorry, too late --D-Kuru (talk) 21:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
result: 8 supports, 3 opposes, 0 neutral => featured. Benh (talk) 22:04, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Image:Hydrangea in Dalat, Vietnam (Tú cầu Đà Lạt).jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 17 Nov 2008 at 19:30:32
- Info created & uploaded by Nguyễn Tấn Phát. Hydrange is a symbol of Dalat City, which is also called Dreamy City in Vietnam. You can see this hydrange ashamely hiding in its leaves -- (talk) 19:30, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Es.ntp (talk) 19:30, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support How do you turn this on (talk) 22:24, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
result: 2 supports, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Benh (talk) 22:04, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Image:Eugénie; keizerin der Fransen.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 20 Nov 2008 at 15:40 (UTC)
- Info created by Franz Xaver Winterhalter - uploaded by Carolus - nominated by Paris 16 (talk) 15:35, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Paris 16 (talk) 15:35, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Poor colour reproduction. The dress is supposed to be green on the painting !!. -- Lycaon (talk) 15:43, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - not so good colours.--Avala (talk) 18:22, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I tried to cleanup the image but because I used Clone Stamp it may be a little different with original painting in some areas. ■ MMXXtalk 06:26, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose This image contains numerous artifacts, such as little white dots all over it. --Lošmi (talk) 14:30, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 3 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of the 5th day). Benh (talk) 22:36, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Image:CAR-Hwy.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 20 Nov 2008 at 18:53:20
- Info created by Mr. Mario (talk) - uploaded by Mr. Mario (talk) - nominated by Mr. Mario (talk) -- Mr. Mario (talk) 18:53, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Mr. Mario (talk) 18:53, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Too much noise --Lmbuga gl, pt, es: contacta comigo 19:29, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Composition. - Till (talk) 21:47, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Why? --Karelj (talk) 22:00, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose No wow factor, nothing stunning... --JY Rehby (talk) 00:06, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Lack of composition, tilted --Twdragon (talk) 10:25, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- Tilt? Where? --Mr. Mario (talk) 15:11, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose --Paris 16 (talk) 10:30, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose common shot. --Leafnode 08:25, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Mainly on compositional issues: The main subject (the car) is too small and too centred. The background is also not too interesting and as such too prominent. Lycaon (talk) 15:38, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Nothing special. /Daniel78 (talk) 02:16, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Idem. Adrille (talk) 16:39, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Nothing special here, no wow factor. How do you turn this on (talk) 11:58, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 11 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of the 5th day). Benh (talk) 22:36, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Image:Félix Nadar 1820-1910 portraits Sarah Bernhardt.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 20 Nov 2008 at 12:00 (UTC)
See also |
- Info created by Félix Nadar - uploaded by Augustin B. - nominated by Paris 16 (talk) 11:38, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Paris 16 (talk) 11:38, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Badly needs restoration. Durova to the rescue? Lycaon (talk) 12:43, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I retouched both pictures (1, 2), but I don't know is it good enough fo FP or not. ■ MMXXtalk 16:09, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Yawn.... -- carol (talk) 17:31, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - Please organize the nominations. We have no idea what picture we are voting on -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:53, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 2 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of the 5th day). Benh (talk) 22:37, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Image:Riot Monument.JPG, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 25 Nov 2008 at 21:32:03
- Info created by Liftarn - uploaded by Liftarn - nominated by Econt (talk) 21:32, 16 November 2008 (UTC) -- Econt (talk) 21:32, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- Comment The annotation is historically interesting.--Econt (talk) 21:40, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Econt (talk) 21:32, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Who did the graffiti? What happened to colour? Lycaon (talk) 00:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: the image has very poor quality and framing -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC) | Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed. |
- Comment This image should be geo-located. -- carol (talk) 17:31, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
FPX not contested, not featured. Benh (talk) 22:37, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Image:GoldenGateBridge BakerBeach MC.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 18 Nov 2008 at 08:12:59
- Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Chmehl -- Chmehl (talk) 08:12, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support The Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco as seen from the northern end of Baker Beach. -- Chmehl (talk) 08:12, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support, nice composition. --Aqwis (talk) 08:34, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support Kosiarz-PL 09:09, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support If you're going to San Francisco... Really nice composition :-) --Aktron (talk) 11:09, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support Per Aqwis --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 12:41, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support Nice exposure. /Daniel78 (talk) 19:44, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support Amazing. How do you turn this on (talk) 22:23, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support --AngMoKio (talk) 08:25, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- MJJR (talk) 19:31, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support Very beautiful; especially the composition ^_^ - Noumenon talk 21:58, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Urban (talk) 07:48, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support - great shot. Jonathunder (talk) 23:28, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
result: 12 supports, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Benh (talk) 22:05, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Image:Baux de Provence.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 18 Nov 2008 at 09:37:42
- Info created, uploaded and nominated by Benh (talk) 09:37, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
- Info Les Baux-de-Provence village, nearby Arles, South of France, taken at end afternoon -- Benh (talk) 09:37, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Benh (talk) 09:37, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Aqwis (talk) 10:01, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral Really nice composition, but I am not sure about the colors and it seems to be a bit underexposed. :-/ --Aktron (talk) 11:13, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I worked a lot on the colours -atmosphere was very dirty- so they might not be true to what they should. I'll have a check again tonight and ask my friend who was with me (If I have time). I used a polariser filter, so the sky is darker compared to what I saw (It would have been very bright if I remember) ; maybe this gives the underexpose feeling ? Benh (talk) 09:31, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support nice one, although I think it could have been a little bit nicer later in the evening --che 13:31, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support Excellent pic. How do you turn this on (talk) 22:20, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 23:52, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support I visited the place some years ago and I recognize perfectly the landscape, the light, the atmosphere... Really very well done. -- MJJR (talk) 19:21, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support nice --D-Kuru (talk) 17:52, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 19:38, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support!! --Kjetil_r 00:08, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
result: 9 supports, 0 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Benh (talk) 22:08, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Supportyou succeeded in changing what could be a common shot into a really good shot. Adrille (talk) 18:48, 18 November 2008 (UTC) too late, but thanks for the comment :) - Benh (talk) 22:08, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Image:Kamchia Cliffs.JPG, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 18 Nov 2008 at 18:11:06
- Info created by P.Marlow - uploaded by P.Marlow - nominated by P.Marlow -- P.Marlow (talk) 18:11, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- P.Marlow (talk) 18:11, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose -- It looks a bit too soft, like there are motion blur in the trees. /Daniel78 (talk) 19:42, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
- Info I think that's just because there was a strong wind blowing.
- Oppose -- Just a coast, no FP-like features. --ng above the cliffsAktron (talk) 21:08, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support Nice shot, disagree with opposes. How do you turn this on (talk) 22:19, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support Lovely photo- I really enjoy the composition; reminds me of the Mediterranean. I don't agree at all with the opposses- no FP-like features? Its a very nice photo. RichardGirtin (talk) 16:43, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Substantial CCW tilt. Lycaon (talk) 19:13, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support I love Bulgaria and this captures it's essence so beautifully! Trumpkin (talk)
- Oppose As Aktron. --Karelj (talk) 22:41, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support I find this image to be of excellent composition regardless of the slight CCW tilt. PeterPopov (talk):19:24, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
result: 5 supports, 4 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured. Benh (talk) 22:09, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Image:Bristol 1873.png, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 22 Nov 2008 at 16:55:18
- Info created by T. Sulman - uploaded by Ilmari Karonen - nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I was about to vote, but have to close it, sorry... Benh (talk) 22:58, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of the 5th day). Benh (talk) 22:58, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Image:DESPERADOS.JPG, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 26 Nov 2008 at 19:38:39
- Info created by Adrille - uploaded by Adrille - nominated by Adrille -- Adrille (talk) 19:38, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Adrille (talk) 19:38, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose iso 1600 gives way too much noise. /Daniel78 (talk) 23:42, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: of very poor image quality -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:35, 18 November 2008 (UTC) | Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed. |
- Oppose low quality, and noisy. --Kanonkas(talk) 18:24, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
FPX not contested. not featured - Benh (talk) 21:29, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 19 Nov 2008 at 01:48:27
- Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Ram-Man. 01:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Info Autumn colors of the Oakleaf Hydrangea (Hydrangea quercifolia)
- Support -- Ram-Man 01:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support I'm in Benh (talk) 08:25, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Lošmi (talk) 11:19, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Rather 'blotchy' background and nothing that tickles my FP strings. Lycaon (talk) 11:34, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose l'm that way, too. --Richard Bartz (talk) 14:55, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support I love it- particularly the color scheme --P.Marlow (talk) 19:30, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose As Lycaon. --Karelj (talk) 22:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
result: 4 supports, 3 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured. Benh (talk) 21:24, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Image:Paperbark Maple Acer griseum Bark Vertical 1885px.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 19 Nov 2008 at 01:51:33
- Info Created, uploaded, and nominated by Ram-Man. 01:51, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Info Trunk bark of the Paperbark Maple (Acer griseum)
- Support -- Ram-Man 01:51, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support nice detail! --Niabot (talk) 22:55, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - Good quality is not enough, some magic is usually required to succed -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 02:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support Fine for me. How do you turn this on (talk) 12:03, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
result: 3 supports, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Benh (talk) 21:24, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Image:Winter Squash Cucurbita pepo 2000px.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 19 Nov 2008 at 02:53:27
- Info Created, uploaded, and nominated by Ram-Man. -- Ram-Man 02:53, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support A beautiful winter squash. -- Ram-Man 02:53, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support Nice colours and composition. The only (very) minor thing for me is the shade to the left. Use a reflector maybe next time? Lycaon (talk) 11:36, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - I don't like the centered composition -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:09, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Uuumh, yes ... a centered pumpkin in a fence jail ? I like the mood but the composition isn't appealing. --Richard Bartz (talk) 14:52, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Per other opposers --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 17:08, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support I have to agree with Lycaon. He is 100 % true. --Aktron (talk) 21:50, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
result: 3 supports, 3 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured. Benh (talk) 21:25, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Image:Meteory 1 wisnia6522.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 19 Nov 2008 at 10:35:28
- Info created by Wisnia6522 - uploaded by Wisnia6522 - nominated by Wisnia6522 -- Wisnia6522 (talk) 10:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Wisnia6522 (talk) 10:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 11:52, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support, although it is slightly too contrasty for my taste. --Aqwis (talk) 14:40, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 16:51, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Luc Viatour (talk) 09:44, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Alephalpha (talk) 14:27, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support - truly fantastic photo! I wondered why there is no good photo of Meteora here (though weather is indeed often hazy there) but now I see this very good shot. --Avala (talk) 18:23, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support I'm in Benh (talk) 22:37, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 19:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support How do you turn this on (talk) 12:02, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support ■ MMXXtalk 14:41, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support Fantastic! --Xxxx00 (talk) 19:09, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
result: 12 supports, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Benh (talk) 21:25, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Image:Zametovka Grape.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 19 Nov 2008 at 20:10:44
- Info created by Rude - uploaded by Scops - nominated by Mmxx -- ■ MMXXtalk 20:10, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- ■ MMXXtalk 20:10, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry, but quality is not sufficient for FP. The BG is overexposed and the grapes are not sharp enough. This is a static object and should be better. Additionally, the composition is quite trivial (centred.) --Lycaon (talk) 22:58, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose --Paris 16 (talk) 01:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I uploaded a new version with a little bit darker darker background. ■ MMXXtalk 07:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Avala (talk) 18:22, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support Great grapes! --Aktron (talk) 18:56, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support Thanks for reminding me, I was gonna buy some today :D How do you turn this on (talk) 12:02, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Grapes don't protrude from background. --Jagro (talk) 00:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support Looks good enough to me - size and sharpness are ok, contrast has been corrected ; the plain composition, busy background and surroundings (leaf on the right) give more of a "field photography" feel to it. --JY Rehby (talk) 22:48, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Just a grape, nothing exceptional... and quality issues as evoked above --Pom² (talk) 22:58, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
result: 5 supports, 4 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured. Benh (talk) 21:26, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Image:Marpissa muscosa 5 Luc Viatour.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 19 Nov 2008 at 21:18:06
- Info created by Luc Viatour (talk) - uploaded by Luc Viatour (talk) - nominated by -- Luc Viatour (talk) 21:18, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support original versions -- Luc Viatour (talk) 21:18, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I made a quick edit, but I would love to do a thorough one. Do you have a RAW file for me to work with? --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 22:09, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- J'ai aussi eu la tentation de saturer plus, mais ce n'est pas la réalité. Voir la première édition de cette photo. Pour le raw c'est la seule preuve que j'ai que je suis l'auteur. Je ne donne donc jamais les raw :/ --Luc Viatour (talk) 09:37, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- a translation, in case I also wanted to saturate it more, but this wouldn't be faithful to reality. See first version of the photo. RAW picture is the only proof I'm the author, that's why I never give them away :/ -- Benh (talk) 20:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- My only intention is to create a better picture, since it can become a lot better. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 18:03, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Lmbuga gl, pt, es: contacta comigo 19:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Paris 16 (talk) 10:33, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Current versions. I would support a new and improved one. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 19:32, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support Both versions. --Lošmi (talk) 21:08, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support especially the new version Adrille (talk) 16:40, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - Please organize the nominations and votes! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support the picture on the right. Diti (talk to the penguin) 00:01, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support the edit--CPacker (talk) 19:58, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
result: 6 supports, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Benh (talk) 21:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Support--Böhringer (talk) 12:30, 21 November 2008 (UTC) too late - Benh (talk) 21:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Image:Dresden-Garnisionskirche-gp.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 19 Nov 2008 at 22:27:01
- Info created by Kolossos - uploaded by Kolossos - nominated by Till Niermann -- Till (talk) 22:27, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Till (talk) 22:27, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I would crop of the construction cranes on the left and the people on the right. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 22:41, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Paris 16 (talk) 01:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support Good level of details, good lighting, beautiful color balance and contrast ; minor issues (cranes, people surrounding) are actually not that distracting and should be easy to fix. --JY Rehby (talk) 04:56, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Barrel distortion can be seen on vertical walls on the left side (see the left wall of the first tower from the left), and probably on the turrets' roofs (although this might be their original shape, but I doubt it). I regret the presence of the crane, cars and tourists, but overall it is a great picture. --Eusebius (talk) 08:59, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:11, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Umnik (talk) 15:03, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Aqwis (talk) 15:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Avala (talk) 18:22, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support !! -- MJJR (talk) 21:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support of course --D-Kuru (talk) 22:15, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support Nice picture, I like such compositions. --Aktron (talk) 11:13, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support Super! How do you turn this on (talk) 11:18, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Manuel R. (talk) 19:00, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support Georgez (talk) 18:46, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Xxxx00 (talk) 18:20, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support Very nice. --Jagro (talk) 00:31, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support--CPacker (talk) 19:56, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral -- Like it but there is stitching blur, around the 3 round stained glasses (the left one) Pom² (talk) 23:03, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
- Comment It's not stitching blur. I had unfortunately in one of the 36 images a little movement by wind. --Kolossos (talk) 08:13, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Find somebody the airplane in the sky? --Kolossos (talk) 08:13, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Yes, but it's really not distracting. --Eusebius (talk) 10:00, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Diti (talk to the penguin) 01:19, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Image:Mount Rainier panorama 2.jpg, not featured
[edit]- Info created by Deathgleaner - uploaded by Deathgleaner - nominated by Deathgleaner (talk) 04:18, 11 November 2008 (UTC). Another user User:Richardprins helped with stitching the image. See details on Image:Mount Rainier panorama.jpg.
- I have moved this image to Mount Rainier Panorama 2 because it is better. 04:33, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Deathgleaner (talk) 04:18, 11 November 2008 (UTC).
Support -- Xizes (talk) 04:20, 11 November 2008 (UTC) Awesome panoramavote struck based on a connection with the nominator --Herby talk thyme 08:21, 13 November 2008 (UTC)Support -- CRBLEEP (talk) 04:20, 11 November 2008 (UTC) I agree with Xizes.vote struck based on a connection with the nominator --Herby talk thyme 08:21, 13 November 2008 (UTC)Support -- I'm a new user and I like this panorama. I wish I could take a pic like this. Usedsnake (talk) 03:48, 12 November 2008 (UTC)vote struck based on a connection with the nominator --Herby talk thyme 08:21, 13 November 2008 (UTC)- Oppose Color differences in the sky. --Manco Capac (talk) 12:02, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral Seems to need cropping to get rid of the car and couple in the leftmost corner, the motorcycle in the rightmost corner, etc. --JY Rehby (talk) 16:45, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- If cropped, the panorama will seem incomplete. Thegeo (talk) 19:00, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- I have cropped it and it looks just fine. If you want more cropping...we'll see. Deathgleaner (talk) 04:43, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Support haw haw. Thegeo (talk) 18:54, 12 November 2008 (UTC)vote struck based on a connection with the nominator --Herby talk thyme 15:08, 13 November 2008 (UTC)- Oppose The quality isn't good and the people and car half in the picture aren't working for me either. It also suffers from distortion on the right. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 19:29, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Mr. Mario (talk) 03:59, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
- Comment This FP should not be closed pending a CU review. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 07:43, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
- Followup - I have struck three votes & warned the nominator that creating or encouraging multiple accounts is unacceptable. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 08:21, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose I have to agree that the people and vehicles in the image detract from the natrual setting and at full size it appears less sharp than what I have come to expect from fp. --Trödel 23:28, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Nice overall motive, but several small things do not work: camera position, different crop, car placement, sky colour differences from stitching. -- Klaus with K (talk) 12:55, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Too much weirdness going on with sockpuppets attempting to skew the vote here prevents any support from me. How do you turn this on (talk) 12:01, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Support It is actually an amazing picture. The view is phenominal and the editing done to the picture to remove the car and people was a pretty sweet feat. I am actually inclined to learn how to do it now. Dima111 (talk) 21:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC)- Info Note this is this user's only edit --Trödel 00:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
- So a user needs to have a certain amount of edits to vote? That's like the rule that you have to be 18 to vote in elections and stuff. Strange... Done! (talk) 04:34, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
- Vote struck per CU concerns. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 02:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
- Checkuser concerns? Give more details. Done! (talk) 04:34, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
- Nothing to do with number of edits & everything to do with number of accounts. You actually do not need this information but it may be of interest to the community that CU shows you are yet another account associated with Deathgleaner - please stop playing these games, it is pointless and abuses the community's trust in such matters. --Herby talk thyme 07:59, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
- Checkuser concerns? Give more details. Done! (talk) 04:34, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
- Vote struck per CU concerns. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 02:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
- So a user needs to have a certain amount of edits to vote? That's like the rule that you have to be 18 to vote in elections and stuff. Strange... Done! (talk) 04:34, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
- Info Note this is this user's only edit --Trödel 00:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
result: 2 supports, 5 opposes, 1 neutral => not featured. Benh (talk) 21:35, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
* Oppose --Georgez (talk) 14:56, 20 November 2008 (UTC)too late - Benh (talk) 21:35, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Image:Red clothespin.JPG, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 20 Nov 2008 at 17:57:15
- Info created by Kosiarz-PL - uploaded by Kosiarz-PL - nominated by Kosiarz-PL -- Kosiarz-PL 17:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Kosiarz-PL 17:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Really nice! --Karelj (talk) 22:02, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Is that reason for oppose? ;-) --Kosiarz-PL 15:23, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support with reserves. Composition, lighting, colors, use of DoF all sum up to create a conceptually and visually interesting picture. I'm tempted to challenge the "encyclopedicity" of this picture. --JY Rehby (talk) 00:08, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support Interesting image, conseptual subject --Twdragon (talk) 10:26, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support Maybe more artistic than encyclopedic, but after all it's not unusual to see a clothespin on unusual places. --Lošmi (talk) 14:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose I fail to see whats special about this one. /Daniel78 (talk) 19:30, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - For an easy subject like this, the picture should be technically excellent. Which is obviuously not, mainly due to unsharpness and noise -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:32, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Alvesgaspar and it is in need of some level twitching. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 19:35, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose per Massimo Catarinella --Lestat (talk) 00:50, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose ack Alvesgaspar - technical flaws, definitely too shallow DoF. --Leafnode 08:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
result: 4 supports, 6 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured. Benh (talk) 21:36, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Image:Chausey maison de Marin Marie.JPG, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 20 Nov 2008 at 20:34:19
- Info created by Pline - uploaded by Pline - nominated by Mmxx -- ■ MMXXtalk 20:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- ■ MMXXtalk 20:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support even if i wanted to see a bit more from the left --Niabot (talk) 22:56, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral composition seems a bit off ; emphasizes both the house in the foreground and a large amount of the sea in the background, focuses on neither. --JY Rehby (talk) 16:48, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose The quality isn't that great, the picture is over saturated and I don't like the composition. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 19:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose There is also a problem with artefacts (from noise reduction?), e.g. on the left under the tree. Lycaon (talk) 23:46, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Artefacts removed. ■ MMXXtalk 06:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Composition - subject is not presented properly. --Leafnode 08:23, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
result: 2 supports, 3 opposes, 1 neutral => not featured. Benh (talk) 21:37, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Image:Urban Explorer Hobart CA Edit.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 24 Nov 2008 at 11:27:32
- Info created by Noodle snacks - uploaded by Noodle snacks - nominated by Noodle snacks -- Noodle snacks (talk) 11:27, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support Though I am not sure if it will pass as it was one of my early photographs -- Noodle snacks (talk) 11:27, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral It has the wow but technically it is lacking a bit (look at the spots/noise on the face of the explorer). Also the composition is too centred for my liking. But at least no unnecessary downsampling was done, so no oppose for this one!. Lycaon (talk) 12:48, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Comp is 2 static, centered and nonthrilling 4 my taste --Richard Bartz (talk)
- Oppose The quality isn't good enough. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 17:06, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 2 opposes, 1 neutral => not featured (rule of the 5th day). Benh (talk) 21:40, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Image:Garoto pesca no Rio da Prata em Montevidéu.JPG, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 24 Nov 2008 at 17:40:53
- Info created by Georgez - uploaded by Georgez - nominated by Georgez -- Georgez (talk) 17:40, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Georgez (talk) 17:40, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, the image is much too small. Lycaon (talk) 17:58, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- FPX removed, a larger file was uploaded on topo of the old one -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
InfoOh, that's a shame! I didn't know that. But I do think it's a nice picture anyway... Georgez (talk) 18:16, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- InfoI've updated it. Is it okay now? Georgez (talk) 13:23, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- Comment -- Não me parece (I don't think so)... The quality is very poor, it looks like the image was upsampled -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - very poor image quality --Euphoriceyes (talk) 13:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 2 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of the 5th day). Benh (talk) 21:41, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Image:oaxaca-bat-graffiti.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 25 Nov 2008 at 20:35:41
- Info created by User:GaylaLin - uploaded by GaylaLin - nominated by GaylaLin -- 66.82.162.14 20:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Support-- 66.82.162.14 20:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- Anonymous votes aren't allowed (but anonymous nominations are welcomed) - Benh (talk) 21:05, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose sorry, nothing special --D-Kuru (talk) 22:27, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose nothing FP worthy, sorry. Lycaon (talk) 00:03, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose I have no use for this and like Spiderman a lot more --Richard Bartz (talk) 14:16, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Georgez (talk) 14:50, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
result: 0 support, 4 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of the 5th day). Benh (talk) 21:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Image:Gustave Doré - Dante Alighieri - Inferno - Plate 9 (Canto III - Charon).jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 27 Nov 2008 at 23:27:17
- Info created by Gustave Doré - uploaded and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:27, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
- Info Charon, in Gustave Doré's illustrations for Dante's Divine Comedy.
- Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:27, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Doesn't get my wow. Diti (talk to the penguin) 06:22, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support. Has substantial wow factor when you consider the skill of the artist and the high technical quality of the scan. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:26, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support ... as well as the dramatic composition. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:47, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 14:47, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support – Tseno Maximov (talk) 16:32, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose As Diti. --Karelj (talk) 17:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Twdragon (talk) 18:07, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Econt (talk) 18:16, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- Withdraw I just discovered the edition I used just didn't care, and cropped the images. I can't in good conscience nominate a cropped image. Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Withdrawn, not featured. Benh (talk) 21:45, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Image:60163 Tornado cylinder rod.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 28 Nov 2008 at 22:17:50
- Info created, uploaded and nominated by -- Ultra7 (talk) 22:17, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Ultra7 (talk) 22:17, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Too much inputs at one photo. --Jagro (talk) 23:20, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Chaotic. --Karelj (talk) 17:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Lens distortion --Twdragon (talk) 18:05, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Ultra7 (talk) 19:07, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Withdrawn, not featured. Benh (talk) 21:45, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Image:Fortress at Veliko Tarnovo.JPG, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 29 Nov 2008 at 13:00:45
- Tseno Maximov (talk) 17:14, 20 November 2008 (UTC) Info created by Psy guy - uploaded by Psy guy - nominated by Tseno Maximov
- Support -- Tseno Maximov (talk) 13:00, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose The whole image is too much gray. --Jagro (talk) 14:55, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Oppose I realise that I am operating as an IP, and I don't normally venture my opinion on these things, but if I remember correctly, an FP should be more than 2MP. This is less than 800KB. The resolution is average, and the subject (at least as this picture portrays it) is uninspiring. Possible FPX? 202.12.233.23 15:13, 20 November 2008 (UTC)Please login to vote. --Mr. Mario (talk) 15:19, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: it is too gray. --Mr. Mario (talk) 15:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC) | Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed. |
FPX uncontested, not featured. Benh (talk) 21:45, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Image:Mantis Hymenopus coronatus 7 Luc Viatour.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 21 Nov 2008 at 12:36:14
- Info created by Luc Viatour (talk) - uploaded by Luc Viatour (talk) - nominated by -- Luc Viatour (talk) 12:36, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Luc Viatour (talk) 12:36, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support Very nice. --Lošmi (talk) 14:30, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support Excellent. ■ MMXXtalk 15:34, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support Lviatour was faster than me in nominatiing this image --D-Kuru (talk) 17:46, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support Tres bien!!! --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 19:26, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry Luc, but the DOF is really to shallow here, especially on the head. Lycaon (talk) 19:32, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose -- as mentioned Manuel R. (talk) 17:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Awesome colors but I have to agree with Lycaon, especially on a subject between 3-6cm. --Richard Bartz (talk) 16:03, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral I am not a macro photographer but I think for a "porttrait" is the DOF sufficient. The composition doesn't convince me 100% ...still a very nice shot. --AngMoKio (talk) 07:37, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose No WOW --Twdragon (talk) 18:09, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Support My favorite ! --Jibi44 (talk) 21:44, 21 November 2008 (UTC)vote closed
result: 5 support, 4 opposes, 1 neutral => not featured. Lycaon (talk) 08:24, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Image:Napoleon Sarony - Oscar Wilde.JPG, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 19 Nov 2008 at 18:00 (UTC)
- Info created by Napoleon Sarony - uploaded and nominated by Paris 16 (talk) 17:39, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Paris 16 (talk) 23:04, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Lošmi (talk) 02:36, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
- OpposeToo much contrast: Half of the face is overexposed. - Till (talk) 11:48, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support strong portrait with the technique of 1882 --Mbdortmund (talk) 16:51, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - Being old and historical is not enough to be featured. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 02:20, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support Quality historical photo is good enough for me. How do you turn this on (talk) 11:55, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose This is really known photo, but I don't think such a picture should be a featured picture. Commons should rely on things that are good just because these are proved by good quality, not knowledge. And I think this one is the second case, so I cant vote for support. --Aktron (talk) 22:47, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
result: 4 support, 3 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured. Lycaon (talk) 08:24, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Image:Ross Bridge.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 22 Nov 2008 at 00:29:28
- Info created by Noodle snacks - uploaded by Noodle snacks - nominated by User:Noodle snacks -- Noodle snacks (talk) 00:29, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Noodle snacks (talk) 00:29, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Oversaturated and unrealistic air. Blue left, grey middle, white right??? Not my cup of tea. Lycaon (talk) 00:37, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- I've seen worse pictures becoming fp. Manuel R. (talk) 18:08, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support a very powerful picture ; the sky is stunning indeed. The slightly harsh contrast and oversaturated details would have killed another picture, they just add to the strength of this one and make the bridge and church stand out even more. --JY Rehby (talk) 01:45, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support like Rehby --Mbdortmund (talk) 16:50, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support Nice colors and composition. --Aktron (talk) 18:57, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support Nice work, beautiful sky. -- TheWB (talk) 20:41, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support Another great Noodle snacks photo - excellent work! How do you turn this on (talk) 11:54, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support I must agree with Lycaon, the sky is a little bit strange but I am really attracted to this image and I like the details. ■ MMXXtalk 14:49, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support - Yes, it looks unreal. So what? Photography is (also) an art. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:11, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I didn't say that the sky is problem, I also believe that photography is an art and art is not like a cement block, inflexible, thats why I supported this image. ■ MMXXtalk 05:41, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- Info In the interests of full disclosure a small level correction has been performed since the nomination started Noodle snacks (talk) 22:59, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- Isn't tilted? --Beyond silence 23:28, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- I think it was by like a degree or so, have a look at the image revisions, the change is only very minor. Noodle snacks (talk) 23:43, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- I think you did well to correct this. I had the intimate feeling it was tilted ; i finally convinced myself that it was not, that it was an effect of perspective. Now it looks (even !) much better. --JY Rehby (talk) 23:18, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- I think it was by like a degree or so, have a look at the image revisions, the change is only very minor. Noodle snacks (talk) 23:43, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support How to turn an ordinary subject into an incredible picture ! You have the touch for sure. Benh (talk) 11:50, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Richard Bartz (talk) 15:24, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support--CPacker (talk) 19:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose As lycaon --Pom² (talk) 23:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose As above + not pleasant dimensions of photo (ratio of x and y). --Karelj (talk) 15:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support Georgez (talk) 14:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support – Tseno Maximov (talk) 16:37, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Böhringer (talk) 12:28, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Simonizer (talk) 21:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
result: 16 support, 3 opposes, 0 neutral => featured. Lycaon (talk) 08:26, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Image:San Francisco Cable Car MC.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 22 Nov 2008 at 20:39:53
- Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Chmehl -- Chmehl (talk) 20:39, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
- Info A Cable Car of the Powell-Hyde line in San Francisco, in the background you can see Alcatraz.
- Support -- Chmehl (talk) 20:39, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support This is an excellent picture! It has the potential to become a classic. --Specious (talk) 23:54, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support, good composition, good use of the background, sharpness, contrast and vivid colors make this picture a very valuable candidate. --JY Rehby (talk) 01:37, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support Good quality picture!!! --Mr. Mario (talk) 05:15, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Aqwis (talk) 08:04, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - Sorry to go against the flood, but I don't see anything exceptional either than the good composition and technical quality. Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:50, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 11:16, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral Nice image, but per Alvesgaspar. How do you turn this on (talk) 11:17, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose I don' think the composition is interesting. Different angle (much closer to the ground) may be, but this is not. --Aktron (talk) 18:54, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- TheWB (talk) 20:40, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose As previous opposers. /Daniel78 (talk) 22:59, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Tech quality,yes - motivic ? Looks like a tourist snapshot. --Richard Bartz (talk)
- Support --Karelj (talk) 22:40, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose per Alvesgaspar. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:31, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Georgez (talk) 14:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose – Tseno Maximov (talk) 16:37, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
result: 8 support, 7 opposes, 1 neutral => not featured. Lycaon (talk) 08:27, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Image:Doorknob buddhist temple amk.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 23 Nov 2008 at 07:48:53
- Info created, uploaded and nominated by AngMoKio -- AngMoKio (talk) 07:48, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
- Info Doorknob at the buddhist temple Lian Shan Shuang Lin in Singapore. --AngMoKio (talk) 07:48, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- AngMoKio (talk) 07:48, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Composition is confusing. I'd support your detailed crop though, as the wow is certainly there. Lycaon (talk) 08:21, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Lycaon.--Massimo Catarinella (talk) 11:17, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Lycaon is right --Mbdortmund (talk) 16:48, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support I like this composition. Open door with the background of stone fence with similar shape as motif on the doorknob. --Lošmi (talk) 22:00, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - Please separate the nominations, this not WP:FPC. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 02:17, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Ah I wish I could go back to Singapore :) A very good quality image, but the background doesn't add any context to the picture in my opinion (As I guess it was meant to). I prefer the cropped version (but I'm not sure I would support it as FP). Benh (talk) 10:06, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Don't like the background. How do you turn this on (talk) 11:51, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Composition. --Podzemnik (talk) 15:57, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 6 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured. Lycaon (talk) 08:28, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 23 Nov 2008 at 08:48:48
This is another test of the proposed featured sound process. Things promoted under these will be considered provisional featured sounds, and will get a cursory review when the process goes fully live. Adam Cuerden (talk) 08:48, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
- Info created by and uploaded by Richard Ling - nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 08:48, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 08:48, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - I'm sorry to spoil the party but it appears to me that the project of including sounds and videos in the FPC forum is far from getting an adequate consensus. Starting with test nominations and altering the Assessments template in order to accommodate the new featured species is a bit premature, and might be regarded as a way of pushing the decision. I have voted against the idea but will gladly change my opinion if the operational problems I have raised in the discussion page can be solved (for example, what are the proposed guidelines to evaluate sounds?). Maybe you should start by suggesting those criteria before trying to launch the project. The long and carefull preparation phase of Commons:Valued image candidates is an excellent example for all of us on how things should be done. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:49, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
- I think you'll agree that the Assessments template should, at the least, cover the English Wikipedia Featured sound project. The way it's coded, that pretty much sorts out Commons Featured Sounds as well. As for the proposed guidelines, Commons:Featured sound criteria sets out some basic guidelines, which I think are suitable for the early stages of such an endeavour.
- I don't agree. Your getting paranoid. Nobody is excluding sounds. Only you are trying to force it into every images assessing process. That's different, Adam, that's not excluding. You don't give a Nobel prize of literature on the Academy Awards neither! The assessment template was made for pictures. Please make a new one for sounds. Lycaon (talk) 22:53, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
- Can we try and avoid criticisms of my statements that criticise points I did not make? To repeat: I set it up so we could mark the sounds featured through en:WP:FS, which pretty much automatically requires preparing the commons version at the same time because of the way the template is set up. K Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:16, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- I don't agree. Your getting paranoid. Nobody is excluding sounds. Only you are trying to force it into every images assessing process. That's different, Adam, that's not excluding. You don't give a Nobel prize of literature on the Academy Awards neither! The assessment template was made for pictures. Please make a new one for sounds. Lycaon (talk) 22:53, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
- The talk page discussion has been very poorly attended, but the last test passed with six supports. I don't know what that means, so let's keep testing the waters and see if we can figure it out. =) Valued images had the advantage of tapping into a pre-existing strong community, and offering a new way to serve it. Sounds do not have that advantage, so I don't think we can move forwards in the same way. Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:09, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
- No, the last test did not pass as there were no fixed preset criteria to judge sound files. Lycaon (talk) 22:55, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
- I'm with Lycaon on this, your proposed criteria don't give any useful hint on how to evaluate sounds effectively. I really think you should try to convince us by designing a set of new and improved criteria covering all possible sound files: noises, nature sounds, works of art, pop music... In the meantime, I have reverted your changes to the Assessment template. I still remember how it was forced upon us by User:White Cat and am not willing to repeat the experience. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 02:07, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- I didn't think that marking files promoted by an assessment project on another Wikipedia would be controversial. It's not like the template is called "Picture assessments". Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:43, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- I think you'll agree that the Assessments template should, at the least, cover the English Wikipedia Featured sound project. The way it's coded, that pretty much sorts out Commons Featured Sounds as well. As for the proposed guidelines, Commons:Featured sound criteria sets out some basic guidelines, which I think are suitable for the early stages of such an endeavour.
Look, the featured sound project on English Wikipedia was recently practically destroyed by two people harassing all active contributors there until we all left, after I had spent months building it up, and it was about to be included on the English Wikipedia's mainpage.
Having looked into the growth of featured sounds on en-wiki, and considered the problems involved, the main one was that there was no way to let people know that the project even existed, forcing me to act as a one-man advertising band. I am unwilling to go through that again, and am unwilling to make a new project for which there is no pre-existing community unless we can piggyback onto another project for long enough that that community can develop.
Obviously, once the community develops, and the project is known, we can split off again.
Finally, you criticise Featured sounds for having basic criteria. When featured pictures began on cCommons, it had no criteria [4]. Likewise, these are the earliest criteria for the english Wikipedia project (It too went without real standards for a time): [5] Strong, stringent criteria are a sign of a mature project. Featured sounds is a completely new field for commons to go into, we can presume that standards will develop, just like they did for Featured pictures.
Valued images is no real guide here: Valued images was a project set up to service a mature community. featured sound still needs to build that community.
Look, I can understand you being worried about adding sounds to existing projects, but communications on Commons are very poor. While Valued Images only needs a small fraction of a pre-existing community to know it exists, audio will need to build that community frm scratch, and I don't think we can effectively do that, short of us being given a page banner. If it's allowed to piggyback on places where people visit, however, we can develop a community, then split that community off once it matures a little.
There is one other way, but if I'm going to get yelled at horribly simply for making the tiny tweaks necessary for Assessments to have the possibility of dealing ith featured sounds, revitalising MOTD - which, by necessity, would require calling on the translation sevrvices of POTD - is something I'm not going anywhere near. Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:36, 15 November 2008 (UTC) I simply don't see any other way to effectively create a project relating to sounds. Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:27, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 0 opposes, 0 neutral => test not passed (rule of the 5th day). Lycaon (talk) 08:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Image:Redwindow.jpg, not featured
[edit]- Info created by Adrille - uploaded by Adrille - nominated by Adrille --Adrille (talk) 16:36, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Adrille (talk) 16:36, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - If you are new to FPC, please take some time to observe the current nominations and to read the guidelines carefully before nominating yorself. Here we aim to select the best of the best images in Commons and the evaluations are usually quite demanding both in the artistisc and technical sides. Casual photographs (snapshots), like the one you are nominating, have little chances of success unless they show any rare or extratordinary event. A better way to start is through Commons:Photography critiques and Commons:Quality images candidates -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, the composition is poor and the subject uninteresting -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support Wow! The composition looks simple, but it is impressive. Crapload (talk) 00:30, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- Is that so, Crapload? Maybe I'm not looking at it the right way? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 02:15, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose, nothing special. --Aqwis (talk) 11:00, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose As above, not particularly interesting or awesome. How do you turn this on (talk) 11:49, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Can't make a relationship although i have a favour 4 minimalism. This here is brutaly to kept in perspective. Maybe next time a interesting reflection in the window or a nice play with the angles would help to spice it up --Richard Bartz (talk) 15:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- Info This photo have been taken in a phantom village called Bodie in the Sierra Nevada, California. This is very minimalist but full of emotions when we now the story of this city, left by its inhabitants because of a fire which have finally burnt only a part of the city. The mine is still there, and all the inside of the houses too. Adrille (talk) 18:45, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for the additional info, maybe you can put it in the image description. Despite your informations its hard to establish a connection. --Richard Bartz (talk)
- Info This photo have been taken in a phantom village called Bodie in the Sierra Nevada, California. This is very minimalist but full of emotions when we now the story of this city, left by its inhabitants because of a fire which have finally burnt only a part of the city. The mine is still there, and all the inside of the houses too. Adrille (talk) 18:45, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 4 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured. Lycaon (talk) 08:32, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Image:Biological and technological scales compared-en.svg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 28 Nov 2008 at 01:08:00
- Info created by Guillaume Paumier, Philip Ronan, NIH, Artur Jan Fijałkowski, Jerome Walker, Michael David Jones, Tyler Heal, Mariana Ruiz, Science Primer (National Center for Biotechnology Information), Liquid_2003, Arne Nordmann & The Tango! Desktop Project - uploaded by Guillom - nominated by Mdd -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 01:08, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 01:08, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose It is a bit of a mishmash of drawing techniques, but what is worse, there are also spelling mistakes! (e.g. crystalline). Lycaon (talk) 10:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Techniques used for representation are very different. Some very complex and very simple. I do not think that is the best way to represent --libertad0 ॐ (talk) 16:20, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose I don't know what is meant by the illustration that says that "electromechanical ... microsystems" are between 2 and 40 micrometres. The text is very unclear. What systems are being referred to? --MichaelMaggs (talk) 23:13, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 3 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of the 5th day). Lycaon (talk) 08:22, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Image:Inachis io LC0131.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 28 Nov 2008 at 16:27:57
- Info European Peacock, created, uploaded and nominated by -- LC-de (talk) 16:27, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- LC-de (talk) 16:27, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Great quality and detail, but the background is distracting - the contrast is high. Maybe different composition with much further background elements would make it better. --Aktron (talk) 15:19, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of the 5th day). Benh (talk) 20:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Image:Bouguereau-Linnocence.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 30 Nov 2008 at 18:44:16
- Info created by William-Adolphe Bouguereau - uploaded by Stevertigo - nominated by Tseno Maximov
- Support – Tseno Maximov (talk) 18:44, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: it is too small | Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed. |
. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:13, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
FPX uncontested. Not featured. Benh (talk) 20:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Image:Elizabeth I Rainbow Portrait.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 1 Dec 2008 at 17:19:21
- Info created by Unknown, possibly Marcus Gheeraerts the Younger - uploaded by Yann - nominated by Tseno Maximov
- Support – Tseno Maximov (talk) 17:19, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: the image is badly cropped. | Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed. |
Lycaon (talk) 17:48, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
FPX uncontested. Not featured. Benh (talk) 20:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Image:Ngorongoro Crater.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 24 Nov 2008 at 10:16:55
- Info created by William Warby - uploaded by Petronas - nominated by Mmxx -- ■ MMXXtalk 10:16, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- ■ MMXXtalk 10:16, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support Quite fine. --Aktron (talk) 21:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support--CPacker (talk) 19:54, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose I do not like this composition. --Karelj (talk) 22:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Composition Benh (talk) 22:12, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
result: 3 supports, 2 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured. Benh (talk) 20:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Image:Picea Pungens Young Cones.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 24 Nov 2008 at 11:22:57
- Info created by Noodle snacks - uploaded by Noodle snacks - nominated by Noodle snacks -- Noodle snacks (talk) 11:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Noodle snacks (talk) 11:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
OpposeNeutral Changed my mind. Lycaon (talk) 10:22, 21 November 2008 (UTC) Downsampling. Lycaon (talk) 12:41, 15 November 2008 (UTC)- Oppose Sorry, bells aren't ringing. --Richard Bartz (talk)
- Neutral - Bells are ringing to me but I see no justification for the small size -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:42, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support I like it. /Daniel78 (talk) 22:29, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Predominant flash/umbrella lighting, and casual subject to me. I prefer the natural look lighting seen on Richard Bartz's pictures - Benh (talk) 11:48, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- In this case with the backlighting there was simply too much contrast to get away with all natural light. Noodle snacks (talk) 12:06, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- Understand, but sometimes it isn't possible to take a picture at all cost, even if the subject is quiet interesting. --Richard Bartz (talk)
- In this case with the backlighting there was simply too much contrast to get away with all natural light. Noodle snacks (talk) 12:06, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Avala (talk) 16:01, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
SupportNeutral I think this is well exposed, well lit, and very aesthetic. --Dschwen (talk) 16:06, 24 November 2008 (UTC). But alves is right about the unnecessarily small size. --Dschwen (talk) 16:09, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
result: 3 supports, 2 opposes, 2 neutral => not featured. Benh (talk) 20:32, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Image:Port Arthur Panorama.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 24 Nov 2008 at 11:24:20
- Info created by Noodle snacks - uploaded by Noodle snacks - nominated by Noodle snacks -- Noodle snacks (talk) 11:24, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Noodle snacks (talk) 11:24, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- Info There are some brighter images around of this site, but this one is more realistically exposed. Noodle snacks (talk) 11:24, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support ■ MMXXtalk 14:41, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Very good quality and nice colours for sure, but not very interesting place/composition (at least, not enough for FP to me). This time the sky doesn't save you... By the way, many stitch errors left. Why using so many images to end with so "many" stitching errors ? Benh (talk) 11:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- Where are the stitching error(s)? or is this sarcasm Noodle snacks (talk) 12:05, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- No sarcasm at all. But I quoted "many" because there aren't that many actually. The ones I saw are mainly on the water and on the right side, where you seem to have a blurred picture. Benh (talk) 12:22, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- Haha, you had me searching high and low. The right side in the trees is due to the wind I think, it is like that in each individual frame. Borders on the water are probably exagurated due to the wind. The number of frames was so high since I used a telephoto (145mm) in portrait orientiation, which does allow huge resolution but you need enough shots. Noodle snacks (talk) 12:25, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry to had you peeping ! I'm very picky when it comes to finding stitching errors. I forget this picture is 10000 pixels wide, which is probably worth the effort. Let me a few days, and I may be reconsidering my vote (at lest to a neutral). Benh (talk) 12:34, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- Haha, you had me searching high and low. The right side in the trees is due to the wind I think, it is like that in each individual frame. Borders on the water are probably exagurated due to the wind. The number of frames was so high since I used a telephoto (145mm) in portrait orientiation, which does allow huge resolution but you need enough shots. Noodle snacks (talk) 12:25, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- No sarcasm at all. But I quoted "many" because there aren't that many actually. The ones I saw are mainly on the water and on the right side, where you seem to have a blurred picture. Benh (talk) 12:22, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- Where are the stitching error(s)? or is this sarcasm Noodle snacks (talk) 12:05, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support /Daniel78 (talk) 13:54, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral Very nice. I assume it was a lot of work to realize this pano. It's a pity that the vertical display detail is 2 tight. A little bit more hills in the background or a slice of the sky would give this nice pano more depht and let the little house on the left more space 2 breath. Maybe a slight change with the crop helps to balance it better --Richard Bartz (talk) 15:52, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose I do not like images with such exotic ratio of dimensions. --Karelj (talk) 22:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support — not perfect, but more than good enough. --Kjetil_r 20:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support Georgez (talk) 14:56, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose – Tseno Maximov (talk) 18:47, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Missing wow. Lycaon (talk) 12:21, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral. Good quality and the format fits the content. A sure QI, but the image does not transcend a mere documentary level (i.e. no wow ;-) ). --Dschwen (talk) 01:11, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
- wow should be renamed ASQIBTIDNTAMDL, it would be so much clearer :D Noodle snacks (talk) 04:09, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
- SupportJukoFF (talk) 05:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
result: 6 supports, 4 opposes, 2 neutrals => not featured. Benh (talk) 20:32, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 24 Nov 2008 at 19:23:25
- Info created by Johannes Vermeer - nominated by Laitche -- Laitche (talk) 19:23, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Laitche (talk) 19:23, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 19:57, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Econt (talk) 21:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support Not a fan of such nominations, but this one is quie fine. --Aktron (talk) 21:29, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support Though I love to have had a larger resolution... Lycaon (talk) 00:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- The painting is rather small. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 20:14, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- So are hoverflies ;-)). Lycaon (talk) 07:10, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
- The painting is rather small. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 20:14, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Luc Viatour (talk) 08:14, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Paris 16 (talk) 16:48, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- Question There are several versions with different colour schemes. Which one to favor ? For instance, This one found on the Internet has much more yellow. Benh (talk) 22:54, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
- I've seen the painting with my own eyes, the current color scheme is the right one. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 22:01, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support--Böhringer (talk) 12:27, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Kanonkas(talk) 19:35, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
result: 9 supports, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Benh (talk) 22:17, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Image:Machinery.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 24 Nov 2008 at 18:47:33
- Info created by Masato OHTA - uploaded by Flickr upload bot - nominated by Lošmi -- Lošmi (talk) 18:47, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support The image is little noisy, but it has strong amount of wow. -- Lošmi (talk) 18:47, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose It is wow indeed, however it is not realistic... such a picture I'd expect in some really good animated movie. --Aktron (talk) 22:43, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support Fantastic. I love it. --norro 23:10, 15 November 2008 (UTC) Note: Featured pictures does not necessarily have to have high encyclopaedic value.
- Oppose Overdone, noisy, ghost images due to bad alignement in HDR process --LC-de (talk) 00:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - As above, a poor processing job. Alvesgaspar (talk) 01:20, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - Technically 'orrible. Poor HDR alignment has added lots of colour noise and ghosting - Peripitus (talk) 08:25, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose I like this picture somehow but the technical flaws weakens it --Richard Bartz (talk)
- Oppose --Avala (talk) 16:01, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Per previous statements. Diti (talk to the penguin) 21:26, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - so much for HDR. --Laveol (talk) 23:44, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
result: 2 supports, 8 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured. Benh (talk) 20:33, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 26 Nov 2008 at 00:14:22
- Info Pectinaria koreni created, uploaded & nominated by Lycaon (talk) 00:14, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Lycaon (talk) 00:14, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Flat lighting, blown highlights as the light source isn't soft enough and the black background contrasts poorly with the top of the bottom specimen. THe bottom subject also seems marginally out of focus. Noodle snacks (talk) 01:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Interesting camping worm :-)) First impression is
lovelypretty but the highlights are 2 harsh and causing OE ... umhhhh yes, it's difficult to take pictures on wet or reflective animals - focus could be more crisp --Richard Bartz (talk) 14:04, 17 November 2008 (UTC) - QuestionThe image description indicates that the worm is from in "the Southern North Sea". The Google Earth shows the sea as the location of the image. Was it taken underwater or it is another sampled animal? I am asking because in this delisting nomination Commons:Featured picture candidates/removal/Image:Phyllodoce lineata.jpg user Mr. Mario said "keep" for the reason "Good for underwater pictures." , and you never corrected him. Ever since I was wondering if all those animals were really taken underwater or under Formaldehyde? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:47, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- The geolocation indicates the spot where the animal was sampled, and in this case just about where it was photographed on board. But as you can probably see from the unfortunate highlights, this picture was not taken submersed. The other picture you mentioned is a different case as it is a microphotograph, taken with a dedicated camera mounted on a stereo microscope. There the animal was submerged in water (formaldehyde is only used for fixation, not for storage. For the latter we use denaturated ethanol). That shot was made in the lab. Lycaon (talk) 15:12, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you. As a matter of fact I like the image. I really believe it is good enough and rare enough to be FP. Too bad I do not vote any more.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support - Plenty of mitigating reasons for the technical flaws, including the high enc value and the beauty of the shell. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:54, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- IMO these aren't mitigating reasons for a shot in a controlled studio environment with a dead subject. Pictures taken in the wild etc are much more difficult too achieve good lighting and technical perfection and in that case then the support would be reasonableNoodle snacks (talk) 03:08, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Aqwis (talk) 22:03, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support /Daniel78 (talk) 23:48, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Technically good image, but no WOW for me. --Karelj (talk) 22:51, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support Uncommon and impressive picture (obvious wow factor for me). Quality looks good to me, but I'm not a specialist. Good candidate for the next Alien movie. --Eusebius (talk) 10:02, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support--Böhringer (talk) 12:26, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support --MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:16, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose No wow for me. Flying Freddy (talk) 13:09, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support Great picture!!! --Mr. Mario (talk) 15:15, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
result: 8 supports, 4 opposes, 0 neutral => featured. Benh (talk) 22:19, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Image:Confederate 100 Dollars.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 26 Nov 2008 at 04:37:41
- Info created by Swtpc6800 - uploaded by Swtpc6800 - nominated by Swtpc6800 -- Swtpc6800 (talk) 04:37, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Swtpc6800 (talk) 04:37, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Twdragon (talk) 17:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Great detail and resolution, but I strongly dislike the background. It should be completely white without dirt on it. I will change to support if you deal with this. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 17:06, 18 November 2008 (UTC)Support It's good now. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 15:42, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with you on the background. I have cleaned it up on my TIFF master and uploaded a new JPG. I still have access to the bill and can re-scan it if necessary. Swtpc6800 (talk) 02:15, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Good image of old banknote, but why for FP? --Karelj (talk) 22:54, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
- During the campaign, President-elect Obama made the point that "he doesn't look like all those other presidents on those dollar bills." This banknote reminds us of a time when blacks were on the currency. Swtpc6800 (talk) 02:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support because what else will Wikimedia projects use to illustrate Confederate banknotes? I do agree the background should be cropped, but what is it with Commons. Someone takes the best picture that anyone is likely to ever see of a major type of historic document, and half of FPC sits around complaining about them daring to suggest that we feature something that's only a crucial part of the historic record. Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:13, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Adam, it is not because an image does not achieve FP status (or whatever other reward for that matter) that it becomes unusable for illustration of an article. If people don't like it on the front page, then so be it! Some don't like naked worms, others don't like old banknotes and some even neither. Well, there is nothing that you or I or anybody else can do about it. De gustibus coloribusque ...Lycaon (talk) 14:00, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support--Avala (talk) 00:03, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support Rare and historical. --Mr. Mario (talk) 00:04, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
- Weak support - I'd full support, but I feel like the white space is too big. diego_pmc (talk) 07:48, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
- I reduced the white space. These banknotes are not rectangular; the sheets were often cut with a hand sheer or scissors. - Swtpc6800 (talk) 03:09, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support Why not? Just a banknote, but great resolution. --Aktron (talk) 15:23, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Paris 16 (talk) 00:49, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
result: 9 supports, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Benh (talk) 22:20, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Image:Power press animation.gif, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 26 Nov 2008 at 08:04:13
- Info created by www.osha.gov - uploaded by Archenzo - nominated by Twdragon -- Twdragon (talk) 08:04, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Twdragon (talk) 08:04, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - Poor image quality and too small size -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:13, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Not really snazzy --Richard Bartz (talk) 14:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Because of quality (letting size out), doesn't deserve the FP status. Diti (talk to the penguin) 18:35, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Aqwis (talk) 22:03, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Per above. Also, the way I decide if animations are important enough to be a FP is if the image could be just as understood if it wasn't an animation. In this case, the animation serves no purpose. Pbroks13 (talk) 00:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Bad image quality. --Mr. Mario (talk) 00:02, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose It's too small. But I like the animation, it really gives a heavy feel. /Daniel78 (talk) 19:17, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
result: 2 supports, 6 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured. Benh (talk) 22:21, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 26 Nov 2008 at 21:56:38
- Info created by Evlahos - uploaded by Evlahos - nominated by Multichill -- Multichill (talk) 21:56, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Multichill (talk) 21:56, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support it's just so damn pretty -- Duesentrieb ⇌ 22:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose, heavily compressed. --Aqwis (talk) 22:02, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Visible compression after a lossless GEGL modification in GIMP. Diti (talk to the penguin) 22:25, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose after swapping RGB channels and applying strong JPEG compression in GIMP, there are visible JPEG artifacts and colors are completely off (on a more serious note, this image has no detail in low-contrast areas, probably due to excessive amount of noise reduction) --che 03:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose strongly. I'll rely on my neighbours over there for the technical stuff ; to me it looks like the saturation is way too high, and the picture has been heavily post-processed, giving it a thick, oily look and feel. --JY Rehby (talk) 06:10, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose per other opposes --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 17:04, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support - MartinD (talk) 14:28, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- SupportJukoFF (talk) 05:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose The colors are quite psychedelic for me. --Aktron (talk) 15:22, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Image:Cheb Písečná brána.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 2 Dec 2008 at 22:34:20
- Info created by Karelj - uploaded by Karelj - nominated by Karelj -- Karelj (talk) 22:34, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Karelj (talk) 22:34, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Unnecessarily downsampling. Lycaon (talk) 23:00, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose. Bland subject, boring composition. Too much water. And ack. Lycaon. --Dschwen (talk) 01:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral Good quality, yet composition is lacking something - there is too much water indeed, the gate should be centered. Change it so and I will vote za. --Aktron (talk) 15:09, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose to Dschwen.--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 15:36, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Martin Kozák (talk) 16:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC) — Good composition isn't defined by “catch it in whole” and composition rules cannot be apply mechanically. Strange cold colors for me similar to uncorrected RAW. (But it's maybe a subjective criterion.) Obvious optical defects on contrast edges (probably because of a big range lens).
- Oppose Composition --Richard Bartz (talk) 17:25, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
- --Karelj (talk) 22:01, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Withdrawn, not featured. Benh (talk) 22:23, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Image:60163 Tornado connecting rods.jpg, Not Featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 28 Nov 2008 at 22:20:45
- Info created, uploaded and nominated by -- Ultra7 (talk) 22:20, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Ultra7 (talk) 22:20, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support Nice detail. --Jagro (talk) 23:22, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 01:04, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Technically nice image, but for FP? It is just part of railway wheel, isn´t it? --Karelj (talk) 17:45, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- It has a pretty special backstory, see the description. Ultra7 (talk) 19:06, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support Technically illustrative --Twdragon (talk) 18:04, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support Technically very good ; for FP, yes for sure, since there aren't that many technical pictures in there. --JY Rehby (talk) 02:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose I don't like the composition. It looks too much like a casual shot to me. Benh (talk) 22:10, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- OpposePer above, you should have a very nice background with picture like these. This isn't the case here. It doesn't amplify the subject. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 01:25, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
- Its meant as a detail shot, if it had a background it would be a completely different shot, of a wheel or a locomotive. Personally, I think if I had nominated Image:60163 Tornado wheel.JPG people would rightly oppose, as it shows nothing but a wheel with no discernable quality other than showing a wheel. (A very significant wheel, but as above, this is maybe not enough to have it qualify as a significant picture). Ultra7 (talk) 17:05, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
- If you take a look at the FP gallery, you will find a picture of a bench grinder by user Noodle Snacks. If you look at the background of that detailed shot, you will know what I mean. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 23:39, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
- If you mean this Image:Bench Grinder Brush 1.jpg, then I have to say I am none the wiser. Do you mean alter it to blur the wheel spokes? Ultra7 (talk) 00:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
- If you take a look at the FP gallery, you will find a picture of a bench grinder by user Noodle Snacks. If you look at the background of that detailed shot, you will know what I mean. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 23:39, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
- Its meant as a detail shot, if it had a background it would be a completely different shot, of a wheel or a locomotive. Personally, I think if I had nominated Image:60163 Tornado wheel.JPG people would rightly oppose, as it shows nothing but a wheel with no discernable quality other than showing a wheel. (A very significant wheel, but as above, this is maybe not enough to have it qualify as a significant picture). Ultra7 (talk) 17:05, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 18:02, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose composition. Lycaon (talk) 08:14, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
result: 6 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 12:37, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Image:Václav Havel.jpg, Not Featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 28 Nov 2008 at 21:58:16
- Info created, uploaded and nominated by Martin Kozák -- Martin Kozák (talk) 21:58, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Martin Kozák (talk) 21:58, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Georgez (talk) 14:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Composition, parts of face missing, especially part if chin. --Karelj (talk) 17:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Oh, i get it, it's not a picture of his features, it's a featured picture... Well, seriously, i don't think it makes the cut. --JY Rehby (talk) 03:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support Done quite well. Colors fit, important places are sharp, I have to support. --Aktron (talk) 15:16, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support That's a good portrait included composition and cropping (we have one chin, we don't need the second). Having such portraits, with expressions suiting to the character, is a featurable chance for Commons. --B.navez (talk) 03:44, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support Lycaon (talk) 17:04, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Support Agree with B.navez, this is an excellent portrait. --Specious (talk) 23:11, 28 November 2008 (UTC)Support --Lošmi (talk) 01:42, 29 November 2008 (UTC)vote closed
result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 12:36, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Image:Fagus sylvatica JPG2a.jpg, Not Featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 28 Nov 2008 at 20:19:53
- Info created by Jean-Pol GRANDMONT - uploaded by Jean-Pol GRANDMONT - nominated by Tseno Maximov
- Support – Tseno Maximov (talk) 20:19, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support Not bad. --Karelj (talk) 17:36, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Not bad, but also not so illustrative for FI --Twdragon (talk) 18:06, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral Not bad, but not astounding either. Maybe the highlights are just a bit too present ; maybe the sharpness is just a bit too low... --JY Rehby (talk) 03:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support good composition and illustration for autumn. --Herrick (talk) 15:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Avala (talk) 00:02, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Nice try, but this is not a FP I'm looking at. The quality isn't very good. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 01:26, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Good, but missing something, maybe light or the car on the right --Pom² (talk) 09:07, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral Great composition, great subject, but I'd like to see the lights (logs) much less blue. Or is it just my problem with my screen? --Aktron (talk) 15:18, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support I had similar inspiration lately, but I didn't managed to get it so well. I support despite some annoying leaves. Benh (talk) 20:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose as Massimo Catarinella. — Lycaon (talk) 17:05, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose The light does not seem optimal to me, a bit too harsh on the leaves on the ground. /Daniel78 (talk) 21:12, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support - Man On Mission (talk) 09:12, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
result: 6 support, 5 oppose, 2 neutral => not featured. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 12:34, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Image:Mantis Hymenopus coronatus 4 Luc Viatour.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 28 Nov 2008 at 07:22:34
- Info created by Luc Viatour (talk) - uploaded by Luc Viatour (talk) - nominated by -- Luc Viatour (talk) 07:22, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support New proposal more DOF -- Luc Viatour (talk) 07:22, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose I prefer the other shot of the mantis as in this photo the crop is really too tight for me. Sorry... --AngMoKio (talk) 07:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support Beautiful --Twdragon (talk) 18:06, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Böhringer (talk) 12:34, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Crop --Richard Bartz (talk) 12:11, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Pom² (talk) 17:42, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Image:Utah State Route 12 MC.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 27 Nov 2008 at 21:47:08
- Info created by Chmehl - uploaded by Chmehl - nominated by diego_pmc -- diego_pmc (talk) 21:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- diego_pmc (talk) 21:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support Beautiful photo, the sky is a bit dark but it doesn't matter. Diti (talk to the penguin) 22:10, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support Simply a good picture, without much to nitpick on --JY Rehby (talk) 22:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Aqwis (talk) 22:31, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support Thanks for nominating, btw the dark sky is a side effect of the polarization filter which makes also the contrast of the clouds stronger. --Chmehl (talk) 22:31, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Beautiful weather, place, and sky but I don't feel like I'd hang up this picture in my room... Maybe the composition isn't appealing to me. sorry. Benh (talk) 22:43, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose As Benh. --Karelj (talk) 22:58, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Composition --Richard Bartz (talk) 23:28, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Composition. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:27, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support Great photo. --Kosiarz-PL 15:29, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support I like it, even the composition --LC-de (talk) 16:30, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support I like the radius effect. :)) --Manco Capac (talk) 21:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support It looks very vell. --Jagro (talk) 23:13, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Composition -- Lycaon (talk) 13:43, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Georgez (talk) 14:31, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Benh --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 14:46, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose – Tseno Maximov (talk) 16:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support /Daniel78 (talk) 19:14, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support Beautiful! --Specious (talk) 09:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support Born to be Wild! Yeah, it has a bit bluish hue, but the composition is really good and generally the picture is well taken. --Aktron (talk) 15:20, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support ■ MMXXtalk 05:18, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
result: 13 support, 8 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Pom² (talk) 17:40, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Image:Cambronne - buste.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 27 Nov 2008 at 15:34:44
- Info created by Eusebius - uploaded by Eusebius - nominated by Eusebius -- Eusebius (talk) 15:34, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Eusebius (talk) 15:34, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose CA (large bands of magenta around the statue) --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 17:03, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral Despite chromatic aberration, the photo is quite clear and gives a nice look of the statue. Diti (talk to the penguin) 19:58, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support weakly ; no tremendous "wow" factor ; otoh, a large, sharp, well lit, well framed, well backgrounded (is that a verb ?) picture of this statue. And chromatic aberration doesn't ruin it, imho. --JY Rehby (talk) 22:35, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose I haven't look closely, but I don't like the low point of view. IMO it should have been taken from farther with longer focal (to achieve same framing from higher point of view). Benh (talk) 22:45, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Georgez (talk) 14:44, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose – Tseno Maximov (talk) 16:34, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support Albertus teolog (talk) 20:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support Just a statue, but well taken. --Aktron (talk) 15:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Pom² (talk) 17:38, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Image:Dynamite-5.svg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 27 Nov 2008 at 02:14:16
- Info created by Pbroks13 - uploaded by Pbroks13 - nominated by Pbroks13 -- Pbroks13 (talk) 02:14, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Pbroks13 (talk) 02:14, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- diego_pmc (talk) 21:53, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Too simple, very low information value. --Karelj (talk) 15:48, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - A lot more of sophistication is required to reach the present FP bar on this kind of media. Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:50, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Georgez (talk) 14:34, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose – Tseno Maximov (talk) 16:34, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose as Alvesgaspar. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 23:02, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose The front end of the dynamite cylinder is done really bad :-( Well I wouldn't do it much better, however, FP nomination needs much more quality. --Aktron (talk) 20:21, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Pom² (talk) 17:35, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 29 Nov 2008 at 22:26:21
- Info taken by AlexanderKlink (cropped by Lycaon) - uploaded by Lycaon - nominated by D-Kuru -- D-Kuru (talk) 22:26, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support It's very hard to switch to something different if you had a close look at the eye --D-Kuru (talk) 22:26, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- Comment, "switch to something different"? --Aqwis (talk) 22:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- I don't know that phrase in english. In german it's "die Augen abwenden" but I don't think that "the eyes averted"per google translate is much better than my expression ^^ --D-Kuru (talk) 12:42, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support mesmerizing, to say the least. --JY Rehby (talk) 02:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support DOF seems a bit short; perhaps a crop of the eye would be better. Still, a good picture Muhammad 03:53, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support – Tseno Maximov (talk) 09:37, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Böhringer (talk) 12:24, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support Yes, surprisingly eye catching ! Benh (talk) 22:15, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support Touching. --Laveol (talk) 23:45, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support Aye! -- Lycaon (talk) 00:19, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support --MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:15, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support --SvonHalenbach (talk) 11:19, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Richard Bartz (talk) 12:10, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Luc Viatour (talk) 14:14, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support Amazing. --Podzemnik (talk) 15:44, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Lestat (talk) 22:05, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Laitche (talk) 06:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 18:03, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support quite amazing. --Kanonkas(talk) 19:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Martin Kozák (talk) 16:19, 24 November 2008 (UTC) — Good composition, good detail.
- Support I wonder what the record in number of votes for a 100% support image is ? /Daniel78 (talk) 21:14, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
- I seem to remember a 25-plusser somewhere, but I can't recall which one :-(. Lycaon (talk) 23:17, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
- The highest I could find was 24 ... --AlexanderKlink (talk) 10:08, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
- As far as I know, the record holds this one with 26 votes. --Lošmi (talk) 19:59, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
- I found 2 images that have more, this with 30 support, and this with 32. /Daniel78 (talk) 13:28, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
- As far as I know, the record holds this one with 26 votes. --Lošmi (talk) 19:59, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
- The highest I could find was 24 ... --AlexanderKlink (talk) 10:08, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
- I seem to remember a 25-plusser somewhere, but I can't recall which one :-(. Lycaon (talk) 23:17, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support--Wisnia6522 (talk) 09:25, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 22:17, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support --AlexanderKlink (talk) 10:08, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support (so let's beat the record) Matma Rex (talk) 13:14, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Lošmi (talk) 20:00, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
result: 24 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. AlexanderKlink (talk) 23:01, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 30 Nov 2008 at 00:56:04
- Info Created and uploaded by Ragesoss - nominated by Ram-Man 00:56, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support I think this is simple, beautiful, and a little different. As a bonus, it nicely illustrates its Wikipedia article. -- Ram-Man 00:56, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support per previous voter. Lighting and color palette are very expressive. --JY Rehby (talk) 02:32, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support – Tseno Maximov (talk) 09:39, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - I don't like the composition. Was the image rotated? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:28, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- No, it was not rotated.--ragesoss (talk) 20:56, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose I don't think this is FP material. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 01:24, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral Somehow i like it --Richard Bartz (talk) 12:24, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support I like the composition, colors are nice. --Aktron (talk) 15:14, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
- Then why the hell are you opposing? :D diego_pmc (talk) 18:52, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
- Because I have copied bad teplate. You should have noticed on my talk page, I barely found this error. This is first time when I've found I've done such a blunder. --Aktron (talk) 12:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- Then why the hell are you opposing? :D diego_pmc (talk) 18:52, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support - pretty okay I guess. diego_pmc (talk) 18:52, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Composition. --Karelj (talk) 22:04, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Lošmi (talk) 20:46, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Quality is rather ok but it misses the magic to become FP. Lycaon (talk) 17:03, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Composition and backround. --Herrick (talk) 18:49, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
result: 6 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Pom² (talk) 12:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Image:Jovan Kaneo.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 29 Nov 2008 at 13:30:53
- Info created by Vanjagenije - uploaded by Ori~ - nominated by Tseno Maximov
- Support – Tseno Maximov (talk) 13:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support Georgez (talk) 14:26, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Rather flat, and the pink umbrella distracts. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 23:05, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral is it me, or it is even so slightly out of focus ? --JY Rehby (talk) 02:38, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose: not geocoded, {{Information}} is not used, {{Self}} does not mention the author (who is different form the uploader). --Kjetil_r 00:40, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral Yeah, some parts of the picture are blurry, it's not only you ;-) But I must admire the composition. --Aktron (talk) 15:15, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support Now, it is geocoded, I've added {{Information}} and name in {{Self}} Vanjagenije (talk) 01:53, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
- Comment The geocoding can't be correct: Compare the position in Google Maps with the background in the photo, where is the lake/sea in the map? --Kjetil_r 13:59, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 2 neutral => not featured. Pom² (talk) 12:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)