Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/October 2008
This is an archive for Commons:Featured picture candidates page debates and voting.
The debates are closed and should not be edited.
Image:Ilustration by Daniel Mróz 1957.png, featured
[edit]Voting period : from 22 Sep 2008 to 1 Oct 2008 (included)
- Info created by pl:Daniel Mróz (1917-1993) - uploaded by his daughter Mroz-Raynoch - nominated by Ejdzej. -- A.J. (talk) 09:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- InfoFreerly licensed piece of modern art, showing arist's original style. Daniel Mróz is probably most known of his illustrations in "The Cyberiad" by Stanisław Lem. The above one comes from book "Słoń" (The Elephant) by Sławomir Mrożek.
- Support -- A.J. (talk) 09:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- If this was a scan its a very good one.(Giligone (talk) 13:03, 22 September 2008 (UTC))
- Support Nice. --Dtarazona (talk) 20:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support Freedom to share (talk) 21:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Karelj (talk) 18:44, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support --MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:15, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Yekrats (talk) 10:58, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support Haros (talk) 08:24, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
{Support} --B.navez (talk) 03:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)Too late A.J. (talk) 08:51, 2 October 2008 (UTC)- This rule is absurd ! When the bus is late, you can get on it. Make the bot punctual or let the travellers free. Otherwise very irritating ! --B.navez (talk) 14:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- No bots but people close FPC. The notice above the picture clearly states that voting periods ended on 1st of october (but not the time, but this is now fixed). Anyways, your vote won't change the result of the poll :) Benh (talk) 18:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- This rule is absurd ! When the bus is late, you can get on it. Make the bot punctual or let the travellers free. Otherwise very irritating ! --B.navez (talk) 14:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
result: 8 supports, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Benh (talk) 18:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Image:CharlesBridgeMalaStranaPragueCzechRepublic.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period : from 22 Sep 2008 to 1 Oct 2008 (included)
- Info created by Massimo Catarinella - uploaded by Massimo Catarinella - nominated by Massimo Catarinella -- Massimo Catarinella (talk) 18:26, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Massimo Catarinella (talk) 18:26, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- Info I wanted to give this one a try on commons :) . --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 18:26, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Not bad for a first try on fpc, but you took it at the wrong time of the day. You should try either daytime or after nightfall. At the time your photo was taken at, both the sky is too bright, the area outside the sky is in the shadow and the streetlights are too bright in comparison with the rest of the shot, leading to overexposure in that area. Try it at a different time of the day, and it might just about become an FP. Freedom to share (talk) 21:41, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support i think that the special light is, what makes it special. --Jeses (talk) 21:59, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose I have to agree with Freedom to share. If the image is taken a bit later, the lamps might be nicer - I don't mean the artifacts/stars, just the illumination. --Aktron (talk) 10:15, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose, I agree with the other opposers. --Aqwis (talk) 13:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- This picture was taken at dawn, so sunrise. Waiting any longer would result in no lights and a grey sky ;).
- Support --Karelj (talk) 18:47, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- DarkAp89 Commons 13:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose As discussed above, the relatively bright sky is not ideal. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:13, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Tintero (talk) 16:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support I don't think it is the wrong time of the daay, quite the opposite. Very nice. --PedroPVZ (talk) 20:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Exposure equalisation needed --Twdragon (talk) 11:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
result: 6 supports, 5 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured. Benh (talk) 18:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Image:Weevil September 2008-1.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period : from 22 Sep 2008 to 1 Oct 2008 (included)
- Info Weevils are Coleopterans (beetles) characterized by a prominent stout (rostrum), with jaws at the end, and elbowed antennae normally attached about half way along. This one (Lixus angustatus) belongs to Curculionidae family and is covered with tiny yellow scales. Created & nominated by Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support-- Cool colours. (Giligone (talk) 22:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC))
- Support Nice picture, fine composition. --Aktron (talk) 10:16, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Luc Viatour (talk) 12:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 15:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support Wonderful colors Muhammad 16:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support So cute alien ! Fine portrait, beautiful colors. --B.navez (talk) 18:23, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Karelj (talk) 18:52, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Lestat (talk) 20:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support ----Michael Gäbler (talk) 23:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Böhringer (talk) 05:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- DarkAp89 Commons 13:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support --MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:11, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Tintero (talk) 16:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support Haros (talk) 08:27, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support ....Mr. Mario (talk) 03:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
result: 16 supports, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Benh (talk) 18:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Voting period : from 25 Sep 2008 to 3 Oct 2008 (included)
- Info created by Opoterser - uploaded by Opoterser - nominated by 58.178.59.22 -- 58.178.59.22 19:52, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Support -- 58.178.59.22 19:52, 25 September 2008 (UTC)Please Login to vote. Mrmariokartguy (talk) 00:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC)- Comment -- Resolution must be above 2MP. This is way below. (Giligone (talk) 21:01, 25 September 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. |
- Oppose, very disturbing, but unfortunately far too small. --Aqwis (talk) 21:26, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Amazing, very nice details! Vassil (talk) 22:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Voting period : from 27 Sep 2008 to 6 Oct 2008 (included)
- Info created by Mr. Mario - uploaded by Mr. Mario - nominated by Mr. Mario -- Mr. Mario (talk) 04:16, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Mr. Mario (talk) 04:16, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
{{FPX|it has a bad composition and is blurry. ''Sorry''.}}no anonymous votes/FPXs please. Lycaon (talk) 15:14, 27 September 2008 (UTC)- I guess I forgot to sign. Muhammad 16:48, 27 September 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 a poor composition, and is not sharp. | 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) 15:14, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
- Info I fixed a spelling mistake. Mr. Mario (talk) 22:08, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Voting period : from 27 Sep 2008 to 6 Oct 2008 (included)
- Info Created, uploaded, and nominated by Mr. Mario -- Mr. Mario (talk) 13:40, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
- Info Try looking at an angle if it is too dark. Mr. Mario (talk) 13:40, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Mr. Mario (talk) 13:40, 27 September 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 dark. | 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) 15:07, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Look what it says in the Info space. Mr. Mario (talk) 14:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 9 Oct 2008 at 08:49:22
- Info created, uploaded and nominated by Twdragon -- Twdragon (talk) 08:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Twdragon (talk) 08:49, 30 September 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 --Eusebius (talk) 13:55, 30 September 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 9 Oct 2008 at 09:04:38
- Info created, uploaded and nominated by Twdragon -- Twdragon (talk) 09:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Twdragon (talk) 09:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose nice atmosphere, but details not really sharp, composition not so good. --Mbdortmund (talk) 10:16, 30 September 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 image quality and composition -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:46, 30 September 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 Albertus teolog & Przykuta - uploaded by Albertus teolog - nominated by Albertus teolog --Albertus teolog (talk) 11:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Albertus teolog (talk) 11:52, 30 September 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 quality: image is blurry, noisy and lacks detail -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:10, 30 September 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 9 Oct 2008 at 21:20:10
- Info created and uploaded by Noumenon - nominated by 71.189.216.248 -- 71.189.216.248 21:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- Info Artificially coloured roses. White roses are artificially coloured with blue dye to be sold as blue roses. -- 71.189.216.248 21:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - Nothing in focus, image is noisy and there are obvious artifacts. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose I would put {{FPX}} if I knew how to. Mr. Mario (talk) 02:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- {{FPX|Your Reason}} Muhammad 03:18, 1 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: nothing is in focus --Mr. Mario (talk) 04:24, 1 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. |
- Is that valid? Mr. Mario (talk) 04:24, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Image:Bayeux-crypte1.JPG,second delist nomination, delisted
[edit]- Info Quality, Size, and the last vote was unfair (If you saw it you would know) (Original nomination)
- Delist --Mrmariokartguy (talk) 00:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delist -- DarkAp89 Commons 13:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delist Alvaro qc (talk) 20:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Neither of the links given above point to the right place. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:21, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delist --Simonizer (talk) 11:29, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delist --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 17:22, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delist —αἰτίας •discussion• 23:04, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delist --Twdragon (talk) 12:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Comment The history of this very page has the previous (wrongly closed) delist nomination. Lupo 23:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- I figured it out why it wasn't delisted before. It says in the policy "At least 5 supporting votes" Mr. Mario (talk) 02:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
result: 7 Delist, 0 Keep -->delisted --Mr. Mario (talk) 03:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Image:Jezioro chlop wisnia6522.jpg, not featured
[edit]- Info created by Wisnia6522 - uploaded by Wisnia6522 - nominated by Wisnia6522 --Wisnia6522 (talk) 07:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Wisnia6522 (talk) 07:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Pudelek (talk) 12:06, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose, I know it's clichey, but "no wow". --Aqwis (talk) 13:56, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose like Aqwis. --Lestat (talk) 18:52, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose As Aqwis - nothing so special on this image. --Karelj (talk) 18:57, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Not very interesting landscape, ragged shadows, poor athmosphere. --Twdragon (talk) 11:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose per all the points mentioned above, additionally weak technical quality. —αἰτίας •discussion• 23:01, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 18:46, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Voting period : from 23 Sep 2008 to 2 Oct 2008 (included)
- Info created, uploaded and nominated by Lestat -- Lestat (talk) 20:47, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Lestat (talk) 20:47, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral -- This is wonderful picture, one of the best church interiors I have seen for a long time. And I would have supported if it were not possible to re-shoot and fix the faults. The main problem is, of course, the unsharpness of the background. The slight geometric distortion (visible in the foreground arch) should also be corrected. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 07:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- Thank You for Your opinion, but now I cannot reshot it, maybe in next month... but not now. --Lestat (talk) 21:00, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- DarkAp89 Commons 13:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Karelj (talk) 21:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support Excellent church interiors shot. Freedom to share (talk) 21:10, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Great interior, high perspective and good field depth --Twdragon (talk) 11:31, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support Not so sharp but I like the composition. I'd leave it uncorrected for the perspective, it doesn't look unatural nor distracting to me. Benh (talk) 19:54, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Pudelek (talk) 12:50, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Simonizer (talk) 18:48, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Image:Clouds and Mountain Range from Uluguru.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period : from 27 Sep 2008 to 6 Oct 2008 (included)
- Info created, uploaded and nominated by Muhammad Mahdi Karim -- Muhammad 06:56, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Muhammad 06:56, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Sharpness issues. Freedom to share (talk) 16:16, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose The landscape is discontinous due to the eccessive lower cropping, so that the forground at the right doest not have any obvious connection with the rest of picture. --Frode Inge Helland (talk) 16:57, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose F.I.H. said it. Lycaon (talk) 20:31, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer (talk) 18:55, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Image:Châtaigne K800i.JPG, not featured
[edit]- Info created by Medjaï - uploaded by Medjaï - nominated by Medjaï
- Oppose Composition: the subject is centered. Vassil (talk) 07:01, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Question -- The subject is centered, so what? --Twdragon (talk) 11:26, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- So the picture is boring: read "composition" at the top of the page. A chestnut is not a rare object, so the composition must be agreeable to get a "wow factor". It is possible to crop on the right, and keep the bud on the left.Vassil (talk) 14:40, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Poor colors, the image is slightly grey. --Twdragon (talk) 11:27, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- It was probably a cloudy day. Mr. Mario (talk) 14:13, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Yeah, quite much gray, quite much blue. There are various white-balance modes for gloomy days. --Aktron (talk) 18:13, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Lacking a decent quality. It must be sharper and more well lit at the least to become a FP. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 16:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
result: 0 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer (talk) 18:55, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Voting period : from 24 Sep 2008 to 3 Oct 2008 (included)
- Info created by Fcb981 - uploaded by Fcb981 - nominated by Brianga -- Brianga (talk) 00:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Brianga (talk) 00:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support JukoFF (talk) 00:58, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support --(Giligone (talk) 03:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC))
only when full size * Support --Böhringer (talk) 06:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support Very good quality, and the right moment! --Specious (talk) 06:48, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose, the composition does not convince me. --Aqwis (talk) 12:35, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- DarkAp89 Commons 13:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose bad perspective --Romwriter (talk) 16:21, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose As above. --Karelj (talk) 21:20, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support Enhanced perspective gives its strength to this picture. --B.navez (talk) 18:32, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support Great perspective. Snowwayout (talk) 20:51, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Perspective is too extreme for FP status imo. Freedom to share (talk) 21:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Perspective distortion --Twdragon (talk) 11:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Perspective distortion --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 17:29, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support The perspecitve does not bother me here. /Daniel78 (talk) 22:45, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support Good picture, nothing wrong with the perspecitve at all. —αἰτίας •discussion• 22:59, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- If it's an enwiki FP, it can certainly meet standards here. Daniel Case (talk) 13:45, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Pudelek (talk) 17:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support (as creator) -Fcb981 (talk) 05:26, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
result: 13 Support, 6 Oppose -->featured --Mr. Mario (talk) 13:12, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Image:Herb Viyska Zaporozkogo (Alex K).svg, not featured
[edit]Voting period : from 24 Sep 2008 to 3 Oct 2008 (included)
- Info created by Alex Tora - uploaded by Alex Tora - nominated by Alex Tora -- Alex Tora (talk) 12:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Alex Tora (talk) 12:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Riwnodennyk (talk) 22:54, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Well done but far from the existing FP's of the same kind -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:57, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- What kind of FP do you mean?--Alex Tora (talk) 18:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral -- Very well done, but probably political-oriented image, so I can't vote to support it, and I also cannot vote to reject. --Twdragon (talk) 11:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- Any COA of a state is "political-oriented" because it symbolize a polity. --Alex Tora (talk) 18:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support /Daniel78 (talk) 20:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose It's just a CoA. Come on, we have hundreds of these, quality is great but nothing special, sorry. --Aktron (talk) 21:21, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose as Aktron. Alvaro qc (talk) 18:33, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose per Aktron, and also per name, there is a standard e.g. Image:COA_ZaporCossacks.extension. --Kuban kazak (talk) 16:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
result: 3 Support, 4 Oppose, 1 Neutral -->not featured --Mr. Mario (talk) 13:16, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Image:Paeonia suffruticosa white070503.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period : from 24 Sep 2008 to 3 Oct 2008 (included)
- Info created by 池田正樹 - uploaded by 池田正樹 - nominated by 池田正樹 -- 池田正樹 (talk) 12:58, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- 池田正樹 (talk) 12:58, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support - Great work. -- TheWB (talk) 01:30, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Böhringer (talk) 06:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support ---donald- (talk) 09:17, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Tintero (talk) 16:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - Sorry but I don't like the composition, the centre of the flower should be more to the right and to the bottom. Also, the (yellow) colours appears a bit washed out. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:37, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support --B.navez (talk) 18:35, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Poor lighting and I also think composition could be better. I much prefer - Benh (talk) 19:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Composition. --Dori - Talk 22:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Lack of composition --Twdragon (talk) 11:12, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support As it was said in QI promotion: very delicate. Vassil (talk) 22:39, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose top row of leaves cut off. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 20:08, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose The composition is not very nice.. everything is sharp, white and there is no object, where the image is centered at. --Aktron (talk) 21:20, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support Beautiful (composition too). --Beyond silence 19:03, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose per the points mentioned by Benh above. —αἰτίας •discussion• 22:56, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
result: 8 Support, 7 Oppose -->not featured --Mr. Mario (talk) 13:18, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Image:Indy Central Canal.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period : from 24 Sep 2008 to 3 Oct 2008 (included)
- Info Central Canal with Indianapolis skyline in the background. Created, uploaded, nominated by Dschwen (talk)
- Support --Dschwen (talk) 19:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Tintero (talk) 16:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Correct and good quality picture but little wow. Needs some geometric correction at right. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose A very casual shot. But as Alvesgaspar, I think it's a good quality picture. Benh (talk) 19:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support Excellent composition. --B.navez (talk) 02:04, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Neutral -- Rotation needed --Twdragon (talk) 11:21, 26 September 2008 (UTC)- You are right. It was just a 0.41deg rotation so I uploaded it over the old version. Thanks! --Dschwen (talk) 22:50, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- Could it be 0.413º ? ;-) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:57, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- San Jose (talk) 08:43, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Twdragon (talk) 12:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose As Alvesgaspar. --Karelj (talk) 15:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Pudelek (talk) 17:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Little wow in my book. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
result: 6 Support, 4 Oppose -->not featured --Mr. Mario (talk) 13:22, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Voting period : from 25 Sep 2008 to 4 Oct 2008 (included)
Original, not featured
[edit]- Info A panorama of the Mikumi National Park in Morogoro Tanzania. Fixed the tilt and the cropped. Created, uploaded and nominated by Muhammad
- Support Muhammad 11:35, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support. Very nice. The far left side is a bit soft/blurry, but the rest is quite sharp. The scenery is very bare, but it is a fascinating view, all the same. Diliff (talk) 14:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - I think the picture would much improve by increasing the contrast a bit. The colours are somehow washed out. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:42, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Aqwis (talk) 14:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Tintero (talk) 16:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- Several problems here: Horizon is tilted, having the horizon cut the image pretty much exactly in half makes for a boring composition, the tree tops are cut off. --Dschwen (talk) 19:56, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- One more thing, you have dust on your sensor. Either clean the sensor or clone it out. --Dschwen (talk) 16:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry, but I find the cut off tree tops really disturbing. Freedom to share (talk) 21:08, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support I like it --Dori - Talk 01:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Trees cut --Böhringer (talk) 06:04, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose agree with Böhringer --AngMoKio (talk) 10:26, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Slightly lack of composition, poor colors, cropping needed. --Twdragon (talk) 11:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- Poor colors? This this is the friggin Savannah. Do you expect lush green grass and trees?! --Dschwen (talk) 16:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Like the other edit better. Mr. Mario (talk) 23:23, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose This is the interesting composition of the two. The central horizon and the two cropped trees prevents me supporting it. Haros (talk) 08:56, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
result: 5 Support, 6 Oppose -->not featured --Mr. Mario (talk) 13:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Edit 1 Image:Mikumi Panorama crop.jpg, not featured
[edit]- Info Cropped to remove partially shown trees and to fix the centered horizon. Contrast also enhanced a bit. Muhammad 20:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- No no no no no! What do you mean by enhanced? That makes it sound like you did something good. That's not the case. It is a completely false assumption by people with bad monitors that stretching the histogram of an image automatically produces a better picture. You are ruining the colors of the image for the rest of us with non sucking monitors. --Dschwen (talk) 20:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, I was not aware of that. I have tried to fix the tilt and replaced the edit with an image with the original contrast. Muhammad 21:37, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- No no no no no! What do you mean by enhanced? That makes it sound like you did something good. That's not the case. It is a completely false assumption by people with bad monitors that stretching the histogram of an image automatically produces a better picture. You are ruining the colors of the image for the rest of us with non sucking monitors. --Dschwen (talk) 20:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support IMO it now solves all the above mentioned problems. Muhammad 20:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- Apart from not helping to ensure accurate color reproduction it also didn't fix the sloping horizon. --Dschwen (talk) 20:37, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- There are other issues : all your source pictures weren't focused consistently, resulting on soft parts and sharp ones being mixed. This will be more difficult to fix. The tilt is very obvious on this version. Also, I wouldn't try to change things when they can only be judged subjectively (such as contrast and colors... you were there, you remember the colours better than we do, so if you were satisfied with the first version's colours, I'd suggest you keep them !). Benh (talk) 21:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose, the left part of the picture is disturbingly unsharp in this version. Also, I prefer the composition of the first one. --Aqwis (talk) 21:35, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Like the other edit better. Mr. Mario (talk) 23:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - I prefer the other composition and don't agree with Dschwen on the need to be absolutely faithfull to reality, whatever that means. Anyway, the colours look washed out to me (even worse in the edited version) and that might be the result of some overexposure. Finally (here I go again...) photography should allow for some personal interpretation which is, by the way, the funniest part of it. And yes, the tilt looks worse now... -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:43, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Sharpness issues on the left side of the image. Freedom to share (talk) 17:32, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 4 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of the 5th day) (waiting for results on original picture). Benh (talk) 20:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Image:Hammershus Castle 1.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period : from 25 Sep 2008 to 4 Oct 2008 (included)
- Info created by C-M - uploaded by C-M - nominated by C-M -- C-M (talk) 16:11, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Tintero (talk) 16:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose CA (Chromatic Aberration) can easily be corrected. Freedom to share (talk) 21:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- Fixed - Now better? C-M (talk) 22:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral - I cannot oppose this picture as the composition and mood are gorgeous. But I don't like the noisy sky and the unnatural outline of the walls against the background, as if they were separate images put together. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral agree with Alvesgaspar --AngMoKio (talk) 10:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Very suitable athmosphere and mood. --Twdragon (talk) 11:26, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose I like it a lot, but blending 3 exposures can give much better results than than (castle edge is too obivous here) - Benh (talk) 18:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose I agree about the borders of the castle against the sky. /Daniel78 (talk) 20:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 2 neutral => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 08:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Image:Indiana State Capitol dome 2.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period : from 25 Sep 2008 to 4 Oct 2008 (included)
- Info Looking up at the glass dome of the Indiana State Capitol, created, uploaded, and nominated by Dschwen (talk)
- Support -- Dschwen (talk) 19:53, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Neutral Will change to support, when the small tilt is fixed. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 20:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 14:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Neutral Excellent exposure, but for an image where symmetry is so important, the tilt would have to be fixed. Freedom to share (talk) 21:06, 25 September 2008 (UTC)- Support Problems fixed. Freedom to share (talk) 13:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- Agree, there is a slight barrel distortion together with a ccw tilt of less than 0.5º. This last should be corrected. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- Done slightly rotated. --Dschwen (talk) 22:13, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 07:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Yekrats (talk) 10:55, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support Great composition, bright colors and athmosphere. --Twdragon (talk) 11:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support - Benh (talk) 18:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Aqwis (talk) 18:58, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support Excellent exposure. --Thermos (talk) 07:11, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Simonizer (talk) 07:31, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Lestat (talk) 08:35, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Aktron (talk) 21:19, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support very strongly ... good crisp detail, contrasts managed very well. Daniel Case (talk) 13:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Luc Viatour (talk) 07:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --D-Kuru (talk) 08:14, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer (talk) 09:03, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 10 Oct 2008 at 19:51:33
- Info created by Andrius Vanagas - uploaded by Andrius Vanagas - nominated by Andrius Vanagas -- Andrius Vanagas (talk) 19:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose, tilted. --Aqwis (talk) 21:36, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- Question From which perspective? Because all buildings are in really vertical, not tilted position. It might look as tilted because river, isn't stright, it makes a curve... :) Andrius Vanagas (talk) 22:17, 1 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 slightly tilted --Mr. Mario (talk) 03:50, 2 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. |
- It is not a perspective problem, it is tilted. Mr. Mario (talk) 03:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- OK, let's close the nomination, but I want to ask e few questions - how it is tilted, if all walls of buildings are vertical, and roofs at the center - horizontal? This image was taken at this place: [1]. So, in the left a river is moru curved, than in right, so it only looks like curved. I don't really understand, where you see tilting :( Andrius Vanagas (talk) 04:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- But, uhm, the buildings are not 100% vertical - I measured a 1.64 degree counter-clockwise tilt on the highest building (in the middle) with Photoshop's Measure Tool. --Aqwis (talk) 09:46, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- OK, let's close the nomination, but I want to ask e few questions - how it is tilted, if all walls of buildings are vertical, and roofs at the center - horizontal? This image was taken at this place: [1]. So, in the left a river is moru curved, than in right, so it only looks like curved. I don't really understand, where you see tilting :( Andrius Vanagas (talk) 04:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- It is not a perspective problem, it is tilted. Mr. Mario (talk) 03:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- The tilt is clockwise, not counter-clockwise. You can see that when you connect any object with its mirror in the river. The connecting line should be vertical. --Romwriter (talk) 14:35, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- Hm... Is it difficult to solve this problem? Photoshop free transform tools? or is there other way? - Andrius Vanagas (talk) 16:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- I'd go back to your panorama software for this. --Dschwen (talk) 13:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- Hm... Is it difficult to solve this problem? Photoshop free transform tools? or is there other way? - Andrius Vanagas (talk) 16:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 12 Oct 2008 at 03:45:04
- Info created by Mr. Mario (talk) - uploaded by Mr. Mario (talk) - nominated by Mr. Mario (talk) -- Mr. Mario (talk) 03:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Mr. Mario (talk) 03:45, 2 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 not sharp. | 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) 12:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- Where? Mr. Mario (talk) 23:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Original, not featured
[edit]Voting period : from 26 Sep 2008 to 5 Oct 2008 (included)
- Info created by Twdragon - uploaded by Twdragon - nominated by Twdragon -- Twdragon (talk) 10:52, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Nice mood, but everything is tilt and cropped, so composition is not too good. --norro 14:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Faded details, did you used noise reduction? --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 14:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- Question -- What details must be clarified on this image? The noise correction program was used white preparation, and I try to achieve maximum detalisation on photo.
- The lines between the brickwork make them appear smoother then they are. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 22:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- Question -- What details must be clarified on this image? The noise correction program was used white preparation, and I try to achieve maximum detalisation on photo.
- Support I like this one. The composition is great and these colors I like. --Aktron (talk) 21:18, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 2 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured. Benh (talk) 11:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Edit 1, not featured
[edit]- Question Is it better with perspective corrected ? Benh (talk) 18:04, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support By the way :) Benh (talk) 18:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- Question -- Thank you for your attention, but don't you think that cropping effects and statue distortion reduce quality of this image? --Twdragon (talk) 18:31, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- It doesn't look unnatural to me, correction was slight anyways, and I don't think quality was affected. Benh (talk) 19:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support I support your edition --Twdragon (talk) 11:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Question -- Thank you for your attention, but don't you think that cropping effects and statue distortion reduce quality of this image? --Twdragon (talk) 18:31, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support Great lighting --ianaré (talk) 21:21, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support Nice composition and lighting. The perspective correction helps. --Dori - Talk 23:19, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
result: 4 supports, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Benh (talk) 11:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Image:Io highest resolution mod.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period : from 26 Sep 2008 to 5 Oct 2008 (included)
- Info created by NASA - uploaded by Ruslik0 - nominated by Ruslik0 -- Ruslik (talk) 14:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Ruslik (talk) 14:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support it looks good. Guérin Nicolas (messages) 14:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - I don't like the pixelation of the outline (also visible in smaller size) which might be the result of upsizing -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:34, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- I did not upsize the image. The pixelisation is a consequence of the sharpness of the border, which is natural for an airless body. Ruslik (talk) 17:40, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Support, very nice.per below comment. --Aqwis (talk) 18:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC)- Oppose Bad compression artifacts, the original source has a tiff available which looks way better. /Daniel78 (talk) 20:06, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- May I ask you to indicate precisely where you see artefacts ? Ruslik (talk) 17:40, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Version from original tiff added. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 13:07, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
- Suggestion - The new version would improve much with a larger black background (and please split the nominations)-- Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:35, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
- "Anti-aliased round marquee" that was applied to the new image introduced serious artefacts: some areas near the boarder are fuzzy. Ruslik (talk) 17:40, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
- Nevermind. Co-nomination withdrawn. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 20:12, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose The pixelation is not a consequence of the sharpness of the border. Lycaon (talk) 20:34, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
result: 2 supports, 3 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured. Benh (talk) 11:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Image:Moulin Saulnier moteur hydraulique.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period : from 26 Sep 2008 to 5 Oct 2008 (included)
- Info created, uploaded and nominated by Benh (talk)
- Info This is one of the hydraulics motors of the Saulnier watermill (Here a previous nom. of mine). Parts of the subject are cropped (and this is the widest I can do at 10mm !), and I had to clone out a few distracting elements (a child and a newspaper). I hope you'll find the job properly done. - Benh (talk)
- Support I find the view interesting and there're not so many pictures of this kind over here. -- Benh (talk) 22:16, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - No, there aren't many but the one I know has an amazing quality. One comment and one question: I don't like the way the dial of that metering device, at the LR side, is distorted; where were the child and the newspaper? I'll save my vote for later. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:31, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- I can't do much about distorsion, please keep in mind this is a 10mm shot (FOV ~ 90°) and that I couldn't step behind. Lucag's FP is a great one, and a tough comparison :-). It was taken using the same hardware (400D + Canon 10-22) and with similar settings (I used f/8 and 10mm, against f/5.6 and 10mm) so quality should be on par. My picture isn't downsampled and this is a little bit more unforgiving. Lighting is more challenging here as well. Notice you see the details on the upper floor quite well, which isn't possible without exposure blending (which I used by the way, sorry for not telling, I'll update the caption). I didn't want to tell were cloning out was done, not to biase votes, but here where they were : Child (550, 1550) and around ; newspaper (244, 2452) and around. - Benh (talk) 06:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:51, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support Fine composition --Aktron (talk) 17:54, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support Vassil (talk) 06:50, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral Nice picture, except for the blurred people at the right side of the picture. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 10:24, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Great image, interesting and athmospherical --Twdragon (talk) 11:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose. Sorry, but the composition is pretty bad. Very crammed, cut off left and right. The 10mm shot has lots of distortion, you might as well have done a panoramic shot here. --Dschwen (talk) 12:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- I might but I'm not equipped properly (like a Nodal Ninja panoramic head). And there were so many people that my timing was very short. I agree with you that the shot would have been much better uncropped... But I still think it looks aesthetic (nice atmosphere and colours to me), and has value. IMO it depicts well the mecanism of hydraulic motor. Once I'm sure about what composes it, I'll update the caption (but if someones here knows... All I can tell is the left gear has its vertical bar actioned by the turbine in the river underneath). - Benh (talk) 17:15, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
result: 5 supports, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Benh (talk) 11:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Voting period : from 26 Sep 2008 to 5 Oct 2008 (included)
- Info created, uploaded and nominated by Benh (talk)
- Support I wanted to nominate this one for long, but was never satisfied with the colours. Hope you'll find it nice enough. -- Benh (talk) 22:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support but the panorama is even better. Muhammad 05:52, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for letting me know. I'll ask my roomate if he thinks the same, and if so, I'll nominate to give it a try. Benh (talk) 06:12, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support Both are very good. I wouldn't say the panorama is better. The main subject of this picture is the cathedral, while the subject of the panorama is the town itself. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 15:59, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support Nice (Vote added by Aktron - Benh (talk) 10:57, 28 September 2008 (UTC))
- Support Great picture, very well done. —αἰτίας •discussion• 22:53, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support Nice! Mr. Mario (talk) 14:14, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral wow, but I think it's a little bit oversharpened. You can see white outlines on the edges of a castle, especially on metal parts on the roof top. --Lošmi (talk) 17:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- MJJR (talk) 21:02, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support --D-Kuru (talk) 08:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. D-Kuru (talk) 15:00, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Image:Gamlehaugen1.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period : from 26 Sep 2008 to 5 Oct 2008 (included)
- Info created by Aqwis - uploaded by Aqwis - nominated by Aqwis -- Aqwis (talk) 22:27, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Aqwis (talk) 22:27, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support A nice well composed and well exposed picture. You have my condolences in advance for all the ridiculous no wow! comments. ;-) --Dschwen (talk) 22:54, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support as above. LOL Muhammad 04:41, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support No no wow from me. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 12:50, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support nice colours, good composition. Just a slight bit of CA. Lycaon (talk) 15:19, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
- I'll see what I can do about that. --Aqwis (talk) 16:14, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support I like it too. /Daniel78 (talk) 22:40, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
- Question Why is it smaller than previous versions in history ? Benh (talk) 10:29, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- Two reasons: crop and to improve sharpness. You may notice that it is cropped slightly tighter than in the previous versions. In those versions, I actually added some "fake" sky in the uppermost part of the picture where there was previously a grey background from rotating the picture. I didn't want to do that in the FPC version so I cropped it instead. I've also downscaled it slightly to improve sharpness. --Aqwis (talk) 11:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose nice picture, but no wow --Pudelek (talk) 16:08, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support Alvaro qc (talk) 18:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose As Pudelek - good, but nothing extra. --Karelj (talk) 20:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support per Lycaon Nsaa (talk) 21:19, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support Nice composition, too bad of the person in front of the castle thought. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 22:22, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support well done. —αἰτίας •discussion• 22:48, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support --PaulVIF (talk) 11:45, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Frode Inge Helland (talk) 13:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support - I believe the light quality and composition is very much of featured standard. - Anonymous DissidentTalk 16:19, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support --ianaré (talk) 21:19, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- MJJR (talk) 21:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Support--Böhringer (talk) 07:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC) voting time was over - Benh (talk) 11:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
result: 15 supports, 2 opposes, 0 neutral => featured. Benh (talk) 11:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Voting period : from 27 Sep 2008 to 6 Oct 2008 (included)
- Info created by Massimo Catarinella - uploaded by Massimo Catarinella - nominated by Massimo Catarinella -- Massimo Catarinella (talk) 15:55, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
- Info User User:Alvesgaspar pointed out there is a small tilt, but I'm not able to find it. If you're able to find it, please point out how to improve the image. Please note that all the houses are tilted. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 15:55, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Massimo Catarinella (talk) 15:55, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support Brilliant. --norro 17:42, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support per Norro. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 20:12, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Aqwis (talk) 21:28, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support --B.navez (talk) 01:12, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Little wow if any. Barabas (talk) 05:54, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose As above. --Karelj (talk) 21:41, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose No wow. Mr. Mario (talk) 22:05, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Not so interesting --Twdragon (talk) 11:28, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose--Medjaï (talk) 17:33, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
You must give a reason to oppose. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 17:47, 29 September 2008 (UTC)Introduction says: Please include a few words ..., introduction does not say: You must include a few words ... --Romwriter (talk) 18:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- I would still like to know, why this user opposed..--Massimo Catarinella (talk) 14:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - nice, but not for FP (no wow)--Pudelek (talk) 17:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support Nice work, technically very good, lots of atmosphere -- MJJR (talk) 20:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support
Great picture, why aren´t more people supporting it? --Ca0572 (talk) 15:43, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- This is a suspect vote, it is the only contribution of this user. Sockpuppeting is not allowed and can be detected. Lycaon (talk) 13:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Excuse me, you have to start somewhere! I just liked the photo.Ca0572 (talk) 15:20, 6 October 2008 (UTC) I just found out this was someone I know, who was trying to support me, apologies for that.. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 15:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- Vote counted. Support from friends is not strictly forbidden as long as it doesn't start to disturb the normal process. Suspect is not necessarily the same as invalid. Lycaon (talk) 09:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- Because there is no wow in it. But this picture is good for QI. Mr. Mario (talk) 15:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support Quality is acceptable, colour palette and composition are very good. Lycaon (talk) 22:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support I like the CCTV camera right above the entrance :) --Dori - Talk 23:16, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Econt (talk) 11:54, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Dragon3199 (talk) 07:45, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Votes not counted (after deadline). Lycaon (talk) 09:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Support Beautiful. Estrilda (talk) 05:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)Oppose Good job on keeping the shadow details. However the angle is uncomfortable for me. --Base64 (talk) 09:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
result: 12 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. — Lycaon (talk) 09:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Image:Jackplug wb.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period : from 27 Sep 2008 to 6 Oct 2008 (included)
Original, not featured
[edit]- Info created, uploaded and nominated by Daniel78
- Info A macro of a gold plated stereo jackplug. Not downsampled. /Daniel78 (talk) 22:16, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Daniel78 (talk) 22:14, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose a macro shot. What's more ?--B.navez (talk) 01:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support Nice picture. Mr. Mario (talk) 14:23, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose It's shape blends into the background --Frode Inge Helland (talk) 16:52, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose (weak). It looks like it's been upsized. A good shot, certainly useful on wikipedia, but does it deserve to be featured ? Benh (talk) 19:59, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- Comment No upsize or downsize was done, it would of course look much sharper if I downsized it but our guidelines say that we should not do that. Postprocessing has been spot and noise removal and I slightly reduced three highligts and adjusted the white balace a bit. It was quite difficult to get the light right for this as the shiny metal easily made burned out highligts during the 8 second exposure. I ended up with using three light sources and moved the strongest one in an arc behind the camera during the exposure to create a more even light. I understand your concern about if this should be FP of course there are more beautiful subjects, but all are difficult in their own way. Sharpness was also a challange, I used both mirror lock up and remote shutter. In my oppinion we have many featured macros of nature objects but not that many of "things". /Daniel78 (talk) 22:56, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- I realise it's not upsized, but wanted to point out that the picture as only tiny blotchs, and not pixels (sorry I don't know how to explain better). Strange. As a result, downsampled version wouldn't not lose much information I believe. And if something can be downsampled, we should go ahead I believe. Space drive is not free ;). I'm surprised you had to remove noise from a Nikon D300 picture ; why did you use ISO 200 by the way ? Benh (talk) 17:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Well there was not much noise, and nothing visible on the jackplug (just in the background), perhaps it was the background that caused it as it was a black paper with some texture that was not in focus ? Anyway ISO 200 is actually the lowest on the D300 although there are lower modes called LO, but as I recall it those modes do not follow the standard for ISO ratings (color reproduction and other measurements I guess) and therefore it is not using the ISO numbers just like the reason that above ISO 3200 and up to 6400 it is called HI instead of using the numbers. About downsampling there seem to be different oppinions here, some thinks it's ok and some think you should never do it. But as of now our guidelines do say that the highest possible resoultion should be used, if that is not the case it should be rephrased. And keeping the highest resolution is good in the way that it leaves the option of downsampling to the user of the image, after downsampling you can not get the original back. /Daniel78 (talk) 20:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- I realise it's not upsized, but wanted to point out that the picture as only tiny blotchs, and not pixels (sorry I don't know how to explain better). Strange. As a result, downsampled version wouldn't not lose much information I believe. And if something can be downsampled, we should go ahead I believe. Space drive is not free ;). I'm surprised you had to remove noise from a Nikon D300 picture ; why did you use ISO 200 by the way ? Benh (talk) 17:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral Overall sharpness is quite good, but the edges are not as clear as I would desire. Background is too “warm”, it could be darker and the hue should be complementary to the plug's golden colour. Third, I do not like the lighting, I would prefer more diffuse light sources. --Romwriter (talk) 08:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- I agree that the background and the plug could be better separated, perhaps I should try to play with that. But to me the jackplug should not be warmer, I have it in front of me and if something this image looks too cold. Not sure why everyone think it's the opposite :) I would also like to try with more diffuse light sources, but I had none available. /Daniel78 (talk) 20:21, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Modified white balance (no votes, please) |
---|
|
- Oppose -- Poor white balance --Twdragon (talk) 11:45, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose The edges of the plug are not crisp, making it blend into the background. ianaré (talk) 21:28, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
result: 2 supports, 5 opposes, 1 neutral => not featured. Benh (talk) 11:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Image:Purple Gladioli Flower.jpg - not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 8 Oct 2008 at 11:35:51
- Info created by Twdragon - uploaded by Twdragon - nominated by Twdragon -- Twdragon (talk) 11:35, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Twdragon (talk) 11:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - The flower is cut
and the species is not identified-- Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC) - Oppose as Alvegaspar --ianaré (talk) 21:13, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose per Alvegaspar --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 16:16, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
FPX|it's species is not identified --Mr. Mario (talk) 14:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC)- FPX removed because species is already identified as a Gladioli cultivar -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
1 support, 3 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 5th day) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Image:Temple of Christ the Savior.jpg - not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 8 Oct 2008 at 17:17:04
- Info created, uploaded and nominated by -- Twdragon (talk) 17:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support Hey, this one looks nice. --Aktron (talk) 18:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Too much sky, distorted and cropped building. --norro 20:42, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose awkward composition, distortion --ianaré (talk) 21:12, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Cut of building, noisy and faded details. I've seen a lot a pictures of this cathedral and it and the bridge in front of it are beautifully lit at night. Try taking a picture from the bridge with a symmetrical axis running over the cathedral. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 16:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
1 support, 3 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 5th day) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 07:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Image:GladioliPetalMacro.jpg - not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 9 Oct 2008 at 08:38:58
- Info created, uploaded and nominated by Twdragon -- Twdragon (talk) 08:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Twdragon (talk) 08:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Uninteresting subject, with no detail justifying a macro shot -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Come on, there's nothing special :-( --Aktron (talk) 21:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
1 support, 2 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 5th day) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:21, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Image:A rose.JPG, second nomination - not featured
[edit]- InfoA Rosa Chinensis? Created, uploaded, and nominated by Mr. Mario (talk) 02:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support Felt like trying again.-- Mr. Mario (talk) 02:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- InfoI don't know what happened to the last nomination, why it didn't get closed regularly . But the old nomination should stay to document the last nomination. You shouldn't reuse the old nomination. And btw: You also shouldn't delete the content of delist-nomination after the voting. --AngMoKio (talk) 11:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- Old nomination. It now has a category! Mr. Mario (talk) 14:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- I am aware of the page history functionality. Again: An old nomination page shouldn't get reused. Just create a new nomination page - this way previous nominations of the same picture are traceable. --AngMoKio (talk) 14:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- How do you create a nomination page with the old writing still on it? Mr. Mario (talk) 02:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
1 support, 0 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 5th day) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:20, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Image:Lady Moura 2.JPG - not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 10 Oct 2008 at 05:59:35
- Info created by - uploaded by - nominated by -- Berthold Werner (talk) 05:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support The perfume of money: The Lady Moura in the marina of Monaco -- Berthold Werner (talk) 05:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose I very much like the idea of this picture, but not the result (technically mostly). --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 23:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Poor quality, the perspective distortion strongly worse the image --Twdragon (talk) 09:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
1 support, 2 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 5th day) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Image:Ukrainian Potter with potter's kick wheel.JPG, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 10 Oct 2008 at 16:19:05
- Info created by Turzh - uploaded by Turzh - nominated by Turzh -- Turzh (talk) 16:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Turzh (talk) 16:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose. Blurry, blown highlights, not-so-great composition. Mr. Absurd (talk) 20:32, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose As above --Twdragon (talk) 17:18, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 2 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of 5th day). Benh (talk) 11:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Image:Jeronimas Milius (Soul Stealer).jpg - not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 10 Oct 2008 at 19:53:30
- Info created by Andrius Vanagas - uploaded by Andrius Vanagas - nominated by Andrius Vanagas -- Andrius Vanagas (talk) 19:53, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose noisy Pbroks13 (talk) 16:21, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
0 support, 1 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 5th day) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Image:Falco vespertinus NAUMANN.jpg, not delisted
[edit]Voting period : from 24 Sep 2008 to 3 Oct 2008 (included)
- Info Very low resolution: 800x1093. Nice, but not an exceptional image. Barely made it in the Original nomination with 7 support and 3 oppose back in 2005. Image description could be better as well by providing descriptions of sex and age of the birds to enable users to identify this from the plumage.
- Delist -- Slaunger (talk) 21:57, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- Bad--Mrmariokartguy (talk) 02:52, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delist For the reasons given above. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:10, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Good, old, solid drawing that I see no reason to delist. This is a featured image, not featured image description (and some biologist will fill it in sooner or later) and the resolution is fine and well by 2005 standards. Just because time moved on does not mean we have to upgrade resolution standards. Freedom to share (talk) 21:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- Question What is the purpose of an image, where you do not know what is shown? A good image page is an important part of an FP. The image has been around for three years without any biologist stopping by to add a good description. it is not a deletion request. Merely a statement saying that this image is no longer considered to be the best Commons can offer. If someone cared to make a better scan of the original and provide athorough image description, I would have no objections in keeping it as an FP. -- Slaunger (talk) 07:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Same reasons. If tomorrow 10Mpx pictures were very easy too deal with, would we delist all former FP ? Delisting should be held only for obvious mistakes. --B.navez (talk) 02:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral I agree with B.navez (resolution is enough) and Slaunger (this image can't be a FP without a more precise description).--Pere prlpz (talk) 14:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delist - One the few cases I agree there was an obvious error of judgement, and not because of size. The quality of the scan is quite poor, the illustration is cropped and there seems to be artifacts in the image -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:42, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- Info A related ongoing VIC review: Commons:Valued image candidates/Falco vespertinus.jpg -- Slaunger (talk) 20:39, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delist agree with Slaunger and Alvesgaspar --Simonizer (talk) 11:28, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep I think it is all good. Barabas (talk) 06:07, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delist Low resolution, pixelated. --Lošmi (talk) 12:31, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - still good.--Avala (talk) 20:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Delist per nom. Lycaon (talk) 13:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)Voting period over. Mr. Mario (talk) 14:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)Delist artifacts visible --Base64 (talk) 13:06, 5 October 2008 (UTC)Voting period over. Mr. Mario (talk) 14:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
result: 6 Delist, 4 Keep, 1 Neutral -->not delisted --Mr. Mario (talk) 14:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Image:Lemon.jpg, not delisted
[edit]Voting period : from 26 Sep 2008 to 6 Oct 2008 (included)
- Info Too small, no mitigating reason. (Original nomination)
- Delist -- Mrmariokartguy (talk) 00:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Please point to the original nomination. Thanks. --norro 14:21, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - Excellent picture despite size -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:38, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep --AngMoKio (talk) 13:30, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 16:17, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Good picture. —αἰτίας •discussion• 23:04, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep --Twdragon (talk) 12:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep --Jeses (talk) 20:59, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep --Mbdortmund (talk) 10:46, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Keep --Böhringer (talk) 20:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)Keep -Good quality --Guérin Nicolas (messages) 22:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)- Comment The rule of the fifth day does apply here. Sorry for the inconvenience. You may close it. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 10:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep - very nice pic. --Pauk (talk) 22:35, 2 October 2008 (UTC)Keep --D-Kuru (talk) 15:29, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
results: 1 Delist, 7 Keep -->not delisted (rule of the 5th day) --Mr. Mario (talk) 13:07, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Voting period : from 27 Sep 2008 to 6 Oct 2008 (included)
- Info A lot of technical flaws ([[Commons:Featured pictures candidates/Image:Lake Shanhu pagodas at night.jpg|(Original nomination)
- Delist -- Massimo Catarinella (talk) 23:14, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delist Very noisy. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delist Due to very bad technical quality. —αἰτίας •discussion• 23:03, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
3 delist, 0 keep >> not delisted -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:11, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Voting period : from 22 Sep 2008 to 1 Oct 2008 (included)
Original, not featured
[edit]- Info created by Haros - uploaded by Haros - nominated by Haros -- Haros (talk) 19:55, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Haros (talk) 19:55, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- --Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- DarkAp89 Commons 13:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support - Better than the present FP but I would have preferred a symmetrical composition -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support The picture has very good tonal qualities modelling the building and giving a very precise detailed view of the arabic letters ornamenting the facade. It is definitely better than the other featured pictures of Taj Mahal. I agree with the above comment on symmetry, but consider it in this context a minor objection . A good picture. --84.202.111.19 18:56, 25 September 2008 (UTC)Sorry --Frode Inge Helland (talk) 18:57, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
~* Support Impressive quality. --PedroPVZ (talk) 20:33, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Grey mood. Vignetting. Awkward position of the cypress in foreground. --B.navez (talk) 02:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Poor colors, contrast correction needed. --Twdragon (talk) 11:23, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Interesting building, vanilla composition. Barabas (talk) 05:58, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- OpposeTilted and per B. Navez --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 09:46, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support per Frode Inge Helland. Nsaa (talk) 18:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Tilted to the right side. --Karelj (talk) 22:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Harald Haugland (talk) 22:08, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support – I kinda like it not being absolutely symmetrical. Good quality. — H92 (t · c · no) 22:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support --PaulVIF (talk) 07:40, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support Bombadil77 (talk) 08:06, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support I've never visited the place, but I think this pic is giving me an impression of both the fantastic building - and the dreamlike atmosphere associated to it (read the story - it tells much). So many symmetrical features gives me the need for some dynamic (un-)balance, given here by the skewed position of the camera + that the minarets are leaning inwards. Straight on the middle would simply be too much. The price to pay is the dominant grouping of trees not being kept in perfect balance by a bigger group of people on the left side of the picture. All in all: A very good photo. I wish that I some day can equal it. --Bjørn som tegner (talk) 09:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose, needs perspective correction. --Aqwis (talk) 10:33, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose --Kjetil_r 12:15, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose As Aqwis. --Karelj (talk) 15:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Symmetrical would have been better, and the tourists on the right are seriously distracting in their bright clothes. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
result: 12 supports, 9 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured (waiting for results on edit 1). Benh (talk) 18:35, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Edit 1
[edit]- Info -- Color balance and brightness/contrast correction --Twdragon (talk) 12:18, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Twdragon (talk) 12:18, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Weak Support good but still needs a perspective correction. Mr. Mario (talk) 14:33, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Let us count the compression artifacts..--Massimo Catarinella (talk) 15:59, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose -Clumsy edit, just look at the sky!! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - not the best composition.--Avala (talk) 20:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose clumsy edit, illegal licensing (from cc to gfdl), no credits to author --Umschattiger (talk) 13:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- Tagged for speedy deletion (yesterday). --Dschwen (talk) 21:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- Did I fix the license properly? Mr. Mario (talk) 02:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah. You can remove the speedy-del template, although use of {{Information}} is appreciated (copy it from the original page, and adapt it accordingly (source). --Dschwen (talk) 04:37, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- Did I fix the license properly? Mr. Mario (talk) 02:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- Tagged for speedy deletion (yesterday). --Dschwen (talk) 21:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
result: 2 Supports, 3 Opposes -->not featured -- Benh (talk) 17:53, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Image:StLouisBalloonGlowFireworks2.jpg - not featured
[edit]Voting period : from 28 Sep 2008 to 7 Oct 2008 (included)
- Info created by Kitz000 - uploaded by Kitz000 - nominated by Kitz000 -- Kitz000 (talk) 08:14, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- Info Photo of fireworks and spectators at a hot air balloon festival. I wish the movements of each individual were as fast as others in this shot, but unfortunately that was not possible. This is the best of the roll. Comments? 08:28, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Kitz000 (talk) 08:14, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Bad foreground. Mr. Mario (talk) 13:35, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose A firework snapshot. Nothing special. --Romwriter (talk) 17:07, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support I wouldn't say its a snapshot. I like the sky colour and the motion blur on the people. Very nice. Muhammad 19:41, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose As Romwriter. --Karelj (talk) 20:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Snapshot quality indeed I'm afraid. Please use Photography critiques if you want comments, not FPC. Lycaon (talk) 20:28, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Good concept, but needs better execution. Not cutting off the fireworks would do a great deal of good. --ianaré (talk) 21:26, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Main subject cut of and noisy --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 16:15, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose --Lestat (talk) 19:41, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
2 support, 7 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:09, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Image:Antonov An-22 1.jpg - not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 7 Oct 2008 at 18:19:00
- Info created by Dmottl - uploaded by Dmottl - nominated by Dmottl -- Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 18:19, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 18:19, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose First of all size. --Karelj (talk) 20:07, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support Barabas (talk) 02:40, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Twdragon (talk) 11:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - Not sharp and detailed enough. A good but ordinary picture. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose per Alvesgaspar. Washed-out sky in background; front view doesn't really show us enough of the plane. Daniel Case (talk) 13:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support Not sharp? I don't think so. This one has wow for me. I really like the look of propellers. --Lošmi (talk) 17:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support It is sharp. And I have any eye defect :-) --Aktron (talk) 18:12, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support, but could be bigger ... --ianaré (talk) 21:15, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose good shot, but partially overexposured, a bit to small, lack of details --Mbdortmund (talk) 10:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose per all above --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 16:15, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
6 support, 5 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Image:20071207 The Cormorants' skerry.jpg - not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 7 Oct 2008 at 18:42:59
- Info created by Frode Inge Helland - uploaded by Frode Inge Helland - nominated by Nsaa -- Nsaa (talk) 18:42, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Nsaa (talk) 18:42, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Karelj (talk) 20:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Cormorants are not recognizable. Blurry noisy picture. Lycaon (talk) 20:24, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - No way, the quality is quite poor -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:44, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support - Nature! ---Nina- (talk) 11:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support --PaulVIF (talk) 11:44, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Poor quality --Twdragon (talk) 12:08, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose --Kjetil_r 12:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Lycaon --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 16:41, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
4 support, 5 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Image:Coarse woody debris in the Hallerburger Holz.jpg - not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 7 Oct 2008 at 23:46:24
- Info created by Michael Gäbler - uploaded by Michael Gäbler - nominated by Michael Gäbler -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 23:46, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 23:46, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Twdragon (talk) 11:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose -- It isn't all that spectacular a composition, and a bit too dark in some areas. Just no "wow". Daniel Case (talk) 13:40, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - Confusing composition, just a snapshot with no clear subject. Please try Commons:Photography critiques first. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:45, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Don't listen too much to conventionnal opinions. This is a great composition on forest decay. Life is also scenes not only single objects. Unfortunately the picture lacks some neatness : contrast is a bit harsh, some overexposed leaves or blurred foliage. --B.navez (talk) 18:02, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose I don't think the composition here is good. The picture is fine, but the central object - the debris - could be somehow more dominant. --Aktron (talk) 18:10, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral Forest pictures are always hard and I dont find the picture that bad. The light was good for a forest picture and you have found a interesting and beautiful scene. But I dont like the square format and the picture looks a litte bit frosty/milky --Simonizer (talk) 18:14, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
2 support, 1 neutral, 4 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 8 Oct 2008 at 12:35:57
Original - not featured
[edit]- Info created by Dohduhdah - uploaded by Dohduhdah - nominated by Yann -- Yann (talk) 12:35, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Yann (talk) 12:35, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - No information box in the picture file and no explanation in the nomination, the picture was just damped here. If you want an opinion about your photos the best place to go first is Commons:Photography critiques. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:39, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Not so fine on sulphur concretions. Location is missing, obviously in Indonesia but where ? --B.navez (talk) 18:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
1 support, 2 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 5th day) - Alvesgaspar (talk) 07:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Edit 1, not featured
[edit]- Info -- Brightness and contrast correction by --Twdragon (talk) 14:18, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Twdragon (talk) 14:18, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support--Mr. Mario (talk) 14:34, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - No information box in the picture file and no explanation in the nomination, the picture was just damped here. If you want an opinion about your photos the best place to go first is Commons:Photography critiques. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:39, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Not so fine on sulphur concretions. Location is missing, obviously in Indonesia but where ? --B.navez (talk) 18:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose I don't like the composition. Maybe some closer scene would be advisable. --Aktron (talk) 18:08, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Missing informations, location... --Karelj (talk) 20:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
result: 2 supports, 4 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured. Benh (talk) 17:54, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Image:Snowy Mountains in January.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 12 Oct 2008 at 02:43:21
- Info created, uploaded, and nominated by mrmariokartguy -- Mr. Mario (talk) 02:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- Info A very rare shot of the mountains, it rarely snows there (like every decade). Mr. Mario (talk) 02:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Mr. Mario (talk) 02:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose -- no 'wow' here, not quite sharp, washed out background AlexanderKlink (talk) 09:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- It was a bad cloudy day. Mr. Mario (talk) 14:31, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Come on, the composition is not interesting, colors are grey and the time is generally too bad to take a picture. Yeah, maybe this is some location where snow is realy rare but I've seen nice pictures of snow-covered Algeir and these were also rare. --Aktron (talk) 09:45, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose As above. --Karelj (talk) 14:29, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- Comment You should mention the location of the image. /Daniel78 (talk) 21:46, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- Santa Cruz, CA in the USA. Mr. Mario (talk) 22:41, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - I'm sorry to pile on, but the image isn't sharp enough for me. It could have been quite good; the angle was fairly good, but there is a lot of noise and not enough sharp. - Anonymous DissidentTalk 12:07, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose I personally don't find it interesting at all. Don't take it bad, but you should be more careful when nominating pictures. Benh (talk) 14:21, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Colours don't convince me...--Biso (talk) 09:32, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 6 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of the 5th day). Benh (talk) 17:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Image:Red-bellied Woodpecker on tree.JPG, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 12 Oct 2008 at 03:51:33
- Info created by Manjithkaini - uploaded by Manjithkaini - nominated by Manjithkaini -- Manjithkaini (talk) 03:51, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support Touching --B.navez (talk) 21:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral The crop is too tight and detail not that great. Was this with a teleconverter? --Dori - Talk 23:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose --Low color saturation, grey desolated athmosphere due to. --Twdragon (talk) 09:21, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose as per Dori, plus tail feathers cut off --ianaré (talk) 23:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose crop --Mbdortmund (talk) 19:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 3 opposes, 1 neutral => not featured (rule of the 5th day). Benh (talk) 18:00, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 13 Oct 2008 at 16:43:25
- Info created, uploaded and nominated by Massimo Catarinella -- Massimo Catarinella (talk) 16:43, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Massimo Catarinella (talk) 16:43, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Info I thought, I'll try something different, just to see how it works out :) . --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 16:44, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral The pic in general is really good and I like the idea. We really have too few of such pics. But I am not completly satisfied with the cmoposition. You put the main subject right in the middle, this makes it a bit boring. Maybe an upright shot including the street would have been better. Still nice pic...give me more :) --AngMoKio (talk) 20:21, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose not too fond of the heavily tilted composition. Lycaon (talk) 22:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support Why not? --Aktron (talk) 15:20, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose no relevancy. Danilo P (talk) 17:08, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Acknowledge Lycaon -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:24, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose --Poor composition, low interesting subject --Twdragon (talk) 09:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Massimo Catarinella (talk) 15:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Image:Gladioli Macro Closeup.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 9 Oct 2008 at 08:42:15
- Info created, uploaded and nominated by Twdragon -- Twdragon (talk) 08:42, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Twdragon (talk) 08:42, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support I like this one. Vassil (talk) 09:58, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose -- As below -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose and the subject is? --Sailko (talk) 14:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Pbroks13 (talk) 17:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Image:Pink Gladiolus.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 9 Oct 2008 at 08:44:10
- Info created, uploaded and nominated by Twdragon -- Twdragon (talk) 08:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Twdragon (talk) 08:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support Nice flower. --Aktron (talk) 21:36, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support The borders are a bit weird (did you clone out the background? if so you should add a retouched template to the description), but I like the composition and contrast. --Dori - Talk 23:12, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
result: 3 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Pbroks13 (talk) 17:07, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Image:Patriarchy Bridge at Night.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 9 Oct 2008 at 08:46:02
- Info created, uploaded and - nominated by Twdragon -- Twdragon (talk) 08:46, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Twdragon (talk) 08:46, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Lacks a good technical quality. You can do much better, since it is a well lit subject. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 16:19, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Karelj (talk) 20:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support I wanted to oppose such a picture, but I checked the EXIF and of course the detail of the picture. I don't think it is some kind of tragedy and the pic is quite nice as a night shot. FP compatible for me. --Aktron (talk) 21:36, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose. Sorry, but awkward cropping (too tight, especially at the base), distracting red band of light left by passing car, exposure problems (blown out highlight and dark shadows). This should have been taken either as an exposure series with a tripod, or earlier at dusk, and with a slightly larger FOV. Can you try this subject again? --Dschwen (talk) 16:36, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- Comment So, I can try, one year later, when the lighting conditions repeats the current ones --Twdragon (talk) 17:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Pbroks13 (talk) 17:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Image:Seeberg 3.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 9 Oct 2008 at 21:14:01
- Info created by Karelj - uploaded by Karelj - nominated by Karelj -- Karelj (talk) 21:14, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- Info Castle Seeberg in west Bohemia, Czech Republic.
- Support -- Karelj (talk) 21:14, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support Hezká kompozice a ta bílá není přepálená jako v mnohých jiných případech. --Aktron (talk) 21:30, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose The technical quality is not sufficient for a FP. The pictures contains underexposed parts and should be sharper and more detailed to become an FP. The composition isn't very striking either. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 22:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Poor composition. -- Snowwayout (talk) 04:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose per Massimo Catarinella. Also quite a bit disturbing CA. Lycaon (talk) 09:48, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Pbroks13 (talk) 17:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Image:Dew on grass Luc Viatour.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 10 Oct 2008 at 07:07:15
- Info created by Luc Viatour (talk) - uploaded by Luc Viatour (talk) - nominated by -- Luc Viatour (talk) 07:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Luc Viatour (talk) 07:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support Nice. --Aktron (talk) 12:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support Great. Mr. Mario (talk) 14:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - Existing FP's are much better. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:48, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support Good. --Karelj (talk) 19:32, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support amazing detail --D-Kuru (talk) 15:36, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Pudelek (talk) 14:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Twdragon (talk) 10:20, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Agree with Alvesgaspar --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 21:19, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Your other work is so over the top good on this kind of subject, sorry :) --Dori - Talk 23:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
result: 7 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Pbroks13 (talk) 17:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Image:Freaky Age 1 Luc Viatour.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 10 Oct 2008 at 07:14:50
- Info created by Luc Viatour (talk)] - uploaded by Luc Viatour (talk) - nominated by -- Luc Viatour (talk) 07:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Luc Viatour (talk) 07:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support Rock rules! Pure colours... Vassil (talk) 09:53, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support great shot! --AngMoKio (talk) 11:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support Yeah, really nice. --Aktron (talk) 12:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support Great... --Thermos (talk) 18:18, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support Well done job. --Karelj (talk) 19:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 01:07, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Estrilda (talk) 05:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support - Benh (talk) 11:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Richard Bartz (talk) 16:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Pbroks13 (talk) 17:24, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Image:Missing square_edit.gif, featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 10 Oct 2008 at 12:17:22
- Info A second try, with some minor improvements in the thickness of the lines and the duration of frames. This is an alternative to the well-known "missing square paradox", popularized by Sam Loyd in the beginning of the 20th century. When the four quadrilaterals rotate about their centres, they fill the space occupied by the small red square. However the total area of the figure remains apparently unchanged during the process. Look better! I made this puzzle more than twenty years ago (in wood) and haven't found yet any written reference to it. However, and because its principle is quite simple, it might be hidden is some old puzzle book. The aim of the animation is to puzzle the reader and defy him to find the explanation, which is quite simple and doesn't call for any special mathematical or geometrical skills. For a full description see the article here. Created by & nominated by Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Aqwis (talk) 14:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support cool --Böhringer (talk) 20:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support I like puzzles. Mr. Mario (talk) 02:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support Good and honest.--B.navez (talk) 02:31, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- MJJR (talk) 19:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 01:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Simonizer (talk) 08:01, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Very beautiful. The outside border of the square without the missing center should be smaller than the square with the extra space in the center. And the background should be transparent. Regards, Ben Aveling 10:55, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Info - And it is smaller! Please look carefully. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:58, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Pbroks13 (talk) 17:35, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Image:Mouse mechanism diagram.svg, featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 10 Oct 2008 at 15:26:42
- Info created by Pbroks13 - uploaded by Pbroks13 - nominated by Pbroks13 -- Pbroks13 (talk) 15:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Pbroks13 (talk) 15:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Karelj (talk) 19:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- Great! Cool!!! Mr. Mario (talk) 02:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support Good graphics --Manjithkaini (talk) 04:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support nice pic --D-Kuru (talk) 15:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 01:05, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support Very nice graphics and it is explanatory in a very clear manner. - Noumenon talk 15:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- DarkAp89 Commons 11:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
result: 8 supports, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Benh (talk) 19:02, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 10 Oct 2008 at 18:04:42
- Info created and uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Benh (talk) 18:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support I don't often see panoramas with people adding so much to it. Superb quality as usual, nice mood and composition. -- Benh (talk) 18:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support Outstanding technical quality --Aktron (talk) 18:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support, great composition. --Aqwis (talk) 19:18, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support Good panorama, you can be proud of yourself :) --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 20:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --B.navez (talk) 03:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral technical quality is for sure very good. But the composition doesn't convince me completly...especially the cut-off tower on the right bugs me a bit. If there would be a little piece of space beside the right tower it would be much better. Still a nice pic. --AngMoKio (talk) 17:03, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose As AngMoKio - composition not very good, building is cut on both sides. --Karelj (talk) 14:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- Are you kidding ? Just have a look on what is Windsor Castle and tell us how this huge building not to be cut ? The scene takes place in B yard. --B.navez (talk) 02:41, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 01:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral - I'm with AngMokio, the aspect ratio is somehow unbalanced with this composition (or vice-versa...)-- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:49, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - poor composition --Pudelek (talk) 14:49, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - the tower on right side is cutted, nothing special. MatthiasKabel (talk) 08:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Good quality, but I don't like the lighting all that much. --Dori - Talk 20:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Dragon3199 (talk) 07:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Snowwayout (talk) 03:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- DarkAp89 Commons 11:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
result: 9 supports, 4 opposes, 1 neutral => featured. Benh (talk) 19:02, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Image:Gordon Dam.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 10 Oct 2008 at 18:32:38
- Info created and uploaded by Noodle snacks - nominated by Benh (talk) 18:32, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support Amazing picture ! Very nice use of wide angle and HDR to achieve dramatic atmosphere. I wish I'd taken that myself. -- Benh (talk) 18:32, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support Really great! --Aktron (talk) 18:58, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support, great use of tonemapping. --Aqwis (talk) 19:18, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support Good! --Karelj (talk) 19:36, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support--Umnik (talk) 19:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 20:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support Maybe a little bit oversaturated, but excellent though. -- MJJR (talk) 21:08, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support - Andrius Vanagas (talk) 21:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support wow, very nice colour composition + sharp - Guérin Nicolas (messages) 22:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support Nice! Mr. Mario (talk) 02:02, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Shortness of focal length makes an absurd distortion : dam wall seems to be leaning forwards, which is impossible (you may check the problem too with not vertical (!) phototropism axis of the vegetation on the opposite bank ). Also darkness of the forest doesn't fit with sky light, not so heavily clouded. --B.navez (talk) 03:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Not a big fan of such heavy processing (unless it was done to show more detail), also ack B.navez. --Dori - Talk 12:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support - unique and provocative perspective and composition. - Anonymous DissidentTalk 15:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- --Medjaï (talk) 19:35, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Ack Dori and B.navez. Also—though within size limits—quite small for an image with so much possible details. Lycaon (talk) 09:46, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support Beautiful picture Martin NH (talk) 13:20, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support in this case the distortion adds more WOW to the picture --Simonizer (talk) 15:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose oversaturated, too much distortion. Jonathunder (talk) 12:48, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Pudelek (talk) 14:48, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support the mountains in the backrounf are very nice :-) --D-Kuru (talk) 19:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Richard Bartz (talk) 16:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Böhringer (talk) 20:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support Impressive composition --norro 20:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- DarkAp89 Commons 11:20, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support wow! --Sailko (talk) 13:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
result: 21 supports, 4 opposes, 0 neutral => featured. Benh (talk) 19:03, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Morning in Au, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 11 Oct 2008 at 14:39:07
- Info created, uploaded and nominated by -- Böhringer (talk) 14:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Böhringer (talk) 14:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- Comment A very nice scene. But I wonder if the time of day was chosen right. I have problems with the contrast between the very dark and the very bright parts, combined with a haze problem. Although it was made in the morning it doesn't have a typical morning mood. Maybe an even earlier or a much later time of the day might be a better time. --AngMoKio (talk) 15:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- --Medjaï (talk) 19:34, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support I like this one. --Aktron (talk) 09:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Tintero (talk) 13:24, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 01:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Nice mood, but poor quality, and I don't like the composition with so much sky. We've had plenty of similar and better pictures lately (including at least one of yours). Benh (talk) 16:29, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose I'm not liking the light on this one. --Dori - Talk 17:12, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose i also oppose now...hoping to soon get pic of that scenery at another time of the day. --AngMoKio (talk) 20:25, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Harsh light, dull colors, not really sharp and a little bit of CA. I know you can do better than this ;). --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 22:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
result: 5 supports, 4 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured. Benh (talk) 19:05, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Image:Forggensee Panorama SK 0001.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 11 Oct 2008 at 17:42:35
- Info created, uploaded and nominated by Simonizer (talk) 17:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Simonizer (talk) 17:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- --Medjaï (talk) 19:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 07:31, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support Awesome. --Aktron (talk) 09:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Böhringer (talk) 10:29, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support--AngMoKio (talk) 12:12, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Tintero (talk) 13:24, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support - Mr. Mario (talk) 13:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Karelj (talk) 14:31, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support Am I not late ? --B.navez (talk) 15:08, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- MJJR (talk) 18:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 01:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Question Could you add some information on the image construction? Lycaon (talk) 13:05, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Done --Simonizer (talk) 14:18, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support Quality and composition (wow-factor) mitigate downsampling IMO. Lycaon (talk) 21:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support fantabulous --Mardetanha talk 21:52, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support I must admit that I am a bit jealous;) However, I deplore the lack of sharpness in the background (forest, mountains). Nevertheless, great shot and marvellous composition. Congratulation!!-- Tobi 87 (talk) 13:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support (weak) My roomate behind me got wowed. So am I, though I have to say the quality was about to kill it. Some very slight stitching errors as well. Benh (talk) 14:14, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support Wow...--Biso (talk) 09:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support Csar13 (talk) 05:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Richard Bartz (talk) 16:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- DarkAp89 Commons 11:19, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
result: 20 supports, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Benh (talk) 19:06, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Image:DancingFlames.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 12 Oct 2008 at 02:22:38
- Info created and uploaded by Oscar - nominated by ViperSnake151 -- ViperSnake151 (talk) 02:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support - In my usual new routine of scanning Special:NewImages for possible copyvios and such, I came across this, blew me away. -- ViperSnake151 (talk) 02:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support I like flames. Mr. Mario (talk) 02:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support Nice colours --Dtarazona (talk) 02:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Uninteresting composition. It's just flames. --Aktron (talk) 09:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- Flames are interesting. Mr. Mario (talk) 13:29, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Noisy and composition could be better --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 13:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I made another version with less noise. Pbroks13 (talk) 16:14, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose per Massimo Catarinella. Lycaon (talk) 13:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose We have better fire photos. Sorry, Ben Aveling 10:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 20:39, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Acer pseudoplatanus, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 12 Oct 2008 at 12:36:23
- Info created, uploaded and nominated by -- Böhringer (talk) 12:36, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Böhringer (talk) 12:36, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support Martin NH (talk) 13:12, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Tintero (talk) 13:24, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose The wires of electricity line are disturbing. --Karelj (talk) 14:28, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Pleasant but not exceptionnal. Akward wires. --B.navez (talk) 15:21, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose noisy at the top of the tree and disturbing wires. bad cut, tree isn't centered well. --Euphoriceyes (talk) 15:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- The one thing you mostly want to avoid in a picture, since it almost always ruines the composition, is placing the main subject in the center of the image. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 22:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose, per all of the above (except for the centering comment). --Aqwis (talk) 22:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- Question could you explain what the image should depict?--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 08:22, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 20:50, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 12 Oct 2008 at 19:39:16
- Info created, uploaded and nominated by Lestat -- Lestat (talk) 19:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Lestat (talk) 19:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support Interesting nomination and a good one. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 22:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support - super photo -Pudelek (talk) 14:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support - from what I know, this image will be unique amongst the featured picture collection if promoted. - Anonymous DissidentTalk 12:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 12:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support This stained glass is quite nice. --Aktron (talk) 15:24, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Böhringer (talk) 07:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Twdragon (talk) 09:20, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Luc Viatour (talk) 10:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --D-Kuru (talk) 14:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Javier ME (talk) 09:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- DarkAp89 Commons 11:19, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- no reason to oppose. Daniel Case (talk) 13:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Kosiarz-PL 14:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer (talk) 20:51, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Image:Tsiribihina Fire.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 14 Oct 2008 at 11:41:11
- Info created, uploaded and nominated by Gloumouth1 -- Gloumouth1 11:41, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Gloumouth1 11:41, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Oppose an image with quite a backstory, I am sure. I'm sorry to oppose, but I dislike the lighting quality, cf the mountains in the background.- Anonymous DissidentTalk 12:02, 5 October 2008 (UTC)- Neutral - I would like to think. - Anonymous DissidentTalk 12:03, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose No flames - no WOW effect for me. Sorry :-( --Aktron (talk) 15:22, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer (talk) 21:06, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Image:Praha, Holyně, kříž u cesty k Holyni.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 14 Oct 2008 at 18:56:03
- Info created by Aktron - uploaded by Aktron - nominated by Aktron -- Aktron (talk) 18:56, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Aktron (talk) 18:56, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose no WOW effect --Luc Viatour (talk) 11:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose interesting colors, but poor composition and no interest for viewing. Just change the view field... --Twdragon (talk) 17:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Yeah, I could and you may be right. But I was just happy what a nice spring day was when I was taking the picture. Maybe I was a bit.. more enthusiastic. :-) --Aktron (talk) 21:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral nice image, i really like it and normally i would vote pro, but if viewed fullsize, there is a very disturbing black spot (maybe dirt on objective) just in top of the middle bush. This can easily be removed with some software. If this is done, i change to pro, because this pic is worth to be featured. --Jeses (talk) 22:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose it is a good imagine. It tells the story and there is nearly good composition. The problem is the road and houses on the left site. It is not perfect than to be featured picture. Try more like this, this is the way.--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 22:48, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer (talk) 21:08, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Image:Psáry, Dolní Jirčany, zrající ostružiny IV.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 14 Oct 2008 at 18:56:09
- Info created by Aktron - uploaded by Aktron - nominated by Aktron -- Aktron (talk) 18:56, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Aktron (talk) 18:56, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose colours and composition don't convince me. Sorry. --AngMoKio (talk) 20:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Low saturation and color vibrance, some cropping and color correction needed --Twdragon (talk) 09:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose bad composition.--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 22:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer (talk) 21:09, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 15 Oct 2008 at 03:40:36
- Info created by csar13 - uploaded by csar13 - nominated by csar13 -- Csar13 (talk) 03:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Csar13 (talk) 03:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Poor quality, blurry image. The athmosphere is not good, the fog distructs subject viewfield --Twdragon (talk) 09:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose As above. --Karelj (talk) 18:29, 6 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: the image quality is poor: general unsharpness, noise and chromatic aberration -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:06, 6 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. |
Image:Digitalis Purpurea buds.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 15 Oct 2008 at 11:09:08
- Info created, uploaded and nominated by Twdragon -- Twdragon (talk) 11:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Twdragon (talk) 11:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose I'm not at all convinced by your identification ([2]). Lycaon (talk) 12:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- Question This is Digitalis purpurea, strictly identified by habitus, so what is the reason of your inconvenience? --Twdragon (talk) 17:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - I'm not convinced either. Furthermore most of the subject is out of focus and the crop is too tight. By the way, what is the meaning of "strictly identified by habitus"? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Bad very bad crop... - Noumenon talk 15:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Background too bright. Mr. Mario (talk) 01:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose bad background, overcropped.--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 22:22, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer (talk) 21:12, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Image:Water Lilly Colchinum buds.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 15 Oct 2008 at 10:50:06
- Info created, uploaded and nominated by Twdragon -- Twdragon (talk) 10:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Twdragon (talk) 10:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Poor composition with the in focus Polygonum demanding too much attention. Lycaon (talk) 12:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- Question Can the composition be improved by cropping? --Twdragon (talk) 17:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- No, a crop will not improve the composition. It's hard to get a featured picture of a flower since we see a lot of good pictures of flowers. A nice close-up of the domes of St. Basils cathedral at night or a panorama of the Kremlin would stand more chance of becoming featured. Udachi --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 22:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- No easy paths to search around =) Thank you for attention --Twdragon (talk) 10:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- No, a crop will not improve the composition. It's hard to get a featured picture of a flower since we see a lot of good pictures of flowers. A nice close-up of the domes of St. Basils cathedral at night or a panorama of the Kremlin would stand more chance of becoming featured. Udachi --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 22:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- Question Can the composition be improved by cropping? --Twdragon (talk) 17:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose bad composition, could be overcropped.--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 22:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer (talk) 21:11, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Image:Mt. Rainer-Reflection Lake.JPG, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 17 Oct 2008 at 12:32:27
- Info created by Meckser - uploaded by Meckser - nominated by Meckser -- Meckser (talk) 12:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Meckser (talk) 12:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- Info -- I think you have to geolocate your picture. otherwise it isn't within the guidelines Manuel R. (talk) 20:11, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- Info -- I didn't see anything in the guidelines about geotagging, but I've added it to the page | Meckser (talk) 13:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer (talk) 21:15, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 18 Oct 2008 at 18:20:00
- Info created, uploaded and nominated by Silfiriel -- Silfiriel (talk) 18:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Silfiriel (talk) 18:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose there is no story. Cloudy sunrise where?--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 18:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- Info:It's in the description of the photo. It says Sunrise over mount Petrino, Ohrid, Macedonia, plus it's geotagged.
- But we are talking about imagine not about the description. And this imagine doesnt say the strory about what is there, what lanscape is there.--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 18:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- I realize that. I was considering to include the location in the title, however it seemed very long and unnecessary since there's a description and geo location. I understand what you mean up to a point, but still what kind of a story do you expect anyway, it's a photo, it worths a thousand words.
- Not to me, the horizont doesnt tells nothink.--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 19:06, 9 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: the image has very poor photographic quality (noise and artifacts) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:14, 11 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. |
Voting period ends on 19 Oct 2008 at 10:23:27
- Info created, uploaded, nominated by Twdragon -- Twdragon (talk) 10:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Twdragon (talk) 10:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support This one is nicer than the other nomination above - colors are maybe a bit bluish, but the with the violet parts of the flower it looks nice and that rear berry is sharp. Original and that is good reason why to support. --Aktron (talk) 15:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- Question could you offer some cropped versions?--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 22:07, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - Chaotic composition with an ugly out of focus foreground --Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:48, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Wrong id. Lycaon (talk) 07:26, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Very probably Phytolacca esculenta but however picture is not featurable (akward cropping, not focused on the first berry and no wow in my opinion) --B.navez (talk) 10:14, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Original, not featured
[edit]- Info created by Ra-smit - uploaded by Ra-smit - nominated by Ra-smit -- Ra-smit (talk) 09:51, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Ra-smit (talk) 09:51, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Luc Viatour (talk) 11:02, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Has potential, but needs substantial noise reduction first. Lycaon (talk) 11:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Nice composition...but sth is wrong with the colours. Here is a photo (Image:Schloss_Chenonceau.JPG) of that castle, which is FP on de:wp... But on this one the right part is unfortunately missing. I'd prefer the one in this nomination if the colours were not that strange. Too bad. --AngMoKio (talk) 11:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose per AngMoKio. The manipulation of the colors of the sky makes the picture "false".--Caspian blue (talk) 12:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Too dark and the edited version is not much better. --Aktron (talk) 16:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support - either version.--Avala (talk) 20:51, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
result: 3 supports, 4 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured (waiting for results on other edit). Benh (talk) 19:04, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Edit 1, not featured
[edit]- Info noise reduction: by --Luc Viatour (talk) 12:10, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support NR1 --Luc Viatour (talk) 12:10, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Sky is still posterized -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose all versions. It has a good composition, but a very bad technical quality. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 19:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- At that time of voting, there were only two images, so this vote is relocated in the correct place.--Caspian blue (talk) 12:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of the 5th day). Benh (talk) 17:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Edit 2, featured
[edit]- Info I just spent 3 minutes correcting the color/tone of the original images which looks awkward. The image has a potential, but the first two are not in a good condition.--Caspian blue (talk) 18:23, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Info new image uploaded by Caspian blue --D-Kuru (talk) 19:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Comment very nice pic, but if the image gets changed the people and the crazy couler mix under the viduct. --D-Kuru (talk) 19:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Martin NH (talk) 18:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support Not the best image quality at full size, but nice. ---donald- (talk) 07:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- DarkAp89 Commons 11:20, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- as nom.--Caspian blue (talk) 12:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose The quality of the picture is just too bad. Too compressed, blurry sides, etc. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 22:24, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support not that bad. Mr. Mario (talk) 03:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose
Noise and various artifacts in the sky. --Dori - Talk 22:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC)A few hours late... Mr. Mario (talk) 02:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
results: 5 Support, 1 Oppose -->featured --Mr. Mario (talk) 02:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Image:Spilomyia-sayi-001.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 13 Oct 2008 at 07:53:40
- Info created by and uploaded by Mdf - nominated by D-Kuru -- D-Kuru (talk) 07:53, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- D-Kuru (talk) 07:53, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Simonizer (talk) 07:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support Oh my godness ! -- Benh (talk) 11:48, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support Waaasp ! --B.navez (talk) 12:11, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Cute flies (not wasps), but what happened with the other 80% of the image? (10.1 Mpx → 2.0 Mpx). Lycaon (talk) 12:53, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support cool. Mr. Mario (talk) 12:59, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Dori - Talk 17:09, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support - Despite the size, which is probably the result of cropping, and due to a very good technical quality and interesting composition. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:21, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support Amazing detail --Base64 (talk) 02:29, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Böhringer (talk) 07:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Twdragon (talk) 09:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Luc Viatour (talk) 10:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- MJJR (talk) 20:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Richard Bartz (talk) 16:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- Hi Richard, The flashlight is not hard for your taste? :) -- Laitche (talk) 04:04, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- Borderline case but the comp, plasticity and colors are great --Richard Bartz (talk) 18:53, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support good --Mbdortmund (talk) 19:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --PedroPVZ (talk) 11:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support Surely a situation that comes not quiet often.--HouseGhostDiscussion 00:55, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- DarkAp89 Commons 11:19, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose no wow --Sailko (talk) 13:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Laitche (talk) 15:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
result: 18 supports, 2 opposes, 0 neutral => featured. Benh (talk) 20:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Image:Leszek Biały Marcinkowo.JPG, featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 13 Oct 2008 at 08:50:24
- Info created by Albertus teolog - uploaded by Albertus teolog - nominated by B.navez -- B.navez (talk) 08:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- B.navez (talk) 08:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Aktron (talk) 11:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Pudelek (talk) 12:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support Nice and simple. I like it. --Dori - Talk 23:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - I don't think this is the best angle -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Agree with Alvesgaspar --Base64 (talk) 02:28, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral I like it, but please add more contrast! --Miha (talk) 09:32, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Took the liberty of adjusting curves and levels -- ianaré (talk) 23:20, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- Please don't do that in the middle of a vote, now you don't know if the earlier people still hold the same opinions. --Dori - Talk 03:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- Apologies. Should I revert it ? ianaré (talk) 01:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Karelj (talk) 18:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose I don't mind the composition, but the image contains CA (see yellow band on the left side of statue). This shouldn't be present on a FP. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 15:55, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 22:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- DarkAp89 Commons 11:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose same as Alvesgaspar.--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 08:15, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support I'd ordinarily oppose something like this as too busy, but the multitude of whites is extremely well-managed (no blown highlights) and I actually think the clouds in the background work well with the lines of the statue. Daniel Case (talk) 03:24, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
result: 8 supports, 4 opposes, 1 neutral => featured. Benh (talk) 20:48, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Image:Stained glass in Saint Maurice churche, Olomouc.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 13 Oct 2008 at 12:36:33
- Info created, uploaded and nominated by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 12:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Pudelek (talk) 12:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 12:43, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Does not seem sharp at resolution, especially at the edges, subject is too dark; no "wow!" for me. G.A.S 06:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose definetly too dark --Sailko (talk) 13:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
result: 2 supports, 2 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured. Benh (talk) 20:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 19 Oct 2008 at 10:31:32
- Info created by, uploaded, nominated by Twdragon -- Twdragon (talk) 10:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Twdragon (talk) 10:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Bluish hue, low contrast. Yet good subject that can be taken for FP, however the picture is to be taken in a different way. --Aktron (talk) 15:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose not good.--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 22:04, 10 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 poor photographic quality (focus, sharpness, chromatic aberration) and composition -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:12, 11 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. |
Voting period ends on 20 Oct 2008 at 04:16:53
- Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Mr. Mario -- Mr. Mario (talk) 04:16, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- Info This is a Macro shot of Cilantro Seeds.
- Support -- Mr. Mario (talk) 04:16, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose nothing is in focus, better to use cameras macro mode to take such a picture and limit to ISO 100 or lower on such a camera Movieevery (talk) 06:46, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose unsharp, no scale, no latin name in description, no link to Wikipedia.--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 07:49, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose very bad focusing, the image is fully desctructed --Twdragon (talk) 08:27, 11 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 out of focus -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:46, 11 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. |
Voting period ends on 21 Oct 2008 at 03:07:38
- Info created by Flickr user Charles Dawley- uploaded by Daniel Case - nominated by Daniel Case -- Daniel Case (talk) 03:07, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support I stumbled across this on Flickr a while back. This is a great photo of a place that a lot of people shoot. -- Daniel Case (talk) 03:07, 12 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: the picture is extremely 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) 07:34, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 21 Oct 2008 at 13:02:44
- Info created by Juan de Vojníkov - uploaded by Juan de Vojníkov - nominated by Juan de Vojníkov -- Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 13:02, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 13:02, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, it is too small. MER-C 05:05, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- Question so you mean that this image doesnt have more than 2 megapixels of information or it is downsampeled?--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 06:15, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- Definitely too small, very likely downsampled. MER-C 09:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support I like it. -Nard the Bard 06:11, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - Please read the guidelines, on the top of this page (especially about resolution and value), before nominating. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:08, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, that would be usefull. I havent before.--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 15:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Among others size of image. --Karelj (talk) 16:41, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- because it is too small and someone may like to print a poster - next time, I should borrow better camera:-)--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 15:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 21 Oct 2008 at 18:58:33
- Info created by Kor!An - uploaded by Kor!An - nominated by Kor!An -- Kor!An (talk) 18:58, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Kor!An (talk) 18:58, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose the color scheme is not good and even if you have a look on the first feet, you could see it is overligheted. But anyway cute kids.--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 19:30, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Yep - overexposed and too grey. Well I'd support image with few extra white places, but at least with nicer colors. --Aktron (talk) 11:08, 13 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 too small -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:33, 13 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. |
Original
[edit]- Info created by Kor!An - uploaded by Kor!An - nominated by Kor!An -- Kor!An (talk) 23:04, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Kor!An (talk) 23:04, 12 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 too small. MER-C 05:03, 13 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. |
Edit
[edit]- Info New size. Kor!An (talk) 10:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- Info created by Kor!An - uploaded by Kor!An - nominated by Kor!An -- Kor!An (talk) 10:49, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Kor!An (talk) 10:49, 13 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 a distracting background. | 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) 16:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- To Lycaon. In the «Featured pictures» I saw many pictures with a distracting background. I have not understood your logic: why here it is bad? Kor!An (talk) 21:27, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 22 Oct 2008 at 12:38:40
- Info created by Tango7174 - uploaded by Tango7174 - nominated by Tango7174 -- Tango7174 (talk) 12:38, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Tango7174 (talk) 12:38, 13 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: the photographic quality is poor (obvious noise in the darker zones) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:19, 13 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. |
- Oppose Too dark. Mr. Mario (talk) 00:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 22 Oct 2008 at 19:18:53
- Info created, uploaded, nominated by Twdragon -- Twdragon (talk) 19:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Twdragon (talk) 19:18, 13 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: the image is not sharp and not properly identified. | 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) 21:08, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Image:Rosiczka.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 14 Oct 2008 at 10:55:05
- Info created, uploaded and nominated by Margoz -- Margoz (talk) 10:55, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Margoz (talk) 10:55, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 13:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose I prefer this one featured: (Image:Drosera capensis Luc Viatour.jpg) a steering lines healthy as red dots trap not visible in this picture --Luc Viatour (talk) 14:15, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Comment These traps are colourless, it's probably the Alba cultyvar of Drosera capensis (like this) Margoz (talk) 15:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Neutral-- What is the factor that holds you from nominating your image? --Twdragon (talk) 09:18, 6 October 2008 (UTC) I guess I should take the support in account instead - Benh (talk) 21:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral Not so bad, but not FP for me either. --Aktron (talk) 15:21, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support Danilo P (talk) 16:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Twdragon (talk) 09:18, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Biso (talk) 09:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose per Luc Viatour. Lycaon (talk) 13:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral --Mr. Mario (talk) 14:30, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose not enough details ianaré (talk) 14:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Karelj (talk) 18:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose The composition isn't very good. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 20:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- DarkAp89 Commons 11:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose bacground should be darker and monocoloured.--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 22:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
result: 7 supports, 5 oppose, 2 neutral => not featured. Benh (talk) 21:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Image:Madagascar Ampefy.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 14 Oct 2008 at 15:56:04
- Info created, uploaded and nominated by User:Gloumouth1 -- Gloumouth1 15:56, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Gloumouth1 15:56, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Some blurs, sharpening level increasing needed. It is strongly recommended to equalize luminance field to improve viewable quality. -- Twdragon
- Question To increase sharpening level is quite easy. But to equalize luminance field is more difficult for me : I am not familiar with those technics. Should I apply this method (I tried but did not managed to obtain a satisfying result) ? --Gloumouth1 21:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- This method is applicable for a few images with no extremely darkened parts (e.a. some weak underexposure removal). I recommend you to equalise luminance field not strongly, using the "Curves" or "Highlights/Shadows" Photoshop instruments. You also can open this image using Camera RAW (in Photoshop CS3 this plugin works with JPEG) and try to improve quality of the image with "Clarity", "Recovery"? "Blacks" and "Fill Light" trackbars. The instruments of Camera RAW have intuitive interface.
- Question To increase sharpening level is quite easy. But to equalize luminance field is more difficult for me : I am not familiar with those technics. Should I apply this method (I tried but did not managed to obtain a satisfying result) ? --Gloumouth1 21:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Estrilda (talk) 05:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support great expression --Jeses (talk) 22:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Very nice picture indeed, but unfortunately it is technically not very good. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 23:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
result: 3 supports, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Benh (talk) 20:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Image:Kalanchoe blossfeldiana.JPG, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 14 Oct 2008 at 16:50:33
Note that the real size of this flower is about 1 centimeter (7/16 inch) -- Danilo P (talk) 16:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Danilo P (talk) 16:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, it is out of focus -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Focus is in the middle flower. -- Danilo P (talk) 18:53, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support Agree with Danilo P. --norro 20:55, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Poor focus. Pbroks13 (talk) 07:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Both composition and focus seem problematic. - Noumenon talk 15:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose as Pbroks13, poor colours, too. --Mbdortmund (talk) 19:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose due to oversaturated color and focus problems. Daniel Case (talk) 19:31, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
result: 2 supports, 5 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured. Benh (talk) 20:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Image:Cyanistes caeruleus 3 Luc Viatour.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 15 Oct 2008 at 05:44:10
- Info created by Luc Viatour (talk) - uploaded by Luc Viatour (talk) - nominated by -- Luc Viatour (talk) 05:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Luc Viatour (talk) 05:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support toll --Böhringer (talk) 07:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Twdragon (talk) 09:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support Well done!!! -- Tobi 87 (talk) 09:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral I don't agree with the crop here. The bird should be centered since it's a square composition. As it is it's neither centered nor rule of thirds. --Dori - Talk 12:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- Le sens du regard va vers la gauche en direction du bas. Il est pour moi très esthétique et dans les règles de dégager le sens du regard même dans un format carré. De plus le regard a un inclinaison parallèle a la branche ce qui renforce la composition! --Luc Viatour (talk) 14:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- "The eye travels towards the left and bottom. It is for me very aesthetic and within the rules to free the eye even within a square format. Additionally, the eye's path is parallel to the the branch which reinforces the composition." not the best translation but should get the meaning across ... ianaré (talk) 14:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- thank you for the translation;) --Luc Viatour (talk) 16:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- I got the gist of the wording (mais je ne peux pas parler tres bien). I still say that if it's not dead center, it should be in the third's line and not in a square format. --Dori - Talk 23:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- thank you for the translation;) --Luc Viatour (talk) 16:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- "The eye travels towards the left and bottom. It is for me very aesthetic and within the rules to free the eye even within a square format. Additionally, the eye's path is parallel to the the branch which reinforces the composition." not the best translation but should get the meaning across ... ianaré (talk) 14:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support Good! Mr. Mario (talk) 14:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support - Very good. Agree with the nominator on the merits of the composition -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support could be a little sharper but has a great composition. ianaré (talk) 14:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support Bellisimo, nice bird! --Ca0572 (talk) 15:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- MJJR (talk) 20:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --D-Kuru (talk) 14:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Simonizer (talk) 19:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Javier ME (talk) 09:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- DarkAp89 Commons 11:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- Question is the white aura underlining OK, if there is no light context due to the two layered image used?--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 22:41, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- c'est une image en contre jour. Le soleil donne sur le devant de l'oiseau. Je travaille en raw pour déboucher les parties sombres du contre-jour.--Luc Viatour (talk) 06:57, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- I see. Could you provide this information in image descrtiption?--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 08:10, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- Information ajoutée en français --Luc Viatour (talk) 08:18, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks, now someone can translate it to English and it would be perfect.--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 10:28, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- I see. Could you provide this information in image descrtiption?--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 08:10, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- Info - Here it is the translation: It's an image in "contre-jour" (against the light). The sun is lightening the front of the bird. I work with "raw" to lighten the darker parts of the "contre-jour" -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:24, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you!--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 20:43, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support well, now when the aura is explained, I can support it.--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 20:43, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry, nicely composed, but no part of this image is sharp (compare to almost any image by Mdf) and it is badly lit. Tomfriedel (talk) 23:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 16:53, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support--Caspian blue (talk) 02:16, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
result: 16 supports, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Benh (talk) 19:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Image:Windmills D1-D4 (Thornton Bank).jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 15 Oct 2008 at 14:33:46
- Info Offshore windmills: created, uploaded & nominated by Lycaon (talk) 14:33, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Lycaon (talk) 14:33, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Increíble Foto Csar13 (talk) 15:33, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support Incredible perspective, vivid colors! --Twdragon (talk) 17:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Luc Viatour (talk) 17:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support Thumbs up. -- Tobi 87 (talk) 18:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support - I'm always happy when a potential FP of the sea comes up. Even when not mine and with another main subject... Great, despite some minor blur (and artifacts?) around the blades. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:18, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Karelj (talk) 18:32, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support - TheWB (talk) 19:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support keine Frage --Böhringer (talk) 20:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support Aha, zó zien die dingen uit Oostende er dus uit in volle zee... Nice work! -- MJJR (talk) 20:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Lestat (talk) 20:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- Comment You may want to add in the image description that these are 5M (M for MW) turbines manufactured by REpower. -- Slaunger (talk) 22:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support great perspective of an interesting subject ianaré (talk) 23:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support Weak. I'd have prefered a slightly more frontal view. Still beautiful. Benh (talk) 12:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support - I enjoy the perspective and the composition. A fine image. - Anonymous DissidentTalk 12:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --D-Kuru (talk) 14:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support Good Mr. Mario (talk) 14:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support I would have chosen a different angle so that the windmills don't cross over each other, but it's still a nice picture! --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 14:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Richard Bartz (talk) 16:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Jeses (talk) 22:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support agree with Massimo Catarinella --Simonizer (talk) 15:04, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Laitche (talk) 18:11, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support contratulations --libertad0 ॐ (talk) 13:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Sfu (talk) 19:08, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support Well done composition. --Aktron (talk) 19:24, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose done like the light conditions and even the composition.--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 19:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --norro 22:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- DarkAp89 Commons 11:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose I don't like the composition, in particular overlaping windmills. --che 10:35, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Angle is too oblique. Just a few meters to the right would have made a lot of difference. Daniel Case (talk) 19:33, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
- A couple of hundred metres maybe, these things are over 150m high. But our Ship-of-the-Line Lieutenant 1st Class wouldn't have been too happy to deviate from the plotted course ;-). Lycaon (talk) 19:24, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
SupportGood JukoFF (talk) 16:47, 15 October 2008 (UTC) too late ! - Benh (talk) 19:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
result: 26 supports, 3 opposes, 0 neutral => featured. Benh (talk) 19:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Image:Seeberg 1.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 15 Oct 2008 at 21:50:41
- Info created by Karelj - uploaded by Karelj - nominated by Karelj -- Karelj (talk) 21:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- Info Castle Seeberg in west Bohemia, Czech Republic.
- Support -- Karelj (talk) 21:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose I'm sorry to do this - this is a quality image, obviously taken with a fine camera, but I feel as if the subject is too blocked by the trees, and so therefore the angle could be better. - Anonymous DissidentTalk 12:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose common composition --Jeses (talk) 22:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose as Anonymous Dissident --Mbdortmund (talk) 19:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- Opposesimple.....Csar13 (talk) 11:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose not getting the "wow" on this image, & the trees can be somehow disturbing. --Kanonkas(talk) 12:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose nothing special, nothing featured.--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 19:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support Nice. I do not consider blocking by trees as an reason to oppose, trees are giving more "nature" look to this picture and this is nice. --Aktron (talk) 19:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
result: 2 supports, 6 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured. Benh (talk) 19:50, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 27 Oct 2008 at 08:29:42
- Info created by NASA - uploaded by Anonymous101 - nominated by Anonymous101 -- Anonymous101 talk 08:29, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Anonymous101 talk 08:29, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
- Comment, why not crop away some of the black part to the left? --Aqwis (talk) 09:59, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Poor composition, not categorized. Lycaon (talk) 11:05, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose black thing on the left -- Gorgo (talk) 11:42, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination
After thinking about it I have changed my mind and decided this image is not FP quality. Anonymous101 talk 13:02, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
- Still, proper categorizing would benefit the image ;-). Lycaon (talk) 13:36, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 25 Oct 2008 at 22:29:10
- Info created by JMSchneid - uploaded by JMSchneid - nominated by JMSchneid -- JMSchneid (talk) 22:29, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- JMSchneid (talk) 22:29, 16 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: unfortunately, the image is overexposed, tilted and oversharpened (white lines on the horses legs). | 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) 15:21, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 26 Oct 2008 at 07:55:18
- Info created by PsyCat - uploaded by PsyCat - nominated by PsyCat -- Alex - Baffo (talk) 07:55, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Alex - Baffo (talk) 07:55, 17 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 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) 08:41, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Support Beautiful and realistic HDR work. 64.39.108.99 21:45, 17 October 2008 (UTC)Please login to vote. --Mr. Mario (talk) 14:29, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 24 Oct 2008 at 17:18:11
- Info created by NASA - uploaded by Mortadelo2005 - nominated by Giku -- Giku (talk) 17:18, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Giku (talk) 17:18, 15 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 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) 18:05, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Support Still pretty cool despite the size. Mr. Mario (talk) 23:00, 16 October 2008 (UTC)Sorry, 24hrs had passed, FPX was valid anyway. -- Lycaon (talk) 05:16, 17 October 2008 (UTC)- Oppose - far too little WOW for a small picture. Far from the best NASA offering we have - Peripitus (talk) 04:30, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- Info Picture is a crop of Image:Earthlights dmsp.jpg, which is already featured, and of much higher quality and resolution. G.A.S 06:49, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 24 Oct 2008 at 00:00:05
- Info created, uploaded, nominated by Mr. Mario -- Mr. Mario (talk) 00:00, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- Info Subfamily: Trochilinae
- Support -- Mr. Mario (talk) 00:00, 15 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: the bird is not identified, the lighting is not good and the image is not sharp. | 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) 05:26, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, it is identified. It's a hummingbird. Mr. Mario (talk) 12:30, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oh no! Wrong family, even wrong order :-). And even then, if it was a hummingbird, which one of the 325 species? Lycaon (talk) 16:28, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry, I can't see why this picture should be special in any way. --MarPac (talk) 21:14, 15 October 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)
Original
[edit]- Info created by Kor!An - uploaded by Kor!An - nominated by Kor!An -- Kor!An (talk) 23:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Kor!An (talk) 23:27, 12 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 too small. MER-C 05:03, 13 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. |
Edit
[edit]- Info created by Kor!An - uploaded by Kor!An - nominated by Kor!An -- Kor!An (talk) 09:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- Info The new version: the size also has a little edited brightness Kor!An (talk) 09:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Kor!An (talk) 09:19, 13 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 poor photographic quality (unsharpness and noise) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:20, 14 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. |
Voting period ends on 21 Oct 2008 at 12:57:14
- Info created by Juan de Vojníkov - uploaded by Juan de Vojníkov - nominated by Juan de Vojníkov -- Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 12:57, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support not bad, looks like on the Moon.--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 15:56, 14 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 too small (1.98 MPX) --Mr. Mario (talk) 00:15, 15 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. |
- To be precise, it is 1,981,373 pixels! Mr. Mario (talk) 00:15, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- Thats a precision. Ummm, I am going back to work to earn more for a realy good camera.--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 07:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Image:Hypholoma fasciculare LC0091.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 16 Oct 2008 at 01:43:25
- Info created and uploaded by LC-de - nominated by 71.189.216.248 -- 71.189.216.248 01:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- Info Sulphur Tuft (Hypholoma fasciculare), Burkhardtsdorf, Germany -- 71.189.216.248 01:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - distracting, blurry background - TheWB (talk) 12:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support Its a good thing background isnt in focus ; ) Pbroks13 (talk) 07:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Should IMHO be cropped. --Mbdortmund (talk) 19:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- agree.--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 19:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- Question why both the original and latin name are linked?--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 19:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- Comment The common names link to de.wikipedia and en.wikipedia article pages, and the Latin names link to Wikimedia Commons gallery pages. The wiki markup is below:
*{{de|[[:de:Grünblättriger Schwefelkopf|Grünblättriger Schwefelkopf]] (''[[Hypholoma fasciculare]]''), Burkhardtsdorf, Deutschland}} *{{en|[[:en:Hypholoma fasciculare|Sulphur Tuft]] (''[[Hypholoma fasciculare]]''), Burkhardtsdorf, Germany}}
--71.189.216.248 03:04, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- Question uy, I am sorry, I havent noticed. And this is the Commons standard?--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 07:46, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Benh (talk) 19:53, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 17 Oct 2008 at 05:08:57
- Info created by U.S. Air Force photo/Senior Airman Julianne Showalter - uploaded by SpecialOpsGuy - nominated by shizhao (talk) -- shizhao (talk) 05:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- shizhao (talk) 05:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose I would love to support this, but there is too much noise. Pbroks13 (talk) 07:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Karelj (talk) 12:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support ... Mr. Mario (talk) 14:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Spectacular, but the technical aspects aren't very good. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 19:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support /Daniel78 (talk) 23:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support Technically adequate considering wow. Freedom to share (talk) 16:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Support spectaculer --87.69.173.68 17:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)No anonymous votes allowed. Mr. Mario (talk) 23:03, 9 October 2008 (UTC)- Oppose chaotic.--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 19:10, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support the chaotic scene is actually what gives it life. -Nard the Bard 23:51, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support Wow-Effect, definetly.--HouseGhostDiscussion 00:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose wings cut-off --ianaré (talk) 01:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- DarkAp89 Commons 11:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose crop too tight --Andreas 06 (talk) 02:23, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose unacceptable to crop wings off an airplane. Daniel Case (talk) 03:18, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose crop too tight --Mbdortmund (talk) 22:49, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support Yes the wings are off, but they would not give the picture anything but empty space. This way the focus is on the action. --MarPac (talk) 21:12, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support unique shot --Twdragon (talk) 14:18, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Dori - Talk 23:17, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - cropped wings. --Tsui (talk) 08:46, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Support Plenty of wow. Crapload (talk) 04:02, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
result: 11 supports, 8 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 00:19, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 17 Oct 2008 at 05:50:54
- Info created, uploaded and nominated by -- Böhringer (talk) 05:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Böhringer (talk) 05:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- PedroPVZ (talk) 11:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC) very illustrative.
- Oppose bad composition, colors are the same.--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 19:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Underexposured, some brightness field correction needed --Twdragon (talk) 08:58, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - dark. Alexanderkg (talk) 00:07, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
result: 2 supports, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 00:20, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 17 Oct 2008 at 06:02:31
- Info created by Flying Freddy - uploaded by Flying Freddy - nominated by Flying Freddy -- Flying Freddy (talk) 06:02, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Flying Freddy (talk) 06:02, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - I don't like the symmetrical composition with the horizon at the middle. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 07:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Karelj (talk) 12:19, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose it is not sharp on the sites. Moreover it look like it is pasted from more images.--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 19:00, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose The sky tends toward the purple a bit too much for me; plus there could be more land on the bottom at the middle. It looks like the bay took a huge bite out of the middle. Daniel Case (talk) 03:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
result: 2 supports, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 00:20, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 17 Oct 2008 at 07:22:51
- Info created by Anuskafm - uploaded by Anuskafm - nominated by Pbroks13 -- Pbroks13 (talk) 07:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Pbroks13 (talk) 07:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support, as a non-expert. --Aqwis (talk) 08:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support Not bad image, quite illustrative. Freedom to share (talk) 09:32, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Some numbers appear incorrect; other important parts aren't labeled. For example, #7 says "shutter release" but the shutter release should be the round button closer to the front; #7 is probably meant to be the on/off switch. Also #3 says "diaphragm" but the diaphragm doesn't have a label; it's closer to the front of the lens. The line coming from #3 points to a glass element in the lens. The pentaprism and mirror don't have labels, nor does the aperture ring (the ring around the lens near the body of the camera, attached internally to the aperture). Fg2 (talk) 12:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- Comment The image description page has a comment by Jean-Jacques Milan (who knows quite a lot on photography), and says "ce dessin est plutôt bien fait mais le pentaprisme doit être remplacé par un prisme en toit. Avec un pentaprisme le viseur donnerait une image inversée droite-gauche", i.e. in English "this drawing is well done but the pentaprism should be replaced by a "roof prism" [I'm not sure how to translate it]. With a pentaprism, the viewfinder would give right-left inverted image". This should be checked and fixed. le Korrigan →bla 16:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Illustrative. I understand this is a reflex camera, but the reflex mirror isn't labled. Something like this has better description. Regarding the pentaprism, here are the illustrations: Pentaprism and Roof Pentaprism--Base64 (talk) 16:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
result: 3 supports, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 00:21, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 17 Oct 2008 at 09:59:07
- Info created by Luc Viatour (talk) - uploaded by Luc Viatour (talk) - nominated by -- Luc Viatour (talk) 09:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Luc Viatour (talk) 09:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support Good picture. Mr. Mario (talk) 14:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose --Some missing details and textures --Twdragon (talk) 15:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose It contains to much noise unfortunately. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 16:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Dori - Talk 00:21, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Paloma Walker (talk) 00:30, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - Too much noise, affecting detail -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:15, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Support its nice.--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 18:52, 9 October 2008 (UTC)Oppose huh, really its noisy.--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 10:21, 11 October 2008 (UTC)- Oppose As Alvesgaspar. --Karelj (talk) 21:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose overprocessed, noisy -- ianaré (talk) 01:48, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 16:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
result: 5 supports, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 00:21, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 17 Oct 2008 at 23:18:33
- Info created by Flying Freddy - uploaded by Flying Freddy - nominated by Flying Freddy -- Flying Freddy (talk) 23:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Flying Freddy (talk) 23:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support Nice feeling about the picture. Muhammad 16:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Not bad, but the size is too small. --Karelj (talk) 21:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Too much noise and in need of perspective correction --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 23:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
result: 2 supports, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 00:22, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Maple leaves in the snow - not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 18 Oct 2008 at 12:46:08
- Info created, uploaded and nominated by -- Böhringer (talk) 12:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Böhringer (talk) 12:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose pretty but obvious artificial composition. --B.navez (talk) 15:40, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose the same as B.navez--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 18:44, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Well artifical compositions can look well but this one does obviously not :-( (the leaves could be partially covered by snow etc), I am sorry. --Aktron (talk) 15:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
1 support, 3 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 5th day) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 07:34, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 18 Oct 2008 at 15:40:27
- Info created by Neil Skene - uploaded by Neil Skene - nominated by Neil Skene -- Neil Skene (talk) 15:40, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Neil Skene (talk) 15:40, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - Please identify the species and categorize the image- Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)- Neutral - Good quality and detail but crop too tight. Also, it is a bit disturbing to have the foreground out of focus. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:54, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Very interesting view, great colors, really attractive photo --Twdragon (talk) 09:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose subject not centered, compared to distracting backgroud --Sailko (talk) 13:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose the same as Sailko. I think you could still fix also the description.--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 07:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- Info Phylum: ARTHROPODA Class: HEXAPODA Order: Hemiptera Family: Cicadidae species: Cyclochila australasiae. Neil Skene
- Support Outstanding! Clear (talk) 21:47, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
result: 3 supports, 2 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 00:25, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Image:Marseille Vieux Port Night.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 16 Oct 2008 at 15:07:02
- Info created by Benh - uploaded by Benh - nominated by Massimo Catarinella -- Massimo Catarinella (talk) 15:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support I stumbled on this amazing panorama through his user page. -- Massimo Catarinella (talk) 15:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support Nice panorama image. --Xxxx00 (talk) 15:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support amazing! --Luc Viatour (talk) 15:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Thank you Massimo for the nomination. I wouldn't have nominated this one because of the blown highlights, but anyone please forget about this ;) Benh (talk) 16:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- Info I updated the caption (how picture was made) and added geolocatisation. Benh (talk) 16:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Karelj (talk) 17:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Böhringer (talk) 20:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support--Simonizer (talk) 21:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support Mr. Mario (talk) 23:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Overflow (reflector from left) -- Albertus teolog (talk) 07:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- Question Was the noise sharpened? --Base64 (talk) 08:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, it certainly was. I'll try selective sharpening on the edges tonight. Benh (talk) 11:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- Not so easy to me :(... I'll try selective blur instead ! but tomorrow. I'm very exhausted now. Benh (talk) 20:54, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Conditional Supportwith reduced noise in the sky. --Base64 (talk) 11:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC) not counting it, I didn't had time to get rid of the noise - Benh (talk) 19:55, 16 October 2008 (UTC)- Support Good composition. - Noumenon talk 15:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support Netteté époustouflante. -- MJJR (talk) 20:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support for the ambiance.--Paloma Walker (talk) 01:55, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Laitche (talk) 10:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- DarkAp89 Commons 11:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support Nothing wrong with this one. Daniel Case (talk) 03:21, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
result: 13 supports, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Benh (talk) 19:55, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Image:Saperda carcharias02.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 16 Oct 2008 at 16:03:10
- Info created by KarlR - uploaded by KarlR - nominated by Simonizer (talk) 16:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support good composition, good quality, a very nice macro shot -- Simonizer (talk) 16:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Richard Bartz (talk) 16:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support Nice.(^^)/ -- Laitche (talk) 16:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Karelj (talk) 17:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Luc Viatour (talk) 17:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support - Wow, this is the best I have seen for a long time! And so little noise with ISO 800! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Böhringer (talk) 20:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support Amazing --norro 20:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support But of course --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 22:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC) I do wonder why the picture is that clean with an ISO of 800..
- Support Excellent moment, good quality. Darius Bauzys (talk) 08:46, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support Mr. Mario (talk) 23:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support good --Mbdortmund (talk) 19:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support good work --libertad0 ॐ (talk) 13:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --D-Kuru (talk) 15:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- Comment could you provide scientific name of the beatle into the description?--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 19:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- The scientific is allready in the description --Simonizer (talk) 20:17, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, thanks.--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 08:03, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- The scientific is allready in the description --Simonizer (talk) 20:17, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- DarkAp89 Commons 11:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose don't like composition centration --Sailko (talk) 13:55, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- Centration? How it is centered?--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 08:03, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support it is good.--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 08:03, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
result: 16 supports, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Benh (talk) 19:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Image:Table-cloth 2008-1.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 18 Oct 2008 at 09:17:30
- Info Detail of a crochet table-cloth, around 1970. Handwork by Júlia Figueiredo, Lisboa. Created & nominated by -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:17, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:17, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support Simple and elegant Muhammad 11:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support Simple and elegant, yes --Böhringer (talk) 12:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support Simple and good --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 14:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support The same as Massimo Catarinella--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 18:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- MJJR (talk) 21:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Too simple for FP. --Karelj (talk) 21:52, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- So only pictures with spectacular subjects may from now on become an FP? Sometimes the most simple of things are the most beautiful. This same phrase can be applied to photography. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 23:00, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral Due to
progressive JPEG, shadows, CA, and it not being completely in focus. --Dori - Talk 02:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)- Question -- And could you please show us those faults? My eyes aren't as sharp as they used to be. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 07:51, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- The progressive JPEG and shadows are obvious, the rest is minor (purple fringing, and loss of detail here and there). Just the use of progressive is enough for me to oppose as I see no reason for using that format. --Dori - Talk 01:06, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for noticing, I had no idea the image was encoded in that format. That is fixed now (I hope). Anyway, I wonder if that is a valid reason for opposing, as the issue is not mentioned in the guidelines and the final image quality is the same. As for the other flaws, well ... we really have to look hard! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:37, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- Well, it is valid for me (more important than the ever vague and elusive wow guideline), and it's now in the guidelines :) (let's see if someone disagrees). A more extreme case would be if someone encoded a photograph as a GIF or PNG. --Dori - Talk 12:03, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- Info -- The change was reverted by me, waiting for a consensus to be reached. A discussion topic was created here -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:42, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- Question -- And could you please show us those faults? My eyes aren't as sharp as they used to be. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 07:51, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- DarkAp89 Commons 11:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support I see no technical problem as mentioned by Dori. Agree with Muhammad --Simonizer (talk) 16:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support very strongly. I see no technical problems and this is so perfect you could cut it out and put it on your table. Daniel Case (talk) 13:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support I don't see technical issues either. Durova (talk) 17:02, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
result: 10 supports, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 00:24, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 18 Oct 2008 at 03:42:32
- Info created by 池田正樹 - uploaded by 池田正樹 - nominated by 池田正樹 -- 池田正樹 (talk) 03:42, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- 池田正樹 (talk) 03:42, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --PedroPVZ (talk) 11:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support top --Böhringer (talk) 12:32, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support in spite of posterization in background. -- Laitche (talk) 14:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --D-Kuru (talk) 15:06, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- Comment add the scientific name to the description, please.--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 18:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- Done -- Laitche (talk) 08:24, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Karelj (talk) 21:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- DarkAp89 Commons 11:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose too artificial background --Sailko (talk) 13:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- Vice versa, I would say the background is natural.--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 21:19, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support Good Darius Bauzys (talk) 16:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support The description is not perfect.
There are some typography bugsand maybe you can link Wikipedia, but the picture is good.--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 21:19, 10 October 2008 (UTC) - Support --Javier ME (talk) 16:23, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
result: 10 supports, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 00:23, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Image:PanoHardangerfjorden1.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 18 Oct 2008 at 23:11:29
- Info created by Aqwis - uploaded by Aqwis - nominated by Massimo Catarinella -- Massimo Catarinella (talk) 23:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Massimo Catarinella (talk) 23:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support as creator. --Aqwis (talk) 08:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support This one rocks! --Aktron (talk) 15:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support Awesome view --Simonizer (talk) 16:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Pudelek (talk) 08:23, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral I like it but that dark area at the right is distracting. If it could be lightened or the shadow fixed, you might have me. Daniel Case (talk) 13:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- Something like this? --Aqwis (talk) 19:20, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Durova (talk) 17:00, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support Panorama with a working composition, wow! --che 10:32, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Karelj (talk) 19:01, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose It is very grey and dark and it doesn't look right to me. Benh (talk) 19:31, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose As Benh --Böhringer (talk) 15:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support Good JukoFF (talk) 16:47, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Interesting, but I think the composition is somewhat below the FP bar. Crapload (talk) 04:01, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Lošmi (talk) 19:12, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Support - beautiful. Alexanderkg (talk) 00:06, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
result: 11 supports, 3 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 00:26, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 19 Oct 2008 at 14:34:03
- Info created by Karelj - uploaded by Karelj - nominated by Karelj -- Karelj (talk) 14:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- Info Rest of old town fortification in Třeboň in south Bohemia, Czech Republic
- Support -- Karelj (talk) 14:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Celkem easy kompozice pěkných hradeb za slunečného dne; ne že by to technicky bylo špatné ale obecně vzato to ve mě nezanechává žádný pocit, jako třeba ten vysoký dům, který byl vidět o několik nominací níže :-/ Navíc je dobře, že se autor snažil vyhnout přebílení snímku. Přesto to podle mě není obrázek, který by se mohl pyšnit titulem Featured Picture. --Aktron (talk) 15:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- So you would like to say, that wow effect is missing.--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 22:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- That is exactly what I was about to say. But however the term "WOW effect" is used as a template to explain everything and nothing is said. That I don't like. --Aktron (talk) 22:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- So you would like to say, that wow effect is missing.--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 22:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Noon ligth makes the photo look flat. --che 10:31, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Composition, no WOW Wladyslaw (talk) 13:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
1 support, 3 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 5th day) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 07:33, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Image:Maple leaf on branches.jpg - not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 19 Oct 2008 at 18:16:48
- Info created, uploaded, nominated by Twdragon -- Twdragon (talk) 18:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Twdragon (talk) 18:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose bad composition.--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 21:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Composition fine, yet colors not intensive. For autumn pictures crucial. --Aktron (talk) 22:48, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Not categorized, nor properly identified. Lycaon (talk) 07:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose The pic is not all that interesting, and the background does not fit the autumn scene up front. --MarPac (talk) 21:41, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
1 support, 4 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 5th day) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 07:32, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Image:Dolmen de Menga, Antequera, Spain; July 2008.JPG - not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 19 Oct 2008 at 21:58:09
- Info created by Juan de Vojníkov - uploaded by Juan de Vojníkov - nominated by Juan de Vojníkov -- Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 21:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral Já nevím. Nižší ISO a delší čas by tomu asi pomohly, ale je to orginální kompozice a ty jsou třeba jako sůl. Třeba až tu padne nějakej argument tak se rozhodnu jestli za nebo proti. --Aktron (talk) 22:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- A co by bylo efektem toho nižšího ISA? Je mi jasné že vyšší čas nám natáhne třeba paprisky svetla? No v případě toho delšího času bych se bál, že se mi to zaleje světlem - jelikož je to de facto proti světlu foceno.--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 22:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- Nižší ISO sníží zrnitost snímku, zlepší tak čistotu obrázku. Ale ten zase není dostatečně světelný a proto se musí použít delší čas. Efekt "hvězdiček" kterej mimochodem tady profi fotografové rádi nemají, se sem nehodí a je zcela mimo hru. S menším ISEm se to světlem nezaleje, ale chtělo by to se hrabat v nastavení a to chápu že nebaví. Navíc by to vyžadovalo asi nejspíš i stativ. To že to je foceno proti světlu zase špatný není. --Aktron (talk) 22:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- A co by bylo efektem toho nižšího ISA? Je mi jasné že vyšší čas nám natáhne třeba paprisky svetla? No v případě toho delšího času bych se bál, že se mi to zaleje světlem - jelikož je to de facto proti světlu foceno.--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 22:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - Considero a imagem irrelevante para os objectivos da Wikimedia e esteticamente pouco conseguida -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, now I can see it, that eastheticaly it is weak. But not good for Wikimedia? Like a demonstration of dolmen iside with the distribution of the light? Strange.--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 22:35, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- Well, the encyclopaedic value is the easiest part to evaluate: what we can see of the dolmen is not even enough to conclude it is a dolmen. ;-) Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- Well, maybe you are right. But I would say, it is not the dolmen, but it is the Dolmen of Menga:-)--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 22:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Nothing special and as Alvesgaspar - problematic value for Wikipedia. --Karelj (talk) 19:09, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
1 neutral, 2 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 5th day) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 07:31, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Image:Tai Po Waterfront Park (D09 28).jpg - not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 20 Oct 2008 at 11:42:43
- Info created by Calvin yeung - uploaded by Calvin yeung - nominated by Calvin yeung -- 59.149.93.38 11:42, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Support -- 59.149.93.38 11:42, 11 October 2008 (UTC)No anonymous votes allowed. Mr. Mario (talk) 13:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)- Oppose Really nice composition, but white is not white - it is light grey. That is I think serious problem here. --Aktron (talk) 15:06, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose I can see what you were thinking but you tried to take in too much. This could work if it was just the tower and its reflection in the water. Daniel Case (talk) 03:13, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
0 support, 2 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 5th day) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 07:30, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Image:Colchicum Autumnale Flower.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 22 Oct 2008 at 19:15:31
- Info created, uploaded, - nominated by Twdragon -- Twdragon (talk) 19:15, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Twdragon (talk) 19:15, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Poor lighting, bad crop. Lycaon (talk) 21:11, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose overburn, bad composition.--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 05:51, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Wrong ID. All members of the Colchicum genus have 6 petal-like sepals. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:40, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Poor lighting. --MarPac (talk) 21:28, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 4 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of the 5th day). Benh (talk) 16:30, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Image:Colchicum Autumnale.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 22 Oct 2008 at 19:17:46
- Info created, uploaded, nominated by Twdragon -- Twdragon (talk) 19:17, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Twdragon (talk) 19:17, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Poor lighting, bad crop. Lycaon (talk) 21:10, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose poor lighting, bad composition. --Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 05:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - Wrong ID. All members of the Colchicum genus have 6 petal-like sepals. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 3 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of the 5th day). Benh (talk) 16:30, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 27 Oct 2008 at 07:29:14
- Info created by Mike Peel - uploaded by Mike Peel - nominated by Mike Peel -- Mike Peel (talk) 07:29, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Mike Peel (talk) 07:29, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Oppose, extremely oversharpened. --Aqwis (talk) 09:57, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
- Apologies; I'm new to sharpening images. New version uploaded to the same filename, with less sharpening applied. Mike Peel (talk) 10:46, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
- Much better - not sure whether to support, though. --Aqwis (talk) 11:42, 18 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: the image is too oversharpened. | 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) 11:04, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Apart from the sharpening issue, IMHO the composition is somewhat too straightforward for FP status: the abbey is dead in the center of the pic, as is the horizon (well, almost). But it is a nice shot. --MarPac (talk) 09:27, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Image:Adult citrus root weevil, Diaprepes abbreviatus.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 19 Oct 2008 at 02:49:54
- Info created by Keith Weller from the ARS - uploaded by Saperaud - nominated by Shizhao -- shizhao (talk) 02:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- shizhao (talk) 02:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 09:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose, too noisy. --Aqwis (talk) 12:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose, quote Aqwis --Sailko (talk) 13:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose ack above. -- Laitche (talk) 15:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
result: 2 supports, 3 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured. Benh (talk) 16:27, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Image:Stained glass in Nysa cathedral.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 19 Oct 2008 at 15:30:45
- Info created, uploaded and nominated by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 15:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Pudelek (talk) 15:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral Well the picture is nice, but the white parts are a bit overburn... I understand this is stained glass, yet these parts are large... However, it is no reason for oppose. So neutral. --Aktron (talk) 15:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 17:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- Comment There is a small tilt present. Please fix it. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 12:23, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
- Question - to left or right? (in my opinion is ok) --Pudelek (talk) 12:40, 12 October 2008 (UTC) Info I make small correct but I think that oryginal (stained glass) is a soft tilt --Pudelek (talk) 18:17, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Now it's good. It was only a small tilt, but a symmetrical composition is very important with picture like these. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 16:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - I think the picture would benefit from a stretching in the vertical direction, to correct for the geometrial distortion. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Not enough wow. Crapload (talk) 04:00, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
result: 2 supports, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Benh (talk) 16:28, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Image:Maple Autumn Foliage.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 19 Oct 2008 at 18:05:51
- Info created, uploaded, nominated by Twdragon -- Twdragon (talk) 18:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Twdragon (talk) 18:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose bad composition.--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 21:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support I like the composition and colors are just like should be in autumn picture. --Aktron (talk) 22:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Nice colors, but otherwise nothing stands out about this one. Besides I see artifacts, and the blown highlights on the leaves at the bottom are a bit distracting. Daniel Case (talk) 06:26, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- Question Will cropping helps to improve quality of this image? --Twdragon (talk) 08:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- I'm afraid not. It looks too much like any collection of autumn leaves against a blue sky. Daniel Case (talk) 13:42, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- Question Will cropping helps to improve quality of this image? --Twdragon (talk) 08:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose: I don't like the distribution of the leaves in contrast to the sky, it seems simply casual and not really predefined: it makes the photo not so interesting.--sNappy 11:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Not categorized, nor properly identified. Lycaon (talk) 07:29, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Less would be more: The multitude of leaves create some sort of chaos. --MarPac (talk) 21:45, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
result: 2 supports, 5 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured. Benh (talk) 19:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Image:Maple leaf on the grass.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 19 Oct 2008 at 18:13:41
- Info created, uploaded, nominated by Twdragon -- Twdragon (talk) 18:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Twdragon (talk) 18:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- Question could you offer more cropped versions?--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 21:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- I can provide these cropped versions to review, but i don't sure that cropping will not distract the image. --Twdragon (talk) 08:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- Well, I would recomend to crop it and zoom, but not sure if it will be Featured. Now it isnt. It would be also nice to take more pictures like this using different compostition and angle.--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 10:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- I can provide these cropped versions to review, but i don't sure that cropping will not distract the image. --Twdragon (talk) 08:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support I don't know why, but I just like this one. Maybe the colors of the grass are well done. I mean the shade of green. --Aktron (talk) 22:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose nothing special, too dark --Luc Viatour (talk) 12:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - unfortunately too dark. Alexanderkg (talk) 00:05, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
result: 2 supports, 2 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured. Benh (talk) 19:08, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Image:USS Maine c1897 LOC det 4a25824.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 19 Oct 2008 at 21:14:02
- Info USS Maine. Photo created circa 1897 by Detroit Publishing Company, taken from Library of Congress - uploaded by Balcer - nominated by Balcer -- balcer (talk) 21:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- balcer (talk) 21:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support Sharp for a picture over 100 years old that was sunk soon after.--Paloma Walker (talk) 00:53, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - No date in the picture file or info here -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:19, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- object Uneven fading at lower left could be corrected. Durova (talk) 16:57, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral Interesting historical picture! I suppose there is no more information available about date etc., as it's a scanning of an old photograph. I have my doubts about the quality of the scanning however: pictures made by the Detroit Publishing Company used to be very sharp, and that's not the case in this scanning at full resolution. On the other hand, I don't completely agree with Durova about the fading of the lower left corner: correction is easy to do indeed, but is not really necessary as it does not add an extra value. -- MJJR (talk) 19:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- I am guessing the picture was shot from another ship rocking on the waves, hence the decrease in sharpness. I wonder what the exposure duration was in those days. The picture is indeed unique (among those available on the web at least), as it is by far the best image of USS Maine that I have seen, and the ship is of course quite significant. I particularly like the clear view of sailors on board, giving a good indication of the ship's size. Per Durova, it would be good to clean the picture up more and remove the artifacts, but I don't have enough experience to attempt this. Maybe someone could lend a hand here? balcer (talk) 00:16, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
result: 2 supports, 0 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Benh (talk) 19:08, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Image:Praha, Stodůlky, Velká Ohrada, kaštan.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 19 Oct 2008 at 23:02:21
- Info created by Aktron - uploaded by Aktron - nominated by Aktron -- Aktron (talk) 23:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Aktron (talk) 23:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Colors are good but there's just too much going on in this one. Daniel Case (talk) 06:16, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose not good arrangement, place Horse Chesnut fruits on Chery Tree is realy a not good idea. Than it is hard to understand the story and composition.--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 07:55, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support Pretty colors, the composition is some cropped but in summaries all looks good. I like it --Twdragon (talk) 08:33, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - Poor composition with distracting foreground -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose: there is a branch in the foreground which isn't defined, the lower Horse Chesnut is really too much over-exposed (seems the sun!) and the position of the Horse Chesnuts it's too strange and not comprensible. However I admit that I like the colors' combination. --sNappy 17:42, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- Hmm finally happy to see some real reasons. That overexposing now I can see is quite a problem (I should use full manual mode), that branch - yeah, it is not nice, you're right (next time I'll rid of such objects :-) ) The composition is artifical (as can be already seen from Juandev's comment above), but I liked it this way :-) I have also uploaded other arrangements of the nuts and have even more in my comp. Maybe I had to nominate another one. --Aktron (talk) 18:06, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
result: 2 supports, 4 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured. Benh (talk) 19:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 29 Oct 2008 at 16:14:58
- Info created by Fir0002 - uploaded by Fir0002 - nominated by Elucidate -- Elucidate (talk) 16:14, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Elucidate (talk) 16:14, 20 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: 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. |
--Aqwis (talk) 16:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 28 Oct 2008 at 17:01:08
- Info created by PsyCat - uploaded by PsyCat - nominated by PsyCat -- Alex - Baffo (talk) 17:01, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Alex - Baffo (talk) 17:01, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose The different expositions of the HDR are misaligned/objects have moved. Very visible in the pine tree. Gives an artistic look, but not enough to overcome the flaws. --S23678 (talk) 17:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Oversharpened, and as per S23678. But the picture is not bad.---donald- (talk) 18:38, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Oversharpened, almost cell-shading like effect created because of it. Would make a great picture for a jigsaw puzzle thought! SFC9394 (talk) 22:56, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose way too overprocessed, if this is supposed to be a photo of the lake --che 23:10, 19 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 (a long way) oversharpened. MER-C 07:53, 20 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. |
Voting period ends on 28 Oct 2008 at 11:11:36
- Info created by Teimuraz - uploaded by Teimuraz - nominated by Teimuraz -- Temuri rajavi (talk) 11:11, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Temuri rajavi (talk) 11:11, 19 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 too small and poorly cropped - Alvesgaspar (talk) 07:33, 20 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. |
Image:Straw of the rice.08Oct9.jpg, not featured
[edit]Original, not featured
[edit]- Info created by 池田正樹 - uploaded by 池田正樹 - nominated by 池田正樹 -- 池田正樹 (talk) 00:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- 池田正樹 (talk) 00:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose horizont missing, bad position of the camera.--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 07:51, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Attractive composition, but no orientation line, uncomfortable for common viewer. It would be much better if you get the photo with horizon line on 1/3 - 1/4 of image height from the top line --
Twdragon (talk) 08:30, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- InfoThank you for suggestion. I upload a other version
- Support Not that bad. Mr. Mario (talk) 13:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Per above --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 12:20, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support I like it --Simonizer (talk) 21:32, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
result: 3 supports, 3 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured. Benh (talk) 20:31, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Edit, not featured
[edit]- Info As long as there is no less cropped version, perhaps you would like a little more crop. --wau > 19:58, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I dont think so, this will help.--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 20:31, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
result: 0 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of the 5th day). Benh (talk) 16:28, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Original - not fetaured
[edit]- Info created by Kor!An - uploaded by Kor!An - nominated by Kor!An -- Kor!An (talk) 10:28, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Kor!An (talk) 10:28, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- Question even I understand it, could you provide information in English, please?--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 10:39, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- I have added the text en: Description Kor!An (talk) 11:00, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Calvin yeung (talk) 12:57, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral Composition is really nice but the colors are not so well looking. For example that gradient in the sky... --Aktron (talk) 15:07, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose; too much distracting shadow up front. Daniel Case (talk) 03:11, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Not bad, but the size is too small. --Karelj (talk) 19:17, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
- Question
Please, will explain. Why is a size needed more than 1000 x 1333? To print posters?Kor!An (talk) 20:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC)- We have no idea what sort of display devices will be available and/or widely-used in the future. Having the highest resolution images we can right now helps us stay ahead of the curve. Daniel Case (talk) 03:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
2 support, 1 neutral, 2 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Edit, not featured
[edit]- Info The new version. The size more, framing for shade reduction in the foreground is a little changed, the shade is a little clarified. Kor!An (talk) 23:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- Info created by Kor!An - uploaded by Kor!An - nominated by Kor!An -- Kor!An (talk) 23:16, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Kor!An (talk) 23:16, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - Not a bad photo but far from FP standards, due to less-than-optinmal technical quality (for example, the noise in the sky) and a poor framing. You should read the guidelines carefully, visit the FP and QI galleries and try first Commons:Quality images candidates and Commons:Photography critiques. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:48, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of the 5th day). Benh (talk) 16:29, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Image:Detail_shot_of_budgerigars_head.jpg - not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 20 Oct 2008 at 10:28:30
- Info created by Kirk - uploaded by Kirk - nominated by Kirk --Kirk (talk) 16:37, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Kirk --Kirk (talk) 16:37, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - Harsh flash lighting, crop too tight. A nice photo and a cute bird though. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:53, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 16:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose --Pretty composition but poor lighting setup, it looks not good for me to oppose this photo... --Twdragon (talk) 18:06, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose the background doesnt fit.--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 09:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - Alexanderkg (talk) 00:03, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
2 support, 4 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:52, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Image:Sitta europaea Luc Viatour.jpg - not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 21 Oct 2008 at 09:36:37
- Info created by Luc Viatour (talk) - uploaded by Luc Viatour (talk) - nominated by -- Luc Viatour (talk) 09:36, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Luc Viatour (talk) 09:36, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Désolé...the DOF is too shallow and
the light isn't very good. I think you had some wiggle room for wider DOF, but perhaps not enough time to change the settings :) --Dori - Talk 13:06, 12 October 2008 (UTC) --Actually the more I look at this the more I like the light. It's just a matter of the focus and details. --Dori - Talk 12:11, 13 October 2008 (UTC) - Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 16:57, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - Sorry, lacks sharpness due to noise and shallow DOF. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Alvesgaspar --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 15:55, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral This is a very nice shot, but I'm not sure whether to support because there are better ones out there, including your own. --MarPac (talk) 11:18, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
2 support, 1 neutral, 3 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:54, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Image:Milwaukee Wisconsin 0049.jpg - not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 21 Oct 2008 at 19:18:09
- Info created, uploaded, nominated by --Dori - Talk 19:18, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Dori - Talk 19:18, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support Nice composition with the moon. --Aktron (talk) 11:07, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support - very nice --Pudelek (talk) 11:14, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Karelj (talk) 16:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 16:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose, too late in the evening and tilted. I don't like the composition a lot, either. --Aqwis (talk) 17:07, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- Regarding tilt, please look at full size and measure. I don't think it's tilted (or if it is it's within a very small margin). --Dori - Talk 22:40, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- And I don't think it's too late. I actually think timing is good, when it's dark enough to have all the lights "poping out" enough and still the blue beautiful sky. Benh (talk) 21:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - Nice composition and mood, but quality not good enought to reach FP status. After seing this, this or even this, we become spoiled... -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:14, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- It's true that those are a lot better. --Dori - Talk 22:40, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose I think it's good but with little wow... I'd have chosen a cooler white balance as well (but this is personal taste). Benh (talk) 21:17, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose The quality is not suffient enough to become an FP. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 15:55, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose colors are nice but the motif itself is somewhat boring, I'm sure there are nicer views in Milwaukee -- Gorgo (talk) 01:52, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose White balance a little bit too much too yellowish-redish. A more neutral white balance would have widen the color range, and made it more interesting, IMO. --S23678 (talk) 17:26, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
5 support, 6 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:55, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 21 Oct 2008 at 22:30:11
Version 1 - not featured
[edit]- Info A female Red-veined darter (Sympetrum fonscolombii). Created & nominated by Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:30, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:30, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral wow, nice colors and background, good focus, too bad about the size. Do you have a bigger version (was this downsized or cropped)? --Dori - Talk 22:37, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose great picture, but too small. --Mbdortmund (talk) 22:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
- wrong version -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:17, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Withdrawn >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Version 2 - featured
[edit]- Info - Sorry, this is the correct unedited version - Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support - Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Dori - Talk 23:18, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Luc Viatour (talk) 10:12, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 16:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Not too sharp (e.g. posterior part of abdomen), yet somewhat over-processed (e.g. eyes). Low DOF makes the wings distracting. Lycaon (talk) 21:16, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support Mr. Mario (talk) 02:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- Question The background is pretty exciting, but could you try to remove that white stalk in the background. Could remove it?--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 06:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose As Lycaon. --Karelj (talk) 19:56, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Lycaon, there are a lot of better pictures out on commons of this subject including some of your own. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 22:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support Good picture and IMO the low DOF blur in the wings makes it look good. Muhammad 06:44, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- DarkAp89 Commons 10:47, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose nothing special --Beyond silence 21:02, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support Shallow DOF is very well chosen IMO. It gives volume to the picture. --S23678 (talk) 02:11, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
8 support, 4 oppose >> featured -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Image:Mono Cliffs Provincial Park Lookout.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 25 Oct 2008 at 19:44:40
- Info created by Giligone - uploaded by Giligone - nominated by Giligone -- Giligone (talk) 19:44, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Giligone (talk) 19:44, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose there's too much of the dark foreground --che 12:37, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Good motif and nice colours but boring composition and unfortunate shadow in the front --Simonizer (talk) 18:08, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Shadow on the lower third and lack of wow (I know how beautiful autumn forest are, but the probably vivid colors of the trees do not transpose on the picture). --S23678 (talk) 18:00, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose The shadow spoils it, sorry. Also because you tried to keep some details in the shadowy part of the pic, the rest is overexposed. Without the shadow, the colors of the trees would be more saturated and the sky have a deeper blue. --MarPac (talk) 11:35, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of the 5th day). Lycaon (talk) 16:57, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Image:Sympetrum striolatum 1(loz).jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 25 Oct 2008 at 21:38:12
- Info created by and uploaded by Loz - nominated by D-Kuru -- D-Kuru (talk) 21:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support Even there some pictures of odonatas it's a very nice one --D-Kuru (talk) 21:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of the 5th day). Lycaon (talk) 16:57, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 26 Oct 2008 at 12:27:19
- Info Wire bike in Zambia. Created, uploaded and nominated by Lycaon (talk) 12:27, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Lycaon (talk) 12:27, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral Good picture b
ut IMO it lacks a picture with a rider would have been better.Muhammad 16:43, 17 October 2008 (UTC) - Question How so? The 'bike' is only 30cm! Lycaon (talk) 16:52, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose The composition is a bit uninspired. The motif has much more potential. --Simonizer (talk) 18:31, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose As per Simonizer. A silver object over a grey background is not ideal. --S23678 (talk) 18:06, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Composition. Also, the small scale is not expressed in the image. –Dilaudid 08:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination Commons is not yet ready for this kind of pictures ;-). Lycaon (talk) 12:29, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 29 Oct 2008 at 18:59:14
- Info created by Lucien Monfils - uploaded by Lucien Monfils - nominated by Lucien Monfils -- Lucien Monfils (talk) 18:59, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Lucien Monfils (talk) 18:59, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose, tilted, unsharp, and too late in the evening. --Aqwis (talk) 20:24, 20 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: the image is underexposed and not sharp. | 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) 07:08, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 31 Oct 2008 at 17:25:39
- Info created, uploaded, nominated by Twdragon -- Twdragon (talk) 17:25, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Twdragon (talk) 17:25, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - You have been around long enough to know that this kind of dumping strategy doesn't work. What about trying a little harder?-- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:23, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - nothing special --TheWB (talk) 19:56, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose No FP-quality. --MarPac (talk) 21:13, 22 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 image quality - Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:48, 22 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. |
Voting period ends on 31 Oct 2008 at 17:23:46
- Info created, uploaded, nominated by Twdragon -- Twdragon (talk) 17:23, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Twdragon (talk) 17:23, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - Don't know why these are up for FP. --TheWB (talk) 19:57, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose No FP-quality. --MarPac (talk) 21:14, 22 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 image quality - Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:49, 22 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. |
Voting period ends on 31 Oct 2008 at 17:17:19
- Info created, uploaded, nominated by Twdragon -- Twdragon (talk) 17:17, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Twdragon (talk) 17:17, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose No FP-quality. --MarPac (talk) 21:13, 22 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 image quality - Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:49, 22 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. |
Voting period ends on 30 Oct 2008 at 12:23:45
- Info created, uploaded and nominated by -- Böhringer (talk) 12:23, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Böhringer (talk) 12:23, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose No wow factor, less than beautiful image border stitching/composing, obscure and unbalanced color mix, barely any encyclopedic value. No English description. --GreyCat (talk) 19:56, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose not very harmonic. And the picture editing looks not very professional, especially the transitions are very bad.--Simonizer (talk) 07:33, 22 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 inadequate stitching. | 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. |
–Dilaudid 08:37, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 29 Oct 2008 at 12:37:36
- Info created, uploaded and nominated by --Albertus teolog (talk) 12:28, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Albertus teolog (talk) 12:28, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Too narrow, don't get the point --norro 16:42, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose, no wow. --Aqwis (talk) 20:25, 20 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 lack of wow. | 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. |
–Dilaudid 08:36, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 28 Oct 2008 at 23:14:32
- Info created by Brest - uploaded by Brest - nominated by Brest -- Brest (talk) 23:14, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
- Juniperus communis at the Vodno mountain, near Skopje, Macedonia.
- Support -- Brest (talk) 23:14, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
- Question - Please categorize your picture properly and add some information about its content. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 07:32, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose, pictures of common subjects like this one need to be truly special to become FPs: this picture is simply to dull. In addition, the picture has a lot of artefacts (probably from JPEG compression) and is very unsharp in the corners. --Aqwis (talk) 20:28, 20 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: the quality and composition are not good enough -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:45, 21 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. |
Voting period ends on 26 Oct 2008 at 13:52:45
- Info created by Tango7174 - uploaded by Tango7174 - nominated by Tango7174 -- Tango7174 (talk) 13:52, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Tango7174 (talk) 13:52, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Aqwis (talk) 14:27, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose composition is not that great: cut on the top left and bottom left, also quite confusing with all the overlapping glowing figures; lowish resolution (2.5mp) -- Gorgo (talk) 01:25, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Karelj (talk) 19:09, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral Very nice colours ! so sad the composition is that unclear :( Benh (talk) 19:29, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 1 Nov 2008 at 20:35:16
- Info created by User:farzaaaad2000 - uploaded by User:farzaaaad2000 - nominated by User:farzaaaad2000 a view of some buildings and highway in theran capital of iran at night. -- Farzaaaad2000 (talk) 20:35, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support it is a night view of tehran.it is a modern persian night -- Farzaaaad2000 (talk) 20:35, 23 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 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) 20:47, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 1 Nov 2008 at 14:07:05
- Info Momordica charantia [ku gua 苦瓜] is native to Africa but has been used in Chinese folk medicine for centuries as a 'bitter, cold' herb, and has recently been brought into mainstream Chinese medicine as well as natural medical traditions around the world. Recent research has shown that the immature fruit might have some antibiotic, anticancer, and antiviral properties, particularly well suited for use in treatment of malaria, HIV, and diabetic conditions (the use of Momordica fruit is contraindicated in a number of conditions, especially pregnancy - all Chinese medicinals should be used only under the supervision of a trained herbalist of Traditional Chinese Medicine). created by The Photographer - uploaded by The Photographer - nominated by The Photographer -- libertad0 ॐ (talk) 14:07, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- libertad0 ॐ (talk) 14:07, 23 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: the colour balance is wrong. | 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) 14:20, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
- Comment unbeautiful colors, correct Crusier (talk) 07:40, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- Comment It would be helpful if someone gave me a clue how to solve this problem. Can this be corrected with gimp?. Thank's --libertad0 ॐ (talk) 13:23, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- I'm afraid not. First of all, we don't now how the while should be balanced here in th first place, and even if we did, this kind of correction would degrade image quality. The solution is to take photos with correct while balance. --che 20:38, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 26 Oct 2008 at 13:50:23
- Info created by Tango7174 - uploaded by Tango7174 - nominated by Tango7174 -- Tango7174 (talk) 13:50, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Tango7174 (talk) 13:50, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose, composition is too busy, in my opinion. --Aqwis (talk) 14:26, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose composition: disturbing building on the bottom left, statue is cut on the bottom but too much space on top of the picture; blurry flags because of long exposure (not your fault though); The sky might also need some denoising. Try to divide your image into thirds. en:Rule of thirds. I like the color and the lighting though. -- Gorgo (talk) 01:31, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose J'aime la composition et les couleurs (bien que j'enlèverait ce qui est à gauche de l'église). Par contre, le bruit est visible lorsque vu à 1 Mpx. Essaie de diminuer la sensibilité de ton appareil au maimum et prend une exposition plus longue. Finalement, utilise une projection rectilinéaire plutot qu'équirectangulaire pour un angle de vue aussi petit, pour ne pas donner l'impression, comme présentement, que les 2 tours de l'église s'éloignent en montant. --S23678 (talk) 18:17, 18 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 composition and distortion. | 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. |
–Dilaudid 08:42, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Image:Pedro Reinel 1504.jpg - featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 20 Oct 2008 at 23:50:47
- Info The chart of Pedro Reinel (c. 1504) is one of the oldest known nautical charts with a scale of latitudes, constructed on the basis of astronomical observations. This new cartographic model was developped by the Portuguese in the second half of the 15th century and it is known as the "plane chart" or "latitude chart". The chart is a manuscript in parchment. It also contains the oldest known wind rose with a "fleur-de-lis" indicating North (see here). Created & nominated by -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Aqwis (talk) 00:48, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support How did the background come to be black? Lycaon (talk) 07:35, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
- I put it that way, it was worse. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:47, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
- I think for a map, I would have preferred a white background, but the masking is well done IMO. Lycaon (talk) 06:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- I agree. I tried with a white background first but the masking didn't come out well enough. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:24, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- I put it that way, it was worse. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:47, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support Very good quality --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 11:06, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support Very important historical document! For that kind of reproductions, a higher resolution would be better, but FP though. We need more (good) reproductions of old maps on Commons! -- MJJR (talk) 20:40, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support Good quality and looks valuable to me. Benh (talk) 21:13, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Lemming64 (talk) 21:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support Yarl ✉ 10:45, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- DarkAp89 Commons 10:48, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral >> featured -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 27 Oct 2008 at 17:11:59
Comment Small level adjustment. Black background is now real black. --S23678 (talk) 17:11, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
result: 0 supports, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of the 5th day). Benh (talk) 20:45, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Image:Montreal MReine2 tango7174.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 22 Oct 2008 at 12:43:31
- Info created by Tango7174 - uploaded by Tango7174 - nominated by Tango7174 -- Tango7174 (talk) 12:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Tango7174 (talk) 12:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - Very nice picture but not technically good enough for FP. The main problems are the overall unsharpness, the highlights and the chromatic aberration. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:54, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Yep, Alvegaspar is right, yet much crucial I think is lighting. See that left part of the picture, there is one really not nice place. :-( --Aktron (talk) 17:34, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose unsharp, badlight conditions.--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 05:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Karelj (talk) 16:45, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Relativement clair au centre, mais l'image se dégrade aux extrémités : abérations chromatiques, perte de détails. Je crois qu'il s'agit soit d'un problème de lentilles (lentilles grand angle de faible qualité), ou d'un problème de post-production. Par contre, j'aime bien la perspective. --S23678 (talk) 17:32, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
result: 2 supports, 4 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured. Benh (talk) 20:34, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Main Pod CN Tower, Toronto, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 22 Oct 2008 at 20:17:10
- Info created by Wladyslaw - uploaded by Wladyslaw - nominated by myself
- Support as Nominator Wladyslaw (talk) 13:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Barabas (talk) 20:34, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - I wonder why such a small aperture was used. The result is a less-than-perfect focus. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:48, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- Comment the pic looks quite sharp to me --che 22:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose not good quality, we dont know how the object is big, the composition is not good.--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 05:48, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- CommentIf you look at the lowest plattform with the grid you can see the spyglasses on it. with this you should get an idea of the dimensions. composition: what is in your opinion the better composition to show a symmetric object? Wladyslaw (talk) 07:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- Well, but it is not visible for the first look, moreover that is not a measure. Well composition. Maybe some clouds missing, I mean monolitic object on the monolitic backgroun. In fact the object has some structures also.--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 09:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- I see no chance to integrate an object (person, etc.) for reasons of comparison with the main pod (it is situated in 350 meters over ground). From view of an architect this photography is very interessting because you get a very good idea of the structure — simply just there are no clouds or other interfering objects around there. The photography should illustrate an enzyklopedic article and not be used as a picture postcard. Wladyslaw (talk) 11:36, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- Well, but it is not visible for the first look, moreover that is not a measure. Well composition. Maybe some clouds missing, I mean monolitic object on the monolitic backgroun. In fact the object has some structures also.--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 09:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- CommentIf you look at the lowest plattform with the grid you can see the spyglasses on it. with this you should get an idea of the dimensions. composition: what is in your opinion the better composition to show a symmetric object? Wladyslaw (talk) 07:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support Good JukoFF (talk) 16:47, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support Yarl ✉ 17:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose There is nothing special or dramatic in this picture. --MarPac (talk) 21:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Should and could be better --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 18:05, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Composition, no WOW. --Karelj (talk) 21:13, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support Albertus teolog (talk) 18:15, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Lošmi (talk) 21:09, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support I like it. Clear (talk) 21:46, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose due to composition. --Dori - Talk 22:46, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support I like the colors (deep blue, clear red) and light (gives volume to the subject), and I think the tight crop captures something different, but really interesting, of a monument we are used to see in full size; the futurist look of the pod offers a great contrast with the relative classic look of the entire tower (not show here). --S23678 (talk) 17:46, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose composition. --Lestat (talk) 19:55, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- DarkAp89 Commons 10:45, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose composition. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:00, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
result: 9 supports, 7 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured. Benh (talk) 20:35, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Image:View from Mangart MC.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 23 Oct 2008 at 06:28:33
- Info created , uploaded, and nominated by Chmehl -- Chmehl (talk) 06:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Chmehl (talk) 06:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support Impressive ! Muhammad 11:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support Good --Caspian blue (talk) 02:15, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support Nice! Yarl ✉ 15:47, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support Beautiful panorama, I don't see stitching errors --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 15:56, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support Good JukoFF (talk) 16:46, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support For me it should be little more darker, but OK. --Karelj (talk) 21:16, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support The clouds give it a nice setting. --MarPac (talk) 21:24, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Böhringer (talk) 10:02, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- (Giligone (talk) 21:08, 16 October 2008 (UTC))
- Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:51, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Awesome view again but i find the colours a little bit strange maybe it can profit from a little contrast enhancement --Simonizer (talk) 18:15, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Lestat (talk) 06:25, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support I agree that a little tweaking could improve some of the things mentionned above, but I recognize that this is FP material as it is right now --S23678 (talk) 17:53, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- DarkAp89 Commons 10:44, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support great view, picture technically not perfect, but acceptable --Mbdortmund (talk) 12:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support Beautiful! Roquai (talk) 15:50, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
result: 16 supports, 1 opposes, 0 neutral => featured. --D-Kuru (talk) 16:01, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Image:Пеликан 03.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 23 Oct 2008 at 10:22:23
- Info created by Kor!An - uploaded by Kor!An - nominated by Kor!An -- Kor!An (talk) 10:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Kor!An (talk) 10:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, the image is corrupt (and what loads suffers from bad JPEG artifacting). MER-C 12:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- I don't actually think it's corrupt - although it doesn't appear here or on the image page, it loads 100% perfectly if I click on it. The picture in the above nomination seems to have the same problem, so it might be a software problem rather than a problem with the picture. --Aqwis (talk) 14:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support Not corrupt for me. --norro 22:13, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Does not meet FP standards. Composition is rather boring. Pelican is dead in the center and moving away, like if it was fleeing. --MarPac (talk) 21:21, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose--Great colors, attractive, but noisy image, so I cannot support it --Twdragon (talk) 14:12, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
result: 2 supports, 3 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured. --D-Kuru (talk) 16:03, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Image:Tasman Bridge at Dusk Edit.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 23 Oct 2008 at 12:57:01
- Info created by Flying Freddy - uploaded by Flying Freddy - nominated by Flying Freddy -- Flying Freddy (talk) 12:57, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Flying Freddy (talk) 12:57, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support Good HDR. Freedom to share (talk) 20:12, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support nice --D-Kuru (talk) 21:34, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support JukoFF (talk) 22:47, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Little wow. Crapload (talk) 03:58, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Please geolocate. --S23678 (talk) 17:54, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Not bad, but not enough for FP. --Karelj (talk) 18:34, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- DarkAp89 Commons 10:45, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support Nice colours Noodle snacks (talk) 13:40, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose No wow for me. Lycaon (talk) 18:18, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - Neither for me. I don't like the unnatural colouring -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Not enough wow for FP. --S23678 (talk) 11:37, 24 October 2008 (UTC)Oups, too late. --S23678 (talk) 11:41, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
result: 6 supports, 4 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured. --D-Kuru (talk) 16:07, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Image:Argiope bruennichi 08Oct10.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 21 Oct 2008 at 04:37:36
- Info created by 池田正樹 - uploaded by 池田正樹 - nominated by 池田正樹 -- 池田正樹 (talk) 04:37, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- 池田正樹 (talk) 04:37, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Aqwis (talk) 16:59, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Karelj (talk) 20:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - The photo looks like "reversed", so I feel uncomfortable.--Caspian blue (talk) 02:13, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Excellent composition and quality. Also a good candidate for VI of the species. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:01, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support Good work --libertad0 ॐ (talk) 16:37, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- MJJR (talk) 20:38, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Böhringer (talk) 10:00, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose the branch is too dominant Wladyslaw (talk) 13:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support Great quality, good looking --Twdragon (talk) 14:10, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support Albertus teolog (talk) 18:27, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support - (Giligone (talk) 19:36, 16 October 2008 (UTC))
- Support - Wonderful image - Peripitus (talk) 04:31, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose the spider disappears in the branch. --Matthias Süßen (talk) 15:25, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Lošmi (talk) 21:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- DarkAp89 Commons 10:43, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 18:49, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support Beautiful image. Great sharpness, sufficient DOF. Nice macro. Elucidate (talk) 15:23, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
result: 15 supports, 3 opposes, 0 neutral => featured. Benh (talk) 20:40, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --B.navez (talk) 14:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Crusier (talk) 07:37, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support Beautiful image. Great quality--Lmbuga gl, pt, es: contacta comigo 15:10, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Image:Uva de playa (Coccoloba uvifera).jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 24 Oct 2008 at 16:21:24
- Info The Seagrape (Coccoloba uvifera) is a sprawling bush or small tree that is found near sea beaches throughout tropical America and the Caribbean, including southern Florida, The Bahamas and Bermuda. created by The Photographer - uploaded by The Photographer - nominated by The Photographer -- libertad0 ॐ (talk) 16:21, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- libertad0 ॐ (talk) 16:21, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support Could you geolocate, please ? --B.navez (talk) 17:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Thank's you. Ready the Camera location --libertad0 ॐ (talk) 17:40, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Definitely a nice picture, but sort of ordinary. Can't see why it should get FP status. --MarPac (talk) 21:16, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Aktron (talk) 22:00, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral (for now) -- A very fine composition and a beautiful picture. I wonder if the white fringing in some of the grapes can be removed. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:11, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- Comment It is a nice picture (similar to this, BTW), but I doubt the geolocation is correct. Coccoloba uvifera is a coastal plant, while your co-ordinates indicate a mountainous area some 50km in land. Lycaon (talk) 05:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose -- The picture is not sharp and on the upper right there's "chromatic aberration" or how it is called (the blue colour: I think the leaf should be green)
- Support -- DarkAp89 Commons 10:42, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose little wow and noisy -- ianaré (talk) 02:03, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Crusier (talk) 07:37, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
result: 5 supports, 3 opposes, 1 neutral => not featured. Benh (talk) 20:41, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Image:Kraków - Juliusz Słowacki Theatre by night 01.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 25 Oct 2008 at 19:13:35
- Info created, uploaded and nominated by Lestat -- Lestat (talk) 19:13, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Lestat (talk) 19:13, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose -- The front of the building is overexposed. (Giligone (talk) 19:50, 16 October 2008 (UTC))
- Support Good night picture of this building -- Albertus teolog (talk) 08:16, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support Goog composition. --Aktron (talk) 19:22, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Would support if it was not of the blown highlights. --S23678 (talk) 17:56, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Blown highlights. Lycaon (talk) 18:32, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- DarkAp89 Commons 10:41, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
result: 4 supports, 3 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured. Benh (talk) 20:42, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Image:Remarkables view MC.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 25 Oct 2008 at 20:12:45
- Info created and uploaded by Chmehl - nominated by Benh (talk) 20:12, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support I want to give this nice panorama a try. -- Benh (talk) 20:12, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Aqwis (talk) 20:46, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support - (Giligone (talk) 21:07, 16 October 2008 (UTC))
- Support - Really lovely. Jmabel ! talk 22:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support beautiful Muhammad 16:40, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support awesome view and good light, some time ago I considered to nominate it too --Simonizer (talk) 18:06, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support JukoFF (talk) 22:47, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --moralist (talk) 10:09, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support At first, I thought the name "Remarkable views" was a self-promotion title... Remarkable picture! --S23678 (talk) 18:02, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- DarkAp89 Commons 10:41, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support Roquai (talk) 15:47, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
result: 11 supports, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Benh (talk) 20:43, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Image:Arcte coerula larva 08Oct16.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 25 Oct 2008 at 21:43:32
- Info created by and uploaded by 池田正樹 - nominated by -Kuru -- D-Kuru (talk) 21:43, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support nice and sharp pic (maybe it should be cropped) --D-Kuru (talk) 21:43, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose there is a bad composition, which you cant repair. Even the black catepilar on black bacground is not a good contrast.--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 07:04, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Needs proper categorization and realistic geocoding before it can be assessed here. Lycaon (talk) 08:43, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- Done categorization and geocoding fixed. Lycaon (talk) 11:14, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support good --Mbdortmund (talk) 18:48, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support I like it. Nice. --Matthias Süßen (talk) 12:08, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Crusier (talk) 07:37, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support--Lmbuga gl, pt, es: contacta comigo 15:08, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose underexposed. Lycaon (talk) 07:00, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Not good enough to become a FP --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 09:43, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
result: 5 supports, 3 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured. Benh (talk) 20:43, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Image:BegijnhofAmsterdamNederlandPanorama.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 26 Oct 2008 at 18:09:16
- Info created, uploaded and nominated by Massimo Catarinella -- Massimo Catarinella (talk) 18:09, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
This is my first panorama, so don't be too harsh on me. I currently don't have the right computer and software to process panorama's, so it took me a lot of time and effort to create this one. I will buy a new computer in a while, so this will change. As for the picture itself. When the winter starts, the sun sets earlier and the light will become a little more dull. I tried to capture this in this image. I hope you like it. Oh, and there is one stitching error for so far I can see. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 18:09, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Massimo Catarinella (talk) 18:09, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Good luck with new computer. --Karelj (talk) 19:12, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
- What's the reason for you opposing? --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 19:35, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
- You wrote it yourself - there is stitching error. And in addition, the overall quality of image is not sufficient for FP. --Karelj (talk) 23:12, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
- I doubt a new computer would prevent stitching errors. :) --Aqwis (talk) 20:45, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
- No, but it will make processing panoramas a lot easier. My computer is just too old to do so correctly. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 19:24, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- What's the reason for you opposing? --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 19:35, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Featured pictures are considered some of the best pictures out there. So when not even you are convinced about the quality of your pic, you should not nominate it. Besides, try perspective correction. The viewer has the inpression the buildings are about to topple over. --MarPac (talk) 12:33, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
- I didn't say I'm not convinced about the quality. I only said there is one minor stitching error, which every featured panorama probably has. The buildings appear about to topple over in real life as well, so that's why I didn't apply perspective correction. As for the definition on FP's..I'm well aware of that, thank you. I've been here a lot longer than you.. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 12:44, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose A very nice stitch ! I haven't spotted the error (and I'm very picky when it comes to noticing them). I'm not too keen on the lighting (which is my main reason for oppose). I'd leave a little bit more room below too, and correct perspective so the verticals don't converge. and I understand how frustrated you can be with your computer, I did most of my panos on a 800 Mhz G4 :(. I'd give it another try. - Benh (talk) 19:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the constructive criticism Ben. I will give it another try and I think the next panorama I'll take, will be during the day. I currently have created a new panorama with some perspective correction and without the stitching error, but it isn't better in terms of the light. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 21:08, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, of unappropriate light. –Dilaudid 08:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Aqwis (talk) 17:09, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Value/Composition : the subject of the image is unclear: the trees are hidding 2/3th of the buildings and the statue, by it's relative size and position (slightly off-center), is clearly not the main subject. Very subjective, sorry. I did not saw the stitching error. --S23678 (talk) 11:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - As for the trees - the courtyard is the subject (the "hof" part of the filename), so they should be there imo. You'd hardly be able to get a picture where they weren't hiding many of the buildings, unless we can convince the council to cut' em pesky trees down. ;) Anrie (talk) 07:06, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
result: 2 supports, 5 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured. Benh (talk) 20:44, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Image:Leotortoise2.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 26 Oct 2008 at 19:59:25
- Info created, uploaded and nominated by Muhammad Mahdi Karim -- Muhammad 19:59, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Muhammad 19:59, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support Great sharpness, interesting subject. --Lošmi (talk) 21:06, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support JukoFF (talk) 22:47, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support - Plenty of wow factor, quality good enough. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:05, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support Looks like me. --Karelj (talk) 19:48, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose lighting (on-camera flash creates harsch shadows) --che 02:01, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- DarkAp89 Commons 10:40, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support sharp and nice --SuperJew (talk) 13:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose, per che. --Aqwis (talk) 10:28, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose lighting - flash--Beyond silence 21:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose flash is rather too harsh for my liking. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:54, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I don't see anything wrong with the flash. Just because a picture has a dark background, doesn't mean its unpleasant. Sometimes even I feel like following in Mbz1's footsteps. Muhammad 11:40, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
- Unnatural... --Beyond silence 14:08, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
- There are so many images with white backgrounds or fine bokehs. These too should also be considered unnatural then. Some of the panorama images have distortion which increase aesthetics, that should be considered unnatural and opposed. Photography is more than just rules. It is an art. Art has no rules. Muhammad 16:41, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but there are "unnatural" good images with positive "unnatural" effects and then there are the opposite. I feel this picture falls into the last category. --Aqwis (talk) 17:44, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
- There are so many images with white backgrounds or fine bokehs. These too should also be considered unnatural then. Some of the panorama images have distortion which increase aesthetics, that should be considered unnatural and opposed. Photography is more than just rules. It is an art. Art has no rules. Muhammad 16:41, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
- Unnatural... --Beyond silence 14:08, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose, weird flash lighting --GreyCat (talk) 19:45, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Light. –Dilaudid 08:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Nice pic, but not FP-quality. --MarPac (talk) 21:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support As per previous supporters. --S23678 (talk) 12:35, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
result: 8 supports, 7 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured. Benh (talk) 20:44, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Image:White dwarf in AE Aquarii.jpg, notfeatured
[edit]Voting period ends on 26 Oct 2008 at 22:05:33
- Info created by NASA - uploaded by Kimse - nominated by Simeon87 -- Simeon87 (talk) 22:05, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Simeon87 (talk) 22:05, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support JukoFF (talk) 22:47, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support Amazing! --moralist (talk) 10:00, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support Cool! --Mr. Mario (talk) 14:26, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose No relevance, as there is no possible proof of this artist's impression. Lycaon (talk) 18:30, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
- Do you mean encyclopaedic relevance? This is not the only relevance an image can have. --norro 13:11, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose As per here (a very similar FPC with 6 oppose, 3 Support and 1 neutral). I will re-iterate my previous comment:
- "This is an awsome illustration from NASA, as almost all NASA illustrations. As of now, no Nasa illustration is FP from what I can see. I am wondering if we want to start voting for those images as Nasa has litterally hundreds of such illustrations: robots on mars, satelites, future projects, etc. Should such works of art be notable or of great value in addition of being beautiful? After all, this is the artist's conception of an event (with some personal input such as the blue flames that may not be a real representation), not a picture of the real event itself. If we vote for this one, are we creating a precedent to every illustration that is "simply beautiful"?" --S23678 (talk) 18:33, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Each image should be considered on a case by case basis.. in this case, it's an artist impression and not a scientificly accurate photograph. And from that (artistical) perspective, it's imo an image of featured picture quality. A factually correct depiction of this cosmic phenomenom would be quite important in a valued image but in this case, the artist impression also has value (albeit not a scientific one). - Simeon87 (talk) 21:57, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
- "This is an awsome illustration from NASA, as almost all NASA illustrations. As of now, no Nasa illustration is FP from what I can see. I am wondering if we want to start voting for those images as Nasa has litterally hundreds of such illustrations: robots on mars, satelites, future projects, etc. Should such works of art be notable or of great value in addition of being beautiful? After all, this is the artist's conception of an event (with some personal input such as the blue flames that may not be a real representation), not a picture of the real event itself. If we vote for this one, are we creating a precedent to every illustration that is "simply beautiful"?" --S23678 (talk) 18:33, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Karelj (talk) 19:50, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral Of course we cannot have genuine photographs of that kind of cosmic phenomena. So we only have so-called artist impressions. As I'm not an astronomer, I cannot judge if this is scientifically correct. Anyhow, technically and artistically it is very good, positively suggestive, didactic and even thrilling: it has definitely a wow factor and is certainly more than "simply beautiful". But I doubt if all those NASA pictures should be promoted as FP. -- MJJR (talk) 20:45, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- DarkAp89 Commons 10:39, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support as sometimes there are engravings or paintings which become FP, an artist impression can also become FP. It's like a painting on the computer --SuperJew (talk) 13:10, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose per Lycaon --Romwriter (talk) 20:48, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose per S23678. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Crusier (talk) 07:37, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Support This is an artists impression. It is amazing and beautiful. It is not a picture so it should not be critisied as one. 78.150.0.114 14:46, 25 October 2008 (UTC)Anonymous votes are not allowed! --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 16:26, 25 October 2008 (UTC)- Oppose Per previous opposers --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 16:24, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
result: 8 supports, 5 opposes, 1 neutral => not featured. Benh (talk) 21:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Image:Dar es Salaam City Skyline.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 27 Oct 2008 at 10:44:23
- Info A panorama showing the skyline of the Dar es Salaam city. The only such image available at commons. Created, uploaded and nominated by Muhammad Mahdi Karim -- Muhammad 10:44, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support Unique image-- Muhammad 10:44, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry, but 800px is far too little, even for wide pano's. And BTW, most of us make unique images, which doesn't necessarily mean they are featurable. Lycaon (talk) 11:09, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
- Well, the guidelines clearly mention 800px as ok, so unless they have been changed and I am not aware, your vote is not correct. Muhammad 16:25, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose I have to agree with lycaon, resolution is not enough. -- Gorgo (talk) 11:38, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
- The picture is more than 6.8mp, not enough? Muhammad 16:25, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
- not for a picture that wide -- Gorgo1 (talk) 16:31, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
- I don't see that requirement anywhere in the guidelines! Muhammad 18:41, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
- not for a picture that wide -- Gorgo1 (talk) 16:31, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
- The picture is more than 6.8mp, not enough? Muhammad 16:25, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose resolution not enough --Euphoriceyes (talk) 08:29, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose I agree that the resolution is not sufficient. Plus, there are jpeg artifacts in the sky, the horizon hangs to the right and the pic is generally a bit misty and soft. Try retaking the shot in the early morning or in the blue hour after sunset to give it some wow-effect. --MarPac (talk) 09:43, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support Horizon line is perfect (Alex - Baffo (talk) 17:18, 19 October 2008 (UTC))
- Oppose, I agree with the opposers. --Aqwis (talk) 10:28, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Pudelek (talk) 10:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Guideline is just a guide for the majority format. Just crop a 3:2 ratio, the resolution is 1200x800=0.96mp. --Base64 (talk) 14:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, what do you mean? Muhammad 18:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
- What I mean is, an image with 800px height is generally not enough. Unless the image is outstanding, i.e. the panoramic projection of the subjects are visually pleasing. Guideline is a guide, not a Policy. Guideline is simple and straight forward. And everything else is decided by the voter with appropriate reason. --Base64 (talk) 08:35, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, what do you mean? Muhammad 18:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose I'm opposing again, sorry... this panorama has an extreme aspect ratio, and a boring composition with horizon line cutting the picture in the middle. I'd like to see more below. Poor lighting as well, I wonder if it was taken at the right time of the day. Benh (talk) 19:26, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry Muhammad, it's missing a "wow". I did not evaluated the quality. --S23678 (talk) 11:57, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support--Avala (talk) 19:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
result: 4 supports, 8 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured. Benh (talk) 21:49, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Image:Žofínský prales 1.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 27 Oct 2008 at 23:24:35
- Info created by Karelj - uploaded by Karelj - nominated by Karelj -- Karelj (talk) 23:24, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Karelj (talk) 23:24, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
- Info Torso of very old tree in forest sanctuary in south Bohemia. --Karelj (talk) 23:35, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Vhodný by byl asi jiný úhel a v jiný čas, aby byla i hezčí obloha - ta sytá bílá není vhodná pro FP. --Aktron (talk) 11:22, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Lighting problems, overlit sky, chromatic abberations; wood looks like being illuminated by suboptimal flash. --GreyCat (talk) 19:48, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose In addition to the quality problems mentionned above by GreyCat, there's no wow IMO. From an ordinary subject like this one, a more audacious/artistic composition could improve the "wow factor" --S23678 (talk) 12:01, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Per previous opposers: Lighting problems --Lmbuga gl, pt, es: contacta comigo 15:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 4 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured (should have been rule of 5th day). Benh (talk) 21:49, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Image:Dar es Salaam Panorama.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 29 Oct 2008 at 16:49:49
- Info A 360 degree panorama of Dar es Salaam. Created, uploaded and nominated by Muhammad Mahdi Karim -- Muhammad 16:49, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Muhammad 16:49, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose — not each panorama is excellent. the main buildings are cut and there are many artefacts in the sky. --Euphoriceyes (talk) 17:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
- Being a resident of Dar es Salaam, I can assure you that main buildings are not cut out. The orange and green coloured buildings are a residential buildings. All the main buildings are near the horizon, in the city. Muhammad 11:38, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose: These buildings aren't representative for Dar es Salaam, as I know. Giku (talk)
- Are you referring to the buildings mentioned in the description? If so, those are some of the most renowned structures in Dar es Salaam. Muhammad 11:38, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
- I mean many buildings in this image are under construction and it influences a lot on the image's quality. Giku (talk)
- The image only illustrates what is actually taking place. If buildings are under construction, then the image illustrates this process. Nothing wrong with that. Muhammad 16:41, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
- I mean many buildings in this image are under construction and it influences a lot on the image's quality. Giku (talk)
- Are you referring to the buildings mentioned in the description? If so, those are some of the most renowned structures in Dar es Salaam. Muhammad 11:38, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - Nothing wrong, really. But having nothing wrong is far from enough to be featured. We expect to be surprised, wondered, either by the beauty of the photo or by its subject. This is a correct panorama, but only that. No wow. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:38, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
SupportNice work, impressive. --Dori - Talk 02:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)- Just realized that it's a progressive JPEG, which I can't support. --Dori - Talk 02:43, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for your original vote. I'm sorry I don't understand. What do you mean by progressive jpeg, and how do you know this one is such? Muhammad 11:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- When you save the final image to JPEG, there is often an option to save it as a progressive JPEG, which means the image gets shown in progressively better quality as it gets downloaded (rather than showing the image top to bottom in the best quality as it gets downloaded). For me it's an annoying and inferior format. All you have to do is choose not to save it as progressive. --Dori - Talk 12:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- For my images that are to come, I will hopefully not save in this format. As for this image, unfortunately my upload speeds are low (2-5kbps) and uploading the image again seems like a waste of time and bandwidth. Thanks for the tip though. Muhammad 17:26, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- When you save the final image to JPEG, there is often an option to save it as a progressive JPEG, which means the image gets shown in progressively better quality as it gets downloaded (rather than showing the image top to bottom in the best quality as it gets downloaded). For me it's an annoying and inferior format. All you have to do is choose not to save it as progressive. --Dori - Talk 12:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for your original vote. I'm sorry I don't understand. What do you mean by progressive jpeg, and how do you know this one is such? Muhammad 11:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- Just realized that it's a progressive JPEG, which I can't support. --Dori - Talk 02:43, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Too much sky, buildings cut off, etc. Nice job, but not featured quality. I'm sorry. How do you turn this on (talk) 19:52, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 4 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of the 5th day). Benh (talk) 21:53, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 2 Nov 2008 at 01:35:12
- Info created by :):) - uploaded by :):) - nominated by :):) -- Mr. Mario (talk) 01:35, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Mr. Mario (talk) 01:35, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Quel intérêt ? Florent Pécassou (talk) 15:59, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Technically weak and the cable running through the picture isn't helping. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 16:51, 24 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 too noisy/artifacted. MER-C 03:03, 25 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. |
- Artifacts? Where? --Mr. Mario (talk) 14:35, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose As per Massimo. How do you turn this on (talk) 19:29, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Subject blocked, weak --Lmbuga gl, pt, es: contacta comigo 15:38, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 2 Nov 2008 at 19:33:34
- Info created by Rsk - uploaded by Rsk - nominated by Rsk -- ```` (talk) 19:33, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Rsk
- Oppose -- Bad quality Florent Pécassou (talk) 21:08, 24 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 chromatic aberration, excessive JPEG compression and marginal resolution. MER-C 02:56, 25 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. |
- Oppose Quality issues. How do you turn this on (talk) 19:08, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 5 Nov 2008 at 14:30:54
- Info created by Turzh - uploaded by Turzh - nominated by Turzh -- Turzh (talk) 14:30, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Turzh (talk) 14:30, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Not interesting. --Mr. Mario (talk) 14:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Dull colours Tupungato (talk) 16:38, 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: it has dull colours, it is tilted, it has lots of visual noise and the main subject is not prominent enough. –Dilaudid 15:31, 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. |
- Comment the main subject is not prominent enough What shall this? Is a bench grinder brush for exampl more prominent? ---donald- (talk) 17:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- "The main subject is not prominent enough" doesn't mean "the main subject is not important/famous" enough. It simply means that it is too hidden or concealed by other objecs in the picture. --Aqwis (talk) 18:20, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose, per technical quality and composition. --Aqwis (talk) 18:20, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 5 Nov 2008 at 17:59
- Info created by Gaël Le Mab - uploaded by Gaël Le Mab - nominated by Gaël Le Mab -- Gaël Le Mab(talk) 17:59, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Gaël Le Mab (talk) 17:59, 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 poor image quality: lack of sharpness and detail, overexposed ground -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:28, 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. |
Image:Truth window 02 Pengo.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 28 Oct 2008 at 03:14:45
- Info created and nominated by Pengo (talk) 03:14, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Pengo (talk) 03:14, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose bottom part is not sharp -- Gorgo (talk) 12:46, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose, per above. --Aqwis (talk) 14:04, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, of lack of wow and optical illusion that makes it difficult to determine the orientation of the image. –Dilaudid 08:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- That's a reason to oppose, no FPX reason. --norro 17:00, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --norro 17:00, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Mainly a lack of wow. --S23678 (talk) 12:05, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- OpposePer previous opposers. --Lmbuga gl, pt, es: contacta comigo 15:36, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
result: 2 supports, 5 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured. Benh (talk) 21:50, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Image:Tsim Sha Tsui Ferry Pier.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 29 Oct 2008 at 15:35:06
- Info created, uploaded and nominated by Baycrest -- Baycrest(Talk) 15:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Baycrest(Talk) 15:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose, too much sky and dull light. --Aqwis (talk) 15:50, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Correct picture, not special enough to be featurable -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:43, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, of lack of wow. –Dilaudid 08:35, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- C'mon guys ... seriously. Lack of wow is not a guideline violation. --norro 16:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- "Wow" is a summary of the FP guidelines and is what separates FPs from QIs. --Aqwis (talk) 17:02, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- Okay. Can you me show me the lack of wow in the picture? Is there any chance that you can depict the clear guideline violation that is the requirement for FPX? Or the other way round: If I say there is enough wow in the picture, are there any facts to disprove that? --norro 19:33, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- Just to make it clear - I don't support FPXing this picture. As for "the "amount" of wow in this picture" - you just cannot objectively judge a photograph like that, sorry. Of course, you are entitled to your opinion that there is enough wow in the picture, just as everyone else are entitled to their opinion that there is not. Whether or not a picture is good or evokes emotions (the so-called "wow") is purely a matter of taste - although it's undeniable that some pictures have wider appeal - e.g. evokes emotions in more people - than others. --Aqwis (talk) 21:28, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- It is not our job to show anyone the lack of wow in a picture. It's the candidate picture's job to show its wow to us. –Dilaudid 15:10, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- Okay. Can you me show me the lack of wow in the picture? Is there any chance that you can depict the clear guideline violation that is the requirement for FPX? Or the other way round: If I say there is enough wow in the picture, are there any facts to disprove that? --norro 19:33, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- "Wow" is a summary of the FP guidelines and is what separates FPs from QIs. --Aqwis (talk) 17:02, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- C'mon guys ... seriously. Lack of wow is not a guideline violation. --norro 16:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --norro 19:33, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Alvesgaspar --S23678 (talk) 12:08, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose No wow and please look at image talk page. Seriously, I even Opposed this in the Chinese Wikipedia. --Mr. Mario (talk) 01:59, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Lacks wow factor. How do you turn this on (talk) 20:00, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
result: 2 supports, 6 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured. Benh (talk) 22:15, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Image:Calanque Morgiou 02.JPG, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 29 Oct 2008 at 20:16:17
- Info created, uploaded and nominated by -- Benh (talk) 20:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
- Info Marseille is also famous for its faboulus Calanques (very narrow creek). Fortunately, it takes a lot of walk to there at summer time so the site is not crowded and well preserved. They want to make it a national park to protect it from further construction. Hope this will succeed. Hope the picture show the beauty of the site as well. Benh (talk) 20:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Benh (talk) 20:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- MJJR (talk) 20:23, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose, dull light. --Aqwis (talk) 20:24, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support - beautiful (Si t'es dans le coin celles de Cassis sont belles aussi, l'En Vau en particulier est très impressionnante) --ianaré (talk) 01:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oui, j'ai vu sur des photos ; elle est très étroite et profonde apparemment, ce qui la rend "impressionnante". Je n'ai passé que deux nuits à Marseille et n'ai pu consacrer qu'une journée à la visite des Calanques (1h de baignade à peine, argh !!). J'ai dû me concentrer sur Sormiou et Morgiou, déjà très très belles. J'espère que j'aurai l'occasion d'y retourner ! Benh (talk) 08:42, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support nice JukoFF (talk) 09:36, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry Ben, but the harsh light isn't working for me. Further more, technically the picture is weak. It has a lot of blurry parts in it and isn't particularly sharp. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 18:19, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose As aboove, mainly lighting. --Karelj (talk) 20:18, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
- Comment It's both harsh... and dull ! I was so happy with the lighting. OK I'm working on a compromise... but it won't fundamentaly change things, as the lighting is what I like here. It is true that bottom left corner is overexposed. But on the other hand, the rocks are bright grey. As for the unsharp parts, there's not much I can do... this lens doesn't perform so well on the corners :( Benh (talk) 20:22, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral Good picture of a great view. Sadly there are some very blurry parts in the left bottom corner.--Simonizer (talk) 18:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Per the above concerns. How do you turn this on (talk) 19:50, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- Comment OK about the comments on lighting... tastes are differents... but comments on sharpness aren't justified in my opinion. Please review pictures fairly. Lower left corner is unsharp because it's actually on the foreground (but it doesn't really show because it blends into background). Also this picture is 10 mpix and is not downsampled. No one says anything about the many 2 mpix pictures above which get a lot of (deserved IMO) supports. If I downscale this pic the same way, I end up with similar sharpness... Anyways, I'll let this nomination end up the normal way (in the hope to get as many reviews as possible) and will work and improving the picture later. Thanks. Benh (talk) 18:26, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support I like it. Excellent depth of field--Lmbuga gl, pt, es: contacta comigo 15:32, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
result: 5 supports, 4 opposes, 1 neutral => not featured. Benh (talk) 22:16, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Image:Leucospermum cultivar.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 30 Oct 2008 at 06:42:29
- Info created by User:Flying Freddy - uploaded by Flying Freddy - nominated by Flying Freddy -- Flying Freddy (talk) 06:42, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Flying Freddy (talk) 06:42, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Guidelines state "it is important that nominated pictures have as high a resolution as possible", so why the downsampling from 3,008 × 2,000? It is also important to have proper description and categorization for all images (and even more so for those that are nominated). I did this for you now. You might also add geolocation info to increase the value of your image. Lycaon (talk) 07:31, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support Nice.---donald- (talk) 10:15, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Crusier (talk) 07:35, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support How do you turn this on (talk) 19:41, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support-- DarkAp89 Commons 17:53, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Twdragon (talk) 19:50, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
result: 6 supports, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Benh (talk) 19:46, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Image:Mantis catches grasshopper DSCN9802 a.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 30 Oct 2008 at 12:36:55
- Info created by Tarabagani - uploaded by Tarabagani - nominated by Tarabagani -- Tarabagani (talk) 12:36, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Tarabagani (talk) 12:36, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - Poor quality, crop too tight. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:40, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, the subject is out of focus and the composition is awkward –Dilaudid 14:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Crusier (talk) 14:41, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Poor composition, out of focus and CA. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 16:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose FPX is for obvious flaws (even wow, can be a flaw, mind you). In this case DOF is insufficient and composition is also lacking (crop at bottom, e.g.). FPX should've stayed. Lycaon (talk) 09:25, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Too busy, main subject out of focus. How do you turn this on (talk) 19:40, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
result: 2 supports, 5 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured. Benh (talk) 19:46, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Image:White Plumeria.JPG, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 23 Oct 2008 at 20:17:07
Voting period ends on 30 Oct 2008 at 12:00:00
- Info created by Heptazane - uploaded by Heptazane - nominated by Heptazane -- Heptazane (talk) 20:17, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Heptazane (talk) 20:17, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- Info It seems nominator created the nomination but forgot to put it on FPC list. I fixed this, and updated the voting period deadline. Benh (talk) 18:18, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support ---donald- (talk) 10:16, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Chromatic aberrations - could be fixed though. --MarPac (talk) 10:45, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support How do you turn this on (talk) 19:38, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
result: 3 supports, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Benh (talk) 19:47, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Image:Turku Castle.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 31 Oct 2008 at 08:48:18
- Info created by Dilaudid • uploaded by Dilaudid • nominated by Dilaudid on 08:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support –Dilaudid 08:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Nice composition, but a poor quality. Did you shot it in jpg? --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 16:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Can't recall, could be. Hasn't stopped my other photos from being FP'd / QI'd... :) –Dilaudid 09:00, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- I suggest you reshoot it in RAW, because it will improve your picture a lot. The composition is great namely. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 16:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Can't recall, could be. Hasn't stopped my other photos from being FP'd / QI'd... :) –Dilaudid 09:00, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Karelj (talk) 17:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support ---donald- (talk) 10:16, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I would support because of great colours, contrast and perspective, but the tower is leaning slightly to the left. Can you confirm this is from the construction itself? If not, I will oppose this, but I would support a corrected version. --S23678 (talk) 13:25, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
- Comment On close inspection you'll notice the left side on the other hand is leaning slightly to the right: I've left just the slightest perspective distortion because the walls of the castle are actually curved, which would imho show as more distracting if the perspective distortion were to be neutralised altogether. –Dilaudid 09:00, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support Curved walls? That's all what I needed to hear. --S23678 (talk) 13:00, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- Comment On close inspection you'll notice the left side on the other hand is leaning slightly to the right: I've left just the slightest perspective distortion because the walls of the castle are actually curved, which would imho show as more distracting if the perspective distortion were to be neutralised altogether. –Dilaudid 09:00, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support impressive composition, jpeg looks okay to me --che 14:41, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Poor quality Fimport (talk) 22:51, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- Question Do people even bother to take a look at this picture at full resolution? The quality is really poor and still people support it.. This is nothing personal b.t.w. Dilaudid. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 16:29, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Lack of details. Lycaon (talk) 00:04, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Not sharp enough. How do you turn this on (talk) 19:38, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support-- DarkAp89 Commons 14:51, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose not natural & failed composition & angle --Turzh (talk) 16:36, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- Question Can you be more specific, what exactly do you think is not natural here? The colours are straight out of the camera. –Dilaudid 22:01, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
result: 6 supports, 5 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured. Benh (talk) 19:48, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Image:Saint Peter's Square from the dome.jpg, delisted
[edit]Voting period : from 10 Oct 2008 to 19 Oct 2008 (included)
- Info Nothing special. Every day some hundered photographs will be made of this view. Mostly with sunshine. (Original nomination)
- Delist -- Berthold Werner (talk) 11:51, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- Delist Agree --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 15:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Delist per nom and the image is somewhat blurry. Pbroks13 (talk) 17:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)- Replace with Image:St Peter's Square, Vatican City - April 2007.jpg. This is lined up for POTD in a month's time, so we should tread carefully. MER-C 01:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- Delist --Karelj (talk) 19:26, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
- Delist and Replace per MER-C. Pbroks13 (talk) 23:41, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- Delist per previous comments --Lemming64 (talk) 22:05, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- Delist Right, Diliffs picture is much better. But we cant replace it. You must nominate it separatly. --Simonizer (talk) 18:26, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- Delist Size and ligthning. --S23678 (talk) 16:29, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
- Delist -- DarkAp89 Commons 10:55, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
result: 8 Delists, 0 Keep, 0 neutral => delisted. --Benh (talk) 19:11, 20 October 2008 (UTC)