Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/April 2007

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

Image:Graureiher.jpg, featured

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Chmehl --Chmehl 09:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Chmehl 09:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice composition, good quality - Alvesgaspar 10:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Especially the composition is very nice --Packa 12:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not good lighting. The majority of the head and neck is in shadow. --MichaelMaggs 14:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hugo.arg 20:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree to Michael Metoc 14:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose dtto Michael --Karelj 22:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice Ixnay 16:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice composition --LucaG 13:20, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T 01:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ack Michael -- Lycaon 07:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Basik07 15:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 8 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 07:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Sicilia_2006.png, not featured

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Kekko89 --norro 19:50, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, the colors are not real (oversaturated?), the composition is not good enough – and a poor description. But I like Italy! --Packa 20:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why is it in PNG, not JPG. Chris huh 13:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Can't you see the image? It's made in PNG to preserve the quality. --Kekko89 18:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question Who nominated? Kekko89 or norro. -- Lycaon 19:21, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The colours seem OK to me, but the horizon is not fully horizontal, and the wires and the junk on the rooftop at the right spoil the composition. - MPF 11:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think colours are real, because I live in Sicily and I know how beautiful my land is. - Max 18:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with Max on the beauty of Sicily but I'm missing the "wow!" factor to support this picture to FP status. --Diligent 16:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ring-Tailed Lemur eating.jpg, not featured

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Chris_huh --Chris huh 12:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - thought i would try a self-nom: took this photo at Bristol Zoo back in November --Chris huh 12:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - too obviously in un-natural habitat in a cage, also that odd pink thing covering its right hand/forefoot - MPF 16:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment i removed that pink distraction thing, didnt notice it before. Chris huh 17:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not very interesting. I can eat too.Metoc 14:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nothing so special... --Karelj 22:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - this is a good shot, try to take a similar picture, and then you'll khow what's so special about it.--Vaya 08:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support agree with Vaya Tomer T 01:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kirkland23 23:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ack MPF -- Lycaon 17:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Parthenon from south.jpg, featured

Info created by Thermos, this version edited by Majestic - uploaded by Thermos - nominated by Thermos --Thermos 14:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Thermos 14:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --KFP 15:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - too gloomy, particularly the dark sky at the top right looks un-natural - MPF 16:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Atoma 17:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- powerful sky adds to the composition Gnangarra 05:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the atmosphere Benh 07:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support The dark sky makes it look more interesting, better than just a regular blue one. Sharp focus too. Chris huh 09:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good composition and excellent colouring, giving a surreal atmosphere. I would prefer the the building vertical though. Alvesgaspar 09:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment you have to know that the Parthenon is not vertical, it was made on purpose by the architects to enhance the impression of height. Here the non-verticality of the left column is about right. Diligent

Comment I know that, but the whole bulding is tilted to the left. - Alvesgaspar 22:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It isn't tilted, the camera is pointing up, creating perspective distortion. In these cases (where, incidentally, the effect of size is exaggerated, so it works for me) you should check verticality at the center of the image. The center of this image is vertical. mixpix 08:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice! --Simonizer 11:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I love it. --Diligent 17:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --AngMoKio 19:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support super --Karelj 22:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MichaelMaggs 07:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pupster21 17:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the atmosphere -- Lycaon 19:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support could be a little lighter, but it is nice --Packa 21:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice lighting --Digon3 15:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Leafnode 09:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Maire 12:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 18 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 07:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Oxalis acetosella ziedas1.jpg, not featured

Info created by Algirdas, uploaded by Hugo.arg - nominated by Hugo.arg
Support --Hugo.arg 14:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tadas12 17:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- not sharp enough and I don't like the lighting. Lycaon 18:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not very sharp I'm afraid. --MichaelMaggs 22:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not sharp enough, not nice colours. Benh 07:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Rtz 08:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unsharp - Alvesgaspar 09:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unsharp --Karelj 22:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lerdsuwa 15:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pupster21 17:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --donald- 14:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose flat, unsharp. --Leafnode 08:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Nice colours. Ceridwen 14:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 6 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Tachina grossa3. 2006-08-18.jpg, not featured

Info created by Algirdas - uploaded by Algirdas - nominated by Username --Algirdas 18:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Algirdas 18:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support second picture (right) seems ok, except for flash light reflex on its back Ziga 19:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please only nominate one version at the time. Lycaon 19:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hugo.arg 20:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Renata3 23:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose compression artefacts, oversharpening and poor lighting mixpix 23:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Obviously, author has a lot to shoot but is limited by his equipment. I bet the lack of sharpness and odd colours (common to all his pics) come from the camera and not the photographer. Benh 07:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not so sure... the Nikon 8800 has manual focus, custom white balance, ISO50, RAW, image stabilisation and ED glass. If you set it up right, it can really perform. I suspect the problems with these images come mostly from them being shot JPEG and set to AWB under mixed lighting. Shooting macro this way is asking for trouble, as you're bound to look as close as possible. mixpix 09:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You must be right. But from the size/resolution ratio of the author's picture, I would say his final jpegs are in the higher side of quality (but the source image may be bad already). So there must be some point in his "chain" where something isn't done right because given the 8 mpix of his camera and the relatively low resolution of the final pictures, details per pixel should be good. And this isn't only because he was shooting macro in some supposedly bad conditions (I don't think conditions were bad on his branch pic below). Algirdas if you hear me, are your pictures cropped or sampled down? Benh 22:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose None of them has enough photographic quality for FP. Please separate the nominations. Alvesgaspar 09:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Metoc 14:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Rtz 12:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --donald- 17:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree to Alvegaspar. --Atoma 18:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Karelj 21:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 5 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Chikuwa.jpg, not featured

Info created by User:Lombroso - uploaded by User:Lombroso - nominated by Shizhao --Shizhao 03:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Shizhao 03:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ??? --norro 12:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I miss a composition with the wow-effect. I would also recommend an additional text in the description...otherwise there might be misunderstandings.... --AngMoKio 18:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question - What is this? Alvesgaspar 16:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check here ->Chikuwa ...it seems to be sth to eat though it doesn't look that tastey imho :) --AngMoKio 19:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose noisy.. --Jeses 21:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, what could be this terrible thing? --Karelj 18:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose strange DOF - too long or too short, also lots of noise in the darker parts (to high ISO setting?); oh, I've noticed, that it was made using cell phone... --Leafnode 08:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Ouh ! What noise ! And the subject is badly illuminated --Alipho 11:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 1 support, 6 oppose, x neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 07:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Countdown.gif, not featured

200px|A very nice animation I made. Want it to be FP.

Info created by Pupster21 - uploaded by Pupster21 - nominated by Pupster21 --Pupster21 18:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pupster21 18:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Fine work, but I'm missing the "0" --XN 19:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Info Was designed to be like a Power Point background, switches slides on 1. --Pupster21 19:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm only always thinking like a computer scientist ;) --XN 20:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Opposelow resolution, noisy. Who took the original pictures of the number? --Jacopo86 10:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Boring, very easy to make. Noisy. And the copyright status of the used pictures is not clear. --Simonizer 14:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Viele-baeren 21:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 07:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Grey fantail444.jpg, not featured

Info created by, uploaded by and nominated by --Benjamint444 12:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Benjamint444 12:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No, not really excellent. Metoc 14:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Info You might be better off submitting the photo of the parent bird on its own. --MichaelMaggs 16:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj 23:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Cold colours, bad lighting, noisy and not very sharp. But to me, it's a very amazing subject ! Benh 07:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose looks unnatural --Simonizer 09:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose valuable but bad lighting Basik07 19:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Costa Rican Sunset.JPG, not featured

Info created by waddler154 - uploaded by waddler154 - nominated by waddler154 --Waddler154 04:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Waddler154 04:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Beautiful atmosphere! But the composition acts a little boring and the picture is noisy --Simonizer 08:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support -Hugo.arg 19:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Karelj 23:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the reality could be very nice, but the photo is a little kitschy --Packa 21:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Lycaon 06:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Chorzów - Skansen - Szopa na siano z Kobióra.JPG, not featured

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Lestat --Lestat 16:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lestat 16:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unfortunate composition (shadows, too much grass) Lycaon 19:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --WarX 20:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC) I like it very much and don't understand Lycaon ;)[reply]
Support - I like it too, though it might perhaps be a little better with the bottom 5% or so cropped off to answer Lycaon's "too much grass" comment - MPF 21:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose boring, disturbing varicoloured objects --norro 22:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose boring composition cause subject is centered --Simonizer 09:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose could be a QI though --AngMoKio 20:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose poor quality and nothing interesting --Karelj 20:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The main subject is not sharp enough,and too far in the picture. --Vassil 29 March 2007

result: 3 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Lycaon 06:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Metalmania 2007 - Vital Remains - Anthony Geremia 02.jpg

Anthony Ceremia from Vital Remains band during Metalmania 2007 festival

This was not Anthony Ceremia on photo, so I deleted it :( --WarX 17:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Info Photographed and uploaded by Lilly M, nominated by --WarX 17:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --WarX 17:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC) evil inside[reply]
Support Neat. Different. Awesome. Satan. Cary Bass ^demandez 18:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Oh, yeah!!! How did she manage to get that shot, anyway? Wpedzich 18:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Well, it's different, but I don't quite see what a photo like that can be useful for. --che 20:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Noisy, ugly (sorry) - Alvesgaspar 21:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He is so ugly that beautiful! --WarX 22:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - "Get a Haircut!!" :-) have to agree with Alvesgaspar! - MPF 12:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ouch!! Lycaon 13:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Fishing reel.svg, featured

Info created by Chabacano - uploaded by Chabacano - nominated by Chabacano --Chabacano 18:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Chabacano 18:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great SVG.--HereToHelp (talk) 21:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ - Very good schema, but the labels could be smaller - Alvesgaspar 22:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ --Leafnode 08:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ Nice SVG, the numbers could be smaller though. --Atoma 09:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC) Supporting the new version --Atoma 08:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Having large numbers is good, it makes it easy to read in small thumbnail pics and for those with poor eyesight - MPF 11:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow, fantastic! I like the size of the labels, actually. Brighterorange 20:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ Great art! Don't like the labels though, to big and I prefer text labels anyway. Doesn't stop me from supporting this very well made SVG. Lycaon 15:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --WarX 19:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC) This is great image! But in my very-very subjective opinion drawings should not be photo realistic. Sorry ...[reply]
Support Great, i would like to be able to draw like you. Herr Kriss 19:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Thermos 21:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support My vote goes to both versions of this fantastic picture. Good job! /odder 20:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smaller numbers

InfoHaving choices is good :)Chabacano 18:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Like the smaller labels. --MichaelMaggs 21:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Moved my vote from above. Alvesgaspar 09:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Moved my vote from above. Lycaon 09:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Simonizer 11:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice work --AngMoKio 20:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Way better with smaller numbers. --Atoma 08:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support // tsca [re] 15:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support like MichaelMaggs and Atoma --Packa 21:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Like previous comments --Javier ME 21:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support small numbers = good ~ trialsanderrors 08:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Leafnode 08:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Maire 12:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Masti 20:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support /odder 20:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Lycaon 07:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Everest North Face toward Base Camp Tibet Luca Galuzzi 2006.jpg, featured

Info This brilliant photo shows the Mount Everest seen from the path to the base camp. Created, uploaded by Lucag and nominated by Überraschungsbilder 20:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Überraschungsbilder 20:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - MPF 21:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - You got lucky with the weather ;-) Lycaon 21:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - although the pic is very nice, that little piece of cloud to the left of the summit spoils it a little for me. But I can't oppose this. Benh 21:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice shot. --Atoma 09:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Simonizer 10:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacopo86 11:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Hugo.arg 19:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --AngMoKio 20:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Romary 12:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support excelent --Karelj 21:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral nice, but it is not so exciting for me --Packa 21:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lestat 21:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Maire 12:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Basik07 19:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 2 neutral => featured. Lycaon 06:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:European honey bee extracts nectar.jpg, featured

Info created by John Severns - uploaded by Eleassar - nominated by AngMoKio --AngMoKio 21:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --AngMoKio 21:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support third very nice pic in a row tonight :) is the reflection from the body due to a flash ? Benh 21:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - MPF 11:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful colors and sharpness. --donald- 18:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support the bee has so many nice details… --Packa 21:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the details too. Especially the tiny hair. -- AM 15:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lestat 21:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj 17:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Basik07 19:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Lycaon 06:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Cranberrys beim Ernten.jpeg, delisted

Cranberry harvest in New Jersey. Credit: Agricultural Research Service.

Nominated for delisting by Lycaon 15:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Info Original nomination by villy 21:01, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Delist ~~Should not have been nominated with only three votes cast~~. The image is of very poor quality, only colour and composition are ok. ~~Obviously mistake in judgement of promotor~~. Lycaon 15:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Agree about the bad quality of this picture. But this picture wasnt the only one in this month, which got featured with less then 5 support votes. Maybe the rules were different at those times. --Simonizer 08:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You are correct on the number of votes (diff): The five votes rule was only introduced in May 2005. Let's concentrate on the very low quality of the picture then. Lycaon 10:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Large, but blurry, scratchy, unsharp. Ick.--HereToHelp (talk) 01:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Have a look at the top of the sky. There's a load of stuff on the film/sensor. --MichaelMaggs 16:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Very poor image quality. --Atoma 08:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support i think the quality is because this is not an digital image. it was taken still on film. so its ok like that... --Jeses 21:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delist - ditto to MichaelMaggs on the gunk in the sky: poor scan from a dusty slide - MPF 22:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Olegivvit 11:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 2 keep, 5 delist, 1 neutral => delisted. Lycaon 07:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Humanitarian aid OCPA-2005-10-28-090517.jpg, featured

#1 #2

Info created by Air Force Tech. Sgt. Mike Buytas - uploaded by Rama - nominated by Rama --Rama 10:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Rama 10:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose small and noisy --Simonizer 11:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - ditto to Simonizer - MPF 14:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The scene, the emotions and the composition makes it FP for me. --Malene Thyssen 06:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --WarX 17:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC) I know it's low quality, but it's great![reply]
Oppose ack Simonizer --Digon3 17:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support a very impressive photo --AngMoKio 20:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support a little noisy and small, you are right, but very affective --Packa 20:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - ack Simonizer - Lycaon 12:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - not too small, not too noisy and probably the most powerful shot on the page mixpix 00:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - --Luc Viatour 12:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Med 13:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Leafnode 08:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC) Impressive image. Quality is not everything, and here it's not that bad.[reply]
Support - A meaningful composition and a beautiful light User:Vassil 20 March 2007
Support - I uploaded a higher resolution of it. --Pmsyyz 01:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 10 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => waiting for the result of the edit. Simonizer 06:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit #2: larger, noise reduced

Info I don't have any problems with the noise level of the original, but I added a larger, noise reduced version. ~ trialsanderrors 20:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support either. Iconic image, excellent composition and lighting. ~ trialsanderrors 00:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - staying with oppose, as I don't find the composition very attractive - MPF 16:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I like almost everything in this picture: composition, light and human expression. But the quality is too poor for FP. Alvesgaspar 20:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- How about the higher resolution version I uploaded? --Pmsyyz 22:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Info OK, since the staus quo would lead to the odd situation where the smaller image were promoted instead of the larger, I informed all prior commenters in addition to the prior opposers. ~ trialsanderrors 00:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Malene Thyssen 06:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- --Luc Viatour 06:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support give my support to both versions. For such a picture the technical quality is not the most important...though the quality here is in both versions acceptable. --AngMoKio 10:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support coherent with nominating and supporting the first one. Rama 12:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Info Please, go with the original. I dislike noise reduction intensely and neither this nor the larger size adds anything at all to the image for me. Having said that, far & away the biggest reason to support this image is the subject matter, so I would support either version, but I urge wavering voters to go with version 1. mixpix 16:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support like AngMoKio - the overall impression, which includes also the technical quality, is important --Packa 16:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support For the same reasons as before. Vassil
Support In my opinion both versions are great. --Leafnode 10:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MichaelMaggs 16:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Great picture, no doubt. But i have to agree with Alvesgaspar --Simonizer 06:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose joining the naysayers. Lycaon 07:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --che 19:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T 20:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Med 08:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support The large version of course. --Digon3 02:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Romary 12:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Susanlesch 00:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 15 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. --Simonizer 10:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:ClevelandTowerWatercolor20060829.jpg, not featured

Info created by David Liao - uploaded by David Liao - nominated by David Liao --Magneticcarpet 04:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Self nomination by painter. (The Wikimedia Common alias magneticcarpet and the Wikipedia alias dliao both belong to me, David Liao) Magneticcarpet 04:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose cannot compare (nice) painting with a (nice) snap, sorry --Packa 21:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice --Elcairo 21:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support It is not common in art to reproduce the geometric distortions of photographic lenses. And I'm happy the author explanation refer to the photography which is the base of this watercolour. I was puzzled when this image was nominated in WP:FPC because our brain (normally) compensates for that kind of distortion. But my support vote really goes for the beauty of the picture. Alvesgaspar 21:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 10:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Tubal Pregnancy with embryo.jpg, not featured

Info created by Euthman - uploaded by Patho - nominated by Yonatan --Yonatan ^talk 15:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support the photo is already a featured picture on en --Yonatan ^talk 15:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question Interesting, though as it's a dead specimen I wonder why it doesn't appear to be in focus. The image was taken at f8 which is surprising; I'd have expected much smaller f-stop to give as large a depth of field as possible. --MichaelMaggs 15:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The image description says it was shot using an old 1970's macro set up with bellows at full extension, which would have dictated a wide aperture (in lieu of powerful strobes) and basically the lens itself is at its absolute limit in terms of resolving power. Realising this and remembering the embyo is less than a half-inch long, and you have to credit the photographer with a job well done, in the circumstances. It's a great exposure. Not sure this has any bearing on its FP candidacy, unfortunately, even if it is a fascinating image. I tried to enhance it but a combination of medium-fast stock, poor scan (very soft grain just visible) and jpeg compression means it just posterizes as soon a you try to sharpen it. Macro shots really do need to be sharp and detailed, something this one will never be, I fear. mixpix 19:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - You can try contacting the author on en. Yonatan ^talk 20:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think it is a great image of a rare subject, could we down sample it a bit? Strictly speaking, it is almost double the minimum requirements. This isn't the ideal solution, but it would make it "appear" sharper. --Cody.Pope 02:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support // tsca [re] 15:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. --KFP 15:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Sorry to oppose what's clearly a rare image, but the fact that the subject matter may be uncommon doesn't improve the actual image quality. The picture may have been taken with a 1970s lens, and the subject may be quite small, but the quality of the equipment used shouldn't in my view be used to excuse a very much less-than-sharp image. Unfortunately, it's not an impressively focussed image, and it's simply a shame that the photographer didn't have access to better equipment and lighting. --MichaelMaggs 18:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - agree with MichaelMaggs - MPF 01:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - so do I -- Lycaon 14:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose same as MichaelMaggs --Karelj 17:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm with Michael too. Alvesgaspar 21:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - go ahead and close it then. ;) Yonatan ^talk 01:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 10:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Sepiola atlantica.jpg, featured

Info created by Lycaon - uploaded by Lycaon - nominated by MichaelMaggs --MichaelMaggs 16:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MichaelMaggs 16:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support great shot, good editing, perfect illustration for encyclopaedic articles. Could you add the circa dimensions (lenght) of this Sepiola individual to the description? --Überraschungsbilder 17:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I didn't expect that it was so small. Thanks a lot. --Überraschungsbilder 08:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Support just great! --Cody.Pope 02:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very, very good --Thermos 05:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Malene Thyssen 08:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support agree --Simonizer 08:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Romary 12:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support // tsca [re] 15:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Leafnode 15:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - MPF 19:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice details --Packa 21:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Javier ME 21:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very fine. Wsiegmund 19:20, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support !! gren 05:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support woa ! Question wouldn't it be nice to rotate the picture 90° clockwise ? I always find myself turning my head left when looking at the pic ;) Benh 06:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Elcairo 21:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - phantastic! Orchi 23:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Amazing! --LucaG 22:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Basik07 20:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support wow Oonagh 13:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Digon3 02:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Rakshat 12:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 22 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 10:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Antwerpen Stadhuis persp1 2006-05-28.jpg, not featured

Info created by Klaus with K - uploaded by Klaus with K - nominated by Digon3 --Digon3 22:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Digon3 22:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nice, but this type of images needs perspective correction --Packa 06:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Perspective corrected version is here image:Antwerpen Stadhuis 2006-05-28.jpg Benh 06:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing special and if the corretced version does exist, why it is not here ??? --Karelj 16:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment the 'corrected version' linked by Benh is actually over-corrected, it makes the building appear too wide at the top. Of the two, the one shown here is the better. - MPF 00:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 11:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:April 17 2005 Seaside Oregon United States.JPG, not featured

Info created by Apollomelos - uploaded by Apollomelos - nominated by Tomer T --Tomer T 18:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomer T 18:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The blue tint doesn't help - something more natural would be better. Image is tilted about 0.8 degrees to the left. --MichaelMaggs 18:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose tilt. ---donald- 20:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose tilt, noisy. -- Lycaon 23:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - ditto to MichaelMaggs on the excessively blue tones - MPF 00:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blue sand --che 13:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Viele-baeren 21:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose tilt, unnatural colors, overexposed sky --Leafnode 06:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 1 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 11:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Shivta01.JPG, not featured

Info created by ST - uploaded by ST - nominated by Tomer T --Tomer T 22:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomer T 22:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - very low res, only 116KB, with resulting bad jpeg compression artefacts - MPF 00:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The res is 1600 × 1200 pixels Tomer T 01:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Low res = low information content. 116KB for a file with 1600 × 1200 pixels, spells low quality, unless you have large monochromatic surfaces (e.g. white background). Lycaon 08:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - I think there is not enough contrast in the ruins, seems too "yellow-brown" --Alipho 11:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't like the lighting. A softer light would avoid the harsh shadows and overexposed parts. Alvesgaspar 17:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Viele-baeren 21:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 11:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Macrocheira kaempferi.jpg, not featured

Info created by Lycaon (based on Image:Riesenkrabbe.jpg by User:Michael w) - uploaded by Lycaon - nominated by Tomer T --Tomer T 22:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomer T 22:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Yep I have to oppose my own work based on size and quality of the original. Sadly not FP worthy. But thanks for the nomination ;-) Lycaon 23:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, I don't think the black background works with this leggy creature... that's my biggest problem. gren 08:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think it looks too much "weird" because of the lighting of the subject, which makes me expect to see it in a different surrounding Benh 20:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose like the others. Viele-baeren 21:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ack opposers --Digon3 02:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 11:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wejście.jpg, not featured

#1 #2

Info photo taken and uploaded by Shannon5, nominated by --WarX 19:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --WarX 19:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not sharp Lycaon 19:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral It's blurred in the current version, but the picture is pretty large, so there's a lot to work with. I like the composition and the atmosphere, so I might do an edit or support someone else's. ~ trialsanderrors 22:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 11:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edited version, not featured

Info Downsampled, blur reduced and contrast enhanced
Support ~ trialsanderrors 03:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MichaelMaggs 18:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Sorry, I can't see the relevance of the picture. Maybe some information in English would help. Alvesgaspar 20:35, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Romary 11:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --WarX 11:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Ceridwen 14:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Basik07 19:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Lycaon 07:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose agree with Alvesgaspar --Simonizer 14:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 09:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:BusimCafe.jpg, not featured

Info created by Kalan — uploaded by Kalan — nominated by Kalan — Kalan 15:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Vaya 16:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - very tilted, rather dark - MPF 19:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose good idea, but not a good composition --Packa 21:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Lestat 21:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. May be it's not professional, but I like it. --Obersachse 14:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not very sharp, noisy and tilted. Also, I don't think it illustrates the subject so well Benh 06:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nothing special... --Karelj 17:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Leafnode 08:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 2 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 09:14, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Elephant close-up.jpg, not featured

Info created by, uploaded by, and nominated by Birdman1 --Birdman1 22:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Birdman1 22:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral good impression, but indistinct composition, second main object (tusk) is not sharp --Packa 07:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support though only just, with some parts of photo not well focussed - MPF 23:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Interesting, but not relevant enough for FP. Why such a big file? - Alvesgaspar 11:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- To what should it be relevant? Birdman1 13:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - To beauty (the aesthetical aspect) and to knowledge (the encyclopedic one). Neither of them is good enough to reach FP status IMO. Alvesgaspar 22:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, although this might look weird, this close-up seems too much close. Particularly the eye is almost on the border of the picture. --che 19:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, too arty. // Liftarn
Oppose, the cutting should be choosen different way --Karelj 18:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 09:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Aerial perspective 1.JPG, not featured

Info Atmospheric perspective, or aerial perspective, is the effect caused by the atmosphere on the appearance of objects observed by a viewer. As the distance between the object and the viewer increases, the contrast decreases and the colours become lighter and more bluish, until the image of the object eventually fades into the sky. In this picture, the effect is emphasized by a series of mountains in different planes photographed in a near contre-jour situation. Created and nominated by Joaquim Alves Gaspar.
Support - Alvesgaspar 14:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It shows the effect very well, but otherwise it's quite boring. Furthermore sky is overexposed. --norro 16:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with norro. But showing the effect well is not enough for me. ----Simonizer 17:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the hint. I chose the wrong template, ment to oppose too. --norro 18:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Viele-baeren 21:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose like Simonizer, sorry --Packa 06:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - should be possible to get a better demonstration photo of this without the foreground (the trees) being so black. - MPF 22:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose why should be picture like this one in this page?? --Karelj 19:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 1 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 09:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Friedrich Overbeck 009.jpg, not featured

Info created by Friedrich Overbeck - uploaded by File Upload Bot (Eloquence) - nominated by Tomer T --Tomer T 21:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomer T 21:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - very low resolution (200KB) with inevitable jpeg compression artefacts - MPF 23:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 09:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Small Red Rose.JPG, not featured

Info created by Libera - uploaded by Libera - nominated by Tomer T --Tomer T 21:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomer T 21:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - no cultivar name. Commons has hundreds of photos of named cultivars; an un-named pic is of little value. MPF 23:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is it a problem for FP? Why do you think so? --Packa 07:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - because of its minimal information content, compared to numerous other rose photos on commons. - MPF 12:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose the central part is not sharp --Packa 06:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Unsharp (poor DOF or motion blur?), crop too tight. Also, not very beatiful IMO. Alvesgaspar 17:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 09:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:43. TKB - Sierra Manta 18.JPG, not featured

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Lestat --Lestat 21:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lestat 21:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - don't find this attractive - MPF 23:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Composition, exposure, human expression are all quite good. Photographic quality could be better but the existing flaws (some grain in full resolution) can be ignored IMO. We need more high quality portraits in Commons, like this one. Alvesgaspar 23:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Freestyle nl 08:27, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Composition, FP 'value' is lacking. Lycaon 12:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question What is she holding in her hands? ~ trialsanderrors 19:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some kind of musical instrument made of nut shells ;) --WarX 22:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jeses 20:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --WarX 22:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Romary 10:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with opposers and don't like the cropped microphone in the foreground --norro 12:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A cropped version without the uggly and distracting name-tag and the microphone would be better. --Diligent 16:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not enough good for featured pictures --Karelj 18:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Basik07 20:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sharpness and colors OK, i think it is a nice picture that might not have been easy to take. but for an excellent photo the expression there are a few things missing. the on her face is less than ideal - i think she herself would not consider this an excellent photo. what are you trying to show? the scenery or the person (mike, nametag, ...)? €0.02, ---volty 13:14, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Oppose As volty --Tarawneh 13:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 7 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 11:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:The Sun.jpg, not featured

#1 #2

Info created by Kulshrax - uploaded by Kulshrax - nominated by Kulshrax --Kulshrax 15:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kulshrax 15:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Support ... only after blown highlights are removed, so there is no danger to damage the reviewer's eyes. - Alvesgaspar 17:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Done, see edit #2. ~ trialsanderrors 20:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Support ... only after replacement of the background with a more ichtyological theme. Lycaon 19:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment would support if the main object wouldn't be in the centre --AngMoKio 21:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment April Fool?!? - if yes, a bit late!! MPF 22:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment haha, very nice. --Simonizer 11:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I posted a new edited version that has been color-corrected and has had some glare removed. Kulshrax 20:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - purple blotch below sun makes it look rather odd. It is more a photo of flaws in an individual camera lens, rather than a photo of the sun. - MPF 12:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think it would be much more interesting if the sun were left out. --MichaelMaggs 20:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Wouldn't it just be a picture of the sky (which would be plain blue), then? Kulshrax 22:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm ;) --MichaelMaggs 23:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - I wanted to use this last year as April fool, but them someone nominated it on Wikipedia and he was serious. The nomination failed. Anyway this is a funny joke, nothing more. Even a 2 year old can take this pic from anywhere on earth. --Arad 00:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but this might be a very rare picture of the far side of the sun.--MichaelMaggs 15:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 1th April ... emh... 7th day) Simonizer 12:00, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:XN Anemone nemorosa 837.jpg, not featured

Info created by XN - uploaded by XN - nominated by XN --XN 15:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XN 15:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not so nice quality and distracting background to me. Benh 19:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose would have been better if main flower in focus did not overlap with blurred background flower to the left; also background rather dark - MPF 12:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - overexposed, unfortunate composition. Lycaon 13:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as others --Karelj 19:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 12:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Piles of Salt Salar de Uyuni Bolivia Luca Galuzzi 2006.jpg, featured

#1 #2 #3

Original

Info This photo shows piles of salt on the world's largest salt flat, Salar de Uyuni in Bolivia. Created, uploaded by Lucag and nominated by Überraschungsbilder 20:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Überraschungsbilder 20:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC) (vote moved to "edited version")[reply]
Support --Thermos 20:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC) Changed support to new version --Thermos 05:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --AngMoKio 21:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC) vote moved --AngMoKio 20:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~ Arghh. Difficult decision. Slight tilt ccw and slightly grainy (no pun intended). Otherwise very good picture. When the tilt is corrected, I will support. Lycaon 21:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC) vote moved -- Lycaon 12:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The tilt wasn't so much the problem as the green fringe on the piles. Edit #2 added. ~ trialsanderrors 07:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - nice encyclopaedic pic. Very slightly tilted, could perhaps benefit from rotating a fraction of a degree clockwise. MPF 21:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC) vote moved to edited version - MPF 01:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support woa, amazing subject to me, and overall very high quality. Benh 21:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support cool --norro 23:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Lycaon 06:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit

Info Tilt, background noise and green fringe removed.
Support ~ trialsanderrors 07:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice pic, though Info it's still slighty tilted to the left! Just draw a horizontal line through the horizon, and you'll see it. --Atoma 08:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

good point, the same image was actually shown twice, fixed the link now --Überraschungsbilder 17:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Support Lycaon 09:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Simonizer 10:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacopo86 11:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Chabacano 15:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC) Very nice. ¿Aren't the two pics the same?[reply]
Support --Überraschungsbilder 17:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MichaelMaggs 17:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --AngMoKio 20:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Thermos 05:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Malene Thyssen 08:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support // tsca [re] 15:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj 20:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Packa 21:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - MPF 01:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Digon3 15:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Alvesgaspar 11:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Wsiegmund 19:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lestat 21:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Romary 14:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pupster21 19:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Maire 12:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Ceridwen 14:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Basik07 19:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - What is so special? --Arad 00:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 24 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral (still waiting for edit 2) => featured. Lycaon 06:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2nd Edit , not featured

Info Fixed colours with GIMP, added a little light bloom. --wj32 ^{talk | contribs} 11:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - worse than the original, with over-saturated colours - MPF 13:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - spoiled the picture Lycaon 19:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I can say something, I guarantee you that Salar de Uyuni didn't look yellow but white, bright white and daylight sky tended to be cold blue. Colors of Edit3 are totally unreal. Please don't use this picture with my name. --LucaG 21:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose baaaaaah, delete this --Überraschungsbilder 00:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can reassure you I wasn't trying to "spoil" the picture. How would I know that they are white? And to LucaG, what do I name my edit? Random_edit_by_stupid_wj32.jpg? --124.243.176.241 07:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose You better ask to delete this. ~ trialsanderrors 22:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 11:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Bucket well.jpg, not featured

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Zserghei --Zserghei 10:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Zserghei 10:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nice image, but not special enough --Simonizer 09:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great. That's the stuff we need. --Jeses 21:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good quality pic, with encyclopaedic value - MPF 21:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Good quality picture but not special enough to be put among the best. Background is distracting and the subject is not self explanatory. Alvesgaspar 21:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose very nice image, but background is distracting. --Leafnode 08:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Ceridwen 15:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A decent-enough snap, but no more. No thought seems to have gone into avoiding the distracting backround. --MichaelMaggs 16:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Good picture but not special enough for the best. --Karelj 16:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Physikas 11:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 4 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 06:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:XN_Vinca_minor_682.jpg, not featured

Info created by XN - uploaded by XN - nominated by XN 19:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
Support --XN 19:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pupster21 19:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --donald- 20:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - MPF 21:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice use of selective DOF --Thermos 21:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support even if it looks a tiny, tiny bit too bright to me --Überraschungsbilder 22:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice image, but it looks very compressed, background is disturbing, flowers are not sharp - their borders have a lot of jpeg artefacts. There is this strange grainy look -- look at the dark corners in the lower-left at full size -- and it doesnt' look as camera noise (jpeg artefacts again?) --Atoma 08:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with Atoma and not so much details come out from this pic. Also I think the subject is too similar to the background : that same flower to the left of the main subject, which isn't blurred enough, spoils it a little to my mind. Benh 11:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice composition and colours, but I agree with Atoma: flowers are a little unsharp and some atifacts are visible. Alvesgaspar 16:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice picture with small details of the flower --Packa 21:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Artifacts, looks like it was artificially sharpened --Leafnode 08:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ziga 12:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the same as Leafnode --Karelj 16:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Viele-baeren 21:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Orlovic 21:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose agree with Atoma and Leafnode --Simonizer 11:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 10 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 06:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Bryce Canyon Hoodoos Amphitheater Panorama.jpg, not featured

Info created and nominated by Digon3 --Digon3 22:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Digon3 22:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Sorry, but it is a bit too out-of-focus. Sad, as it is otherwise a stunning photo. - MPF 12:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question Would downsampling help? --Digon3 17:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - probably yes, if it works the way I think it does - MPF 21:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice, nice --Packa 21:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Basik07 20:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support beautiful image Viele-baeren 21:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very sorry too, but I agree with MPF (with the otherwise stunningness of the picture as well). Benh 19:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Info I will provide a downsampled image as soon as this nomination is done (hopefully this will get rid of some of the out-of-focus) --Digon3 21:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 4 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 06:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Northern Spotted Owl.USFWS-thumb.jpg, not featured

Info created by a FWS-Photographers Hollingsworth, John and Karen - uploaded by H-stt - nominated by Tomer T --Tomer T 20:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomer T 20:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose typical position for owls, unfortunately not sharp --Packa 21:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose low res, noisy --Dschwen 21:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ack Dschwen -- Lycaon 21:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - 1.5 megabytes isn't low res! But it is a rather bad scanning of a slide, with dust etc., and the edge of the frame, all too readily visible. As an absolute minimum, the slide frame should be cropped off. That white bar at the left could also be edited out. - MPF 21:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- res!=pixelcount :-) --Dschwen 23:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ - Poor photographic quality. Is this a scan? - 217.129.91.43 08:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC) Please log in to vote. Lycaon 11:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It clearly is a scan - from a negative, judging by the lack of density. Looks like a bad lens/film combination failed to deliver any decent resolution (of detail!) even though the shot was well-focussed and decently scanned. I see no chance of redeeming this in post processing. Great shot otherwise (or would be if cropped form the right) with the owl looking good in its natural habitat. Would make a nice (small) print. mixpix 08:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I've cropped off the edges of the slide frame and cleaned out the worst bits of dirt - MPF 11:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It's surely usable as an illustration of the species in wikipedia, but the quality i definitely not FP-worthy. Lycaon 12:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment good effort MPF and certainly an improvement, but I still have to agree with Lycaon. --Dschwen 12:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support very impressive, excellent piture --Karelj 16:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Viele-baeren 21:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment would be better if the white line was removed from the LHS --Benjamint444 00:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 06:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Brueghel-tower-of-babel.jpg, not featured

Info created by Pieter Bruegel - uploaded by Adam - nominated by Tomer T --Tomer T 23:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomer T 23:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too small, JPEG artifacts. --startaq 07:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ - Yes, this is one of the most sriking paintings from Brueghel, but the image is too small according to the agreed guidelines. 217.129.91.43 08:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC) Please log in to vote. Lycaon 11:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Freestyle nl 09:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose 196 KB is much too low resolution - MPF 12:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Yes, this is one of the most sriking paintings from Brueghel, but the image is too small according to the agreed guidelines. Alvesgaspar 20:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj 16:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I plead in favour of "mitigated reasons" in respect of the low resolution. The painting is outstanding. --Diligent 10:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I don't see why the mitigating reasons should apply, after all, the painting isn't going away anywhere, so getting a higher res pic should not be difficult for anyone near the gallery where it is kept (unless the gallery has rules restricting hi-res photography?). - MPF 11:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too small, and no mitigating reasons. --MichaelMaggs 16:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose no no never! Viele-baeren 21:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 4 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 06:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Southeast Steam Plant-University of Minnesota.jpg, not featured

#1 #2

Info created by Karl Frankowski - uploaded by Susanlesch - nominated by Susanlesch --Susanlesch 00:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- I"ve read that this plant supplies most of the power for the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis, Minnesota. --Susanlesch 01:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - blurred smokestack clouds (exposure time much too long) - MPF 12:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think that was the intention of the photographer, to give the picture some kind of mystical touch --Simonizer 13:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - composition (POV) and ack MPF -- Lycaon 13:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I personnaly appreciate the blurred smokestack, aggree with Simonizer that it was a desired effect. I'd support but the distorsion due to the point of view and focal-length is too important on the houses, and the lower part of the photo is kinda disturbing. --Atoma 14:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I like the effect, but cut parts of the trees in the bottom kind of spoil it --che 16:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 06:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit #2, not featured

Support I cropped and muted the foreground and slightly distorted the image on the right. ~ trialsanderrors 09:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 06:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Trevi Fountain.JPG, not featured

Info created by Kachan - uploaded by Kachan - nominated by Kachan --Kachan 19:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too small to assess. Lycaon 19:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too small. It would be worth your reviewing the guidelines. --MichaelMaggs 20:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nice pic, but agree that it is too small. Aim for 800-1000 KB or larger. - MPF 23:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too small, per above. Wooyi 20:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Low quality, low size and darked, What's that? A Wallpaper? --The Photographer 02:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 0 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 06:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Miscanti Lagoon near San Pedro de Atacama Chile Luca Galuzzi 2006.jpg, featured

Info Salar de Talar near San Pedro de Atacama, Norte Grande, Chile. - created and uploaded by Luca Galuzzi - nominated by Überraschungsbilder 13:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support true colours, good composition, brilliant shot --Überraschungsbilder 13:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support agree (but can't tell if true colours) Benh 13:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support // tsca [re] 17:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XN 18:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Mountain colors look totally irreal (I'm not saying they are irreal!), I've searched "Salar de Talar" on google images, some other photos look pretty much the same. Is there any explanation to this? The contrast between the sky and the mountains is pretty shocking. --Atoma 19:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Double support! --Packa 21:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Wow!! Never been there, but happy to accept the colours are real - a combination of dark sky at very high altitude (it's at 4,100m alt.), lava on the mountains, salt flats, and halophilic microorganisms in the water. - MPF 21:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, colors looked irreals also been there, explanation is no pollution at all at 4,100m alt. and no humidity in the dryest desert on Earth. Coming back to sea level was depressing! Thanks everybody. --LucaG 20:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Lycaon 05:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Simonizer 06:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Leafnode 08:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Maire 12:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stef Mec 15:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj 16:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jespinos 23:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent. ~ trialsanderrors 04:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral It looks unreal as it's been oversharpened, I think. --MichaelMaggs 16:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What makes you think that? I don't see any evidence for it. ~ trialsanderrors 08:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support impressive... --AngMoKio 17:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support ¡Perfecto! Hugo.arg 08:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Basik07 20:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support okay Viele-baeren 21:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support sanchezn 15:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Susanlesch 00:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Amazing --Kachan 04:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Urby2004 16:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 22 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Simonizer 06:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Waterfrog head.jpg, featured

Info created by Holger Gröschl - uploaded and nominated by Simonizer 07:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great detail, nice DOF --Simonizer 07:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support That's special. Makes me feel really small. Very cool. --norro 08:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great shot. Grass on first plane distracts a bit, but I can't complain about it in this photo (macro+animal) :) --Leafnode 08:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support yep! Lycaon 10:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - MPF 14:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj 16:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XN 17:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Vassil 29 March 2007
Support --LucaG 22:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ --benjamint444 please log in to vote Lycaon 07:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the flash in the eye. --MichaelMaggs 16:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support to me it looks more like a sunset reflecting in the frogs eye rather than a flash, which could be why this scene is so nicely illuminated as well. you can see the fotographer, too :) very nice work. ---volty 13:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Support --AngMoKio 17:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LucaG 16:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)you allready have voted --Simonizer 13:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support it´s an nice frog. In german we would say "Schöner Frosch" Viele-baeren 21:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Susanlesch 00:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 06:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Moving sidewalk scheme.svg, featured

Escalator Escalator, no circles

Info created by MesserWoland - uploaded by MesserWoland - nominated by Leafnode --Leafnode 12:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Leafnode 12:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Maire 12:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wpedzich 13:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support :D M@rcin Suwalczan [talk] 13:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Szczepan dyskusja Mail 13:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral (for now) Will support if following issues are addressed: arrows (full line, narrower head) and circles around numbers disturb. Lycaon 13:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is there such a thing as a Polish grapevine ?? ;-)) Lycaon 13:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's our secret plot to... whoops ;) --Leafnode 23:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - ditto to Lycaon; also number sequence is somewhat illogical (my suggestion would be clockwise numbering from the left; 1. Electric motor, 2. Drive gear, 3. Handrail drive, 4. Handrail, 5. Step, 6. Return wheel, 7. Chain guide, 8. Inner rail) - MPF 14:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --WarX 17:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC) But renumerize and make thinner strokes around numbers ;)[reply]
Support. Great illustration! But is it really called moving sidewalk? It's an escalator! --Dschwen 22:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah well, maybe you guys have moving sidewalks and flying cars over there in warsaw, who knows ;-) --Dschwen 22:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice one! Herr Kriss 23:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Packa 06:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Image has been changed according to comments. Also version without baloons has been prepared (if you like vote for it below) --Leafnode 10:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like baloons :) --norro 09:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Masti 19:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC) moving sidewalk up-the-hill :)[reply]
Support gren 10:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose until the kink in the handrail is fixed. ~ trialsanderrors 00:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 12 support, 1 oppose, 2 neutral => featured. Simonizer 06:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed version, no baloons, not featured

Info fixed according to comments above (ordering, arrow lines, additionally no baloons) and uploaded by Leafnode based on image by MesserWoland--Leafnode 23:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lycaon 07:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Diligent 10:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Thanks! MPF 11:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Support. Always wondered how those things worked. In Paris, at La Défense, there are always at least two mechanical stairs broken, no idea why.
Numbers seem still pretty big (I tend to compare their size to the real-size of the mechanical stair, so they are big). --Atoma 14:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A real size escalator would also have about 4 or 5 times as many steps :-) MPF 19:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support --MichaelMaggs 16:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Thermos 03:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support really nice! Viele-baeren 21:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - The level of detail is much lower for the handrail system than it is for the step system. For example, at the inflexion points of the handrail, there should be some kind of wheel, which is not depicted. BTW, some of these inflexions seem too sharp to be real. Also, I agree with MPF about the number of steps. - Alvesgaspar 10:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I believe that this image is supposed to depict stair mechanism, only signing presence of handrail but not focusing on it. But maybe author of this image should make some comment. --Leafnode 17:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, I actually prefer the circles for this image... they only cover background space and make for better image mapping. gren 10:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose until the kink in the handrail is fixed. ~ trialsanderrors 00:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 2 neutral => not featured. (Original has more support votes) Simonizer 06:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Virginia class submarine.jpg, not featured

Info created by Ron Stern - uploaded by Owly K --Ayack 17:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ayack 17:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question Maybe it should be stated somewhere, that it's only artistic vision? --WarX 19:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - very low res, only 219KB, with resulting hideous jpeg compression artefacts (see particularly the lower right part of the pic) - MPF 20:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The res is 1260 x 2100 Tomer T 15:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - No. 1260 x 2100 is the dimensions. The resolution is how detailed the image is, not how large it is top to bottom or side to side. High resolution requires more kilobytage, and that's what this pic doesn't have. - MPF 00:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not so! I hate to be pedantic, but this sort of thing really gets my goat. Read en:Image resolution and you'll find no mention of image (byte) size, which varies with compression. This is a compressed high resolution file, which reduces file size and sometimes quality (though not, IMO, in this case). If you are to fairly review images here, you really should get your criteria straight. mixpix 00:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support Great Tomer T 15:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj 16:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose i have difficulties seeing sth special in it. Might be a good candidate for QI --AngMoKio 17:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Trivial 3D rendering, not even particularly spectacular, beautiful or even well-framed. Rama 19:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Viele-baeren 21:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Agree with previous opposers, might pass (or not) the QIC challenge. Alvesgaspar 10:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 06:58, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Verdun cimetiere.JPG, not featured

Info created by Ajor933 - uploaded by Ajor933 - nominated by Ajor933 --Ajor933 13:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ajor933 13:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ The photo is out of focus and consequently does not appear to have any depth of field --70.56.91.246 14:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC) -please log in to vote --AngMoKio 15:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose severe technical flaws --AngMoKio 15:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - ditto to AngMoKio, also resolution very low - MPF 20:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As above. --Javier ME 18:42, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Lestat 20:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 07:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Mousse.jpg, not featured

Info created by Ajor933 - uploaded by Ajor933 - nominated by Ajor933 --Ajor933 13:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ajor933 13:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unacceptable. Please read guidelines. Lycaon 14:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This must be very poor joke... --Karelj 16:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not to be featured. Please read guidelines. --Javier ME 19:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Waaayyy too low res --wj32 ^{talk | contribs} 09:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Leafnode 18:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 07:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Paris arc.jpg, not featured

Info created by Jplavoie - uploaded by Jplavoie - nominated by Tomer T --Tomer T 18:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomer T 18:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - doesn't grab me as a very good pic - MPF 00:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Maybe because the day was grey and because no street is in you axe --Alipho 11:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment right side of the first avenue left is blurred. --Javier ME 15:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Basik07 20:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC) cut too high[reply]
Neutral there´s something missinf for a realy exelent picture. Viele-baeren 21:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Would have been more interesting with a 360° pano. --Atoma 07:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Karelj 19:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Maybe too gray, but I liked it since I saw it very long time ago in Wikipedia. Gray is actually a color I associate with Paris. --Arad 00:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good pic --Tarawneh 13:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 2 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 08:22, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:DK Fanoe Windmill01.JPG, featured

Info created by Cnyborg - uploaded by Cnyborg - nominated by Tomer T --Tomer T 19:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomer T 19:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support ---donald- 20:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but only just: aesthetically very nice, but the resolution is barely adequate. The same size but with 800kb or a megabyte of detail would be much better. - MPF 00:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Romary 08:40, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Agree with MPF, the walls of the building seems a little 'flat' --Alipho 11:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Basik07 20:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice image Viele-baeren 21:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Packa 06:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj 19:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Leafnode 05:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lestat 20:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 08:23, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Car side mirror sunset.jpg, not featured

Info created by J RAWLS - uploaded by User:FlickrLickr / Tintazul - nominated by Bryan -- Bryan (talk to me) 19:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wonderfull composition -- Bryan (talk to me) 19:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it Tomer T 20:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Freestyle nl 21:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --donald- 22:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Small; many elements out of focus --Javier ME 08:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Nothing really interesting in this picture... --Alipho 11:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, doesn't see very special, although it's still a creative step above thousands of other sunsets we have here. --che 12:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - nice idea, but composition spoilt by wires in both directions - MPF 15:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose like MPF Viele-baeren 21:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support something unussual, nice —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Karelj (talk • contribs) at 19:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Would removing the wires be a good idea? -- Bryan (talk to me) 19:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Orlovic 11:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, not outstanding. -- Physikas 11:40, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 4 support, 8 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 08:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Seine wide.jpg, featured

Info created and uploaded by Jplavoie - nominated by ---donald- 21:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support ---donald- 21:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I don't usually like night time urban pics, but this one is definitely a cut above most of the others. Mainly because there are relatively few light sources, and they illuminate the buildings well, rather than a whole lot of glare points. Also that (despite the low light levels) it has been done with a fast enough shutter speed not to blur the water. One comment though, I think that cropping off about 10% off the right hand end would improve the pic. - MPF 00:40, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A Cropped version is here en:Image:Seine_wide_crop.jpg. Benh 20:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Excellent in everyway (Would probably make the crop suggested by MPF, however, somewhere right to horseshoe stamp in vertical pillar (the detail is really good)). Clearly a FP. --Thermos 03:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Romary 08:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Agree with MPF --Alipho 11:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For those who may not know, the "disco" colours were to support Paris' bid for the 2012 olympics. Don't expect to see the same if you visit Paris now :) Benh 20:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Benh 20:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support really good image. Viele-baeren 21:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support That's a totally cool panorama from Paris. --Atoma 18:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Agree with MPF --Digon3 02:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why keep voting for a version that is not whole-heartedly supported, when a cropped (en:Image:Seine_wide_crop.jpg) (and apparently more appreciated) version exists? BTW, I would also support the cropped version... Lycaon 06:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Rakshat 12:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good. I'd support the cropped version too --LucaG 23:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Karelj 18:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support– Nice colors Kachan 21:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Urby2004 16:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Leafnode 18:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 14 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 08:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Above the Clouds.jpg, not featured

Info created by Kulshrax - uploaded by Kulshrax - nominated by Kulshrax --Kulshrax 01:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kulshrax 01:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not really attractive and too dark I think --Alipho 20:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice pic, but suffering from jpeg compression faults in the sky (most obvious toward top left of pic) - MPF 23:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too dark, horizon should be lower --Leafnode 18:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Lestat 12:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 08:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Kjosnesfjorden.JPG, not featured

Info created by Abubakr.h - uploaded and nominated by Abubakr.h

Comment good quality, but a little angle rotation would work! --Orlovic 11:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question I see what appears to be a smudge in the upper right region of the photo. Is this because of image editing, or is it a part of the original photo? Kulshrax 15:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I looked at the same smudge. I think it's a cloud. Nevertheless, it's really distracting.Kgrr 16:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not because of the smudge which can be easily cleaned. The composition is a little boring and the image quality not good enough. Alvesgaspar 18:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there's two smudges (the other, at the top left); they look like smudges produced by editing, not clouds. Otherwise, nice pic though. - MPF 20:46, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Camera lent noise --The Photographer 02:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I like the composition but I would be a greater picture without smudges. --Alipho 20:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose smudges --Lestat 20:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 0 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 08:29, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Bagre Puerquero de la Bahia de Juan Griego.JPG, not featured

Info created by The Photographer - uploaded by The Photographer - nominated by The Photographer --The Photographer 02:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Photographer 02:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nothing in focus, not even the (unidentified!) fish -- Lycaon 05:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ditto to Lycaon. -- Physikas 11:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ditto to Lycaon and Physikas - MPF 15:48, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose terrible picture --Karelj 21:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ditto to Lycaon and Physikas and MPF --Leafnode 18:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Lestat 20:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 1 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:USMC Marathon.jpg, not featured

Info A work of the United States Federal Government - uploaded by Tungsten - nominated by Tomer T --Tomer T 12:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomer T 12:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but I really don't see what this picture is trying to convey...there just isn't a "wow" factor for me. Kulshrax 15:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - ditto to Kulshrax - MPF 15:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Kulshrax --Digon3 15:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ditto to Kulshrax. Nice resolution, but otherwise ordinary sports shot. Furthermore woman in the front is out of focus. --norro 09:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Leafnode 18:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Watching Sunset Salar de Uyuni Bolivia Luca Galuzzi 2006.jpg, featured

Info created by Lucag - uploaded by Lucag - nominated by Simonizer 11:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wonderful. Great colours and composition. I guess, the best sunset picture at commons at the moment --Simonizer 11:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Rakshat 13:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support looks like a graphic, but WOW! --Packa 18:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry to have doubts about this photography since LucaG seems to provide Commons only with very nice pics, but the guy and his reflection on the water look too much the same to my taste. I've played a bit with my gimp and the shapes are VERY close (though not exactly the same) as if they were mirrored and pasted to the picture. The part of water reflecting the light of the sky, just under the left feet seems to confirm my suspicions. Could anyone confirm or give me an explanation ? Benh 19:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral I've changed my mind, since Lucag told me it's real and I don't want my vote to be a penalty if other users like it. Benh 19:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - ditto to Benh's comments (particularly re the spot of light shining under his left foot), and think it would look nicer without the guy standing there - MPF 19:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose to my picture but not for an edit I didn't do. The girl standing on the Salar is my 10 years old daughter. ~~Please tell me how to provide the original Canon RAW file and I'll do it.~~ Giulia, my daughter was really there watching the sun. I love particularly this image. --LucaG 19:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC) [reply]

I provided the original RAW file to Benh and to MPF. It can seem an incredible picture but Bolivia is really an incredible country. Sorry for the intrusion in this poll. --LucaG 20:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Yap I saw it. That reflection under the left foot seems much more natural at real size and may be explained by the direction of the light source eventually to be somewhere on the left side (sky is big ;)). That makes this picture even more outstanding to me. Very sorry for the trouble... Benh 21:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! My apologies for my doubts - MPF 21:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind. Now that you know her, I added some more pictures of Giulia in that incredible place: my Bolivia gallery. --LucaG 22:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Support--Thermos 04:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lycaon 13:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Totally looks like a drawing, which makes it even more interesting. --Atoma 14:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice --Karelj 19:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MichaelMaggs 20:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Basik07 21:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - it looks like a typical render, but it's a photo. And that's cool! :D I had to look at EXIF to believe it's not rendered. - Erina 08:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I think that image, which could be made in not too long time in vector image software, shouldn't be a FP. --Leafnode 05:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you serious? This is a photo of a real place and not a computer generated image. --Simonizer 11:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I can read, I know it's a photo. It only doesn't look like one. And I don't like it. --Leafnode 19:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- I don't really like it. It looks like a kitschy 70's blacklight poster to me. However, I have a couple of observations: The caption in Italian:in questo silenzio sono i colori ad urlare - Salar de Uyuni - Bolivia - 3700 m di quota. Forgive me, I don't know Italian. The title of this work appears to be Salar de Uyuni or Leaving Uyuni? Uyuni is a salt flat in Bolivia. My last recollection of salt is that it's white. It had to have taken a lot of post-processing to bring out the subtle colors on the salt flat and to get the shadows that black. Kgrr 05:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral i do not really like the photo, but my personal taste does not make it a less excellent picture of a natural-surreal scenery. I think it could be improved by a bit of postprocessing (the blacks do not appear balanced properly - they appear a bit fuzzy). --- volty 12:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC) Please sign with ~~~~ thanks. Lycaon 06:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC) [reply]
Support --Urby2004 16:27, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree it has a bit of a 70's kitsch factor, but as a photographic accomplishment it's outstanding. ~ trialsanderrors 01:28, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I like the landscape, but would prefer it without the person - MPF 23:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Lestat 20:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with MPF, I would prefer it without the person. --Digon3 01:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 12 support, 5 oppose, 2 neutral => featured. Simonizer 07:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Lake palace udaipur.jpg, not featured

Info created by Rakshat - uploaded by Rakshat - nominated by Rakshat --Rakshat 12:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T 13:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Rakshat 16:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nice hotel, but… --Packa 18:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nice pic, but resolution (only 250 KB) too low, with jpeg compression faults - MPF 19:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose low quality picture --Karelj 19:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, but, that's so cool... until if floods. gren 10:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too much useless space. Wooyi 20:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Nikko Petals 1.jpg, not featured

Info created by Shmoopy - uploaded by Shmoopy - nominated by Shmoopy --Shmoopy 02:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Shmoopy 02:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - not enough depth of field, so only a few petals are in focus - MPF 10:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - ack MPF and no reference as to the accuracy of the colours/white balance. Lycaon 05:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I like the limited depth of field and the color even though it might not be scientifically perfect (there is no need for scientific color balance on Commons). The photo would get my vote if the blossom that's in focus (the bright one near the upper left corner) were at a better location, for example, just to the lower right of center ("looking" toward the center). In its present location, it leads my eye out of the photo, and for this picture, that's not what I want. Fg2 22:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I am sure those are the natural colors, but there are no other colors to prove to my mind that they are. --Digon3 01:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Karelj 14:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 07:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:OD Compact disc.svg

Image:Clock-longtime.JPG, not featured

A photo on a clock, with a longtime photo (4 secs) created by Moralist - uploaded by Moralist - nominated by Moralist --moralist 12:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral --moralist 12:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC) - Don't want to vote on i myself...[reply]
Comment Is the white balance correct? Shouldn't the clock-face be white? --AngMoKio 16:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - cut, with bottom and side of clock missing - MPF 16:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Seems to be a white balance and/or exposure problem. -- Ram-Man 16:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - compositional problems, white balance issues. Lycaon 05:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Leafnode 18:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Lestat 19:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don´t see any reason for featered picture here --Karelj 14:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 0 support, 6 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 07:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Pacific Madrone Arbutus menziesii Closeup 2816px.jpg, not featured

Info created by Jina Lee - uploaded and nominated by Ram-Man -- 14:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support (as the nominator). -- Ram-Man 14:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Looks like peeling paint. This one actually creates some context. ~ trialsanderrors 20:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please see my comments below: This is not intended to be a contextual image but an image which highlights the texture and shows the peeling bark. It is a closeup afterall. It is perfectly reasonable to use the picture you link (which was taken at the same time of the same tree) in conjunction with this one for proper context. The purpose of this image is as a closeup showing detail. -- Ram-Man 12:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice close-up of the bark, but sadly low quality (noisy) image. Lycaon 05:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This picture was taken in bright sunlight at its lowest ISO setting and is not underexposed. That is not noise but the fine grain detail of the tree and is the whole point of the image. I had to search a little bit to find another example, but you can see the fine grain texture in this image as well. Part the educational value of this image is the fact that it is a high resolution closeup showing this fine detail. -- Ram-Man 12:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I respectfully disagree. A picture of 2816 x 2120 with only 1.4 Mb was subject to some kind of compression. And some of the grain texture in this image looks like compression artifacts. Alvesgaspar 14:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - There may be some compression artifacts that are visible at extreme magnifications, but that's not the same as noise, which was the point I was addressing. For clarification, the camera in question is actually a 3MP camera and for marketing reasons includes interpolation to 6MP. The real resolution of this image is 3MP, which is still a lot of useful resolution, but not as much as the dimensions would suggest. This should help explain the file size issue. Downsampling would just introduce generational error, so I didn't do so. If you did, it would smooth out those issues, which is what happens when the wikimedia software creates the images used in articles. At a reasonably large size of 11"x14" at 100dpi, the grain matches that of the subject. Even at that magnification it would take a trained eye to tell the difference between the rough grain of the tree and any compression artifacts. We have noisier (and which looks to me like more artifacts) in 2MP featured pictures, such as the recent Image:Humanitarian_aid_OCPA-2005-10-28-090517a.jpg. -- Ram-Man 15:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ Please sign to vote --MichaelMaggs 14:52, 15 April 2007 (UTC) [reply]

result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 07:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:NZ North Island Robin.jpg, not featured

Info created by Tony Wills - uploaded by Tony Wills - nominated by Tony Wills --Tony Wills 12:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ --Tony Wills 12:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very noisy. ---donald- 19:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Unsharp and full of artifacts. Alvesgaspar 21:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CommentYou are sadly right :-(. Info I withdraw my nomination --Tony Wills 00:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: Nomination withdrawn => not featured. Simonizer 07:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Using sextant.gif, featured

Info The animation illustrates the use of a marine sextant at sea, for measuring the altitude of the Sun above the horizon. This information, coupled with the knowledge of the exact time and the position of the Sun in the celestial sphere at the moment of the observation, allows the determination of a line of position, with an accuracy of about 1-2 nautical miles. Created and nominated by Joaquim Alves Gaspar.

Left (with swing)

Support --Alvesgaspar 22:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Susanlesch 03:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC) (Sorry I can't tell them apart.)[reply]
Support - I understand that this is more informative version? In any case, both are good. --Thermos 05:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support BTW what's the difference? -- Erina 08:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very informative --Diligent 10:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - nice explanation of the theory of using a sextant, or on land, with the sextant fixed on a stable tripod. How does one obtain 1-2 nautical mile accuracy in practice? (see typical actual situations, right) - MPF 14:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Info - The marine sextant cannot be fixed to a tripod, it is designed to be held with the right hand (the handle can be see behind the index bar, in this picture). This way, the ship's pitch and roll don't affect its use very much (unless you feel really sick or just can´t stand...). The accuracy of a celestial line of position at sea depends mainly on the accuracy of the altitude measurement, which is affected by the instrument itself (the precision of the sextant is about 0,5' of arc), the observer personal error, the accuracy of the available time (the celestial sphere moves, with the sun, 15' of arc in each minute of time) and the effect of atmospheric refraction. The accuracy value of 1-2 nautical miles for each line of position (about 1,85 to 3,7 km) is a little bit optimistic. On land, celestial observations are (were, as a matter of fact) normally made with an astronomical theodolite and the accuracy of the measurements is much higher (of the order of 100 times better). By the way, the sea states shown in the images are not, fortunately, very typical. Alvesgaspar 14:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - Thanks; though I still don't see how it can be used in a practical situation. I've never used a sextant, but have frequently used binoculars on board boats (both large ships and small fishing boats, for birding), and know how impossibly difficult it is to keep the horizon (or a bird) steady in them with engine vibration and even just slight rolling. Even with a calm sea, engine vibration transmitted through the body and arm makes the horizon vibrate up and down by a degree or two. The two pics may be a bit more than normal, but it is extremely rare for there to be no swell in the open oceans (look at e.g. the difficulties of landing on oceanic islets like Rockall, where 1-2 metres swell is normal even in 'calm' weather), and on an average day (in the North Sea at least, where I have the most experience) wave heights very typically make the horizon 'lumpy' by several degrees as seen from the deck of a small ship. One degree of error from a lumpy horizon, or vibration, is equivalent to about 60 nautical miles. - MPF 14:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment The beauty of the sextant is that it is not relevant if you are pointing exactly to the horizon or not to make an accurate measurement (as long as you see it through the glass). The important thing is that the heavenly body is put tangent to the horizon, which is reflected in a correct position of the index bar. The waves can indeed affect the process but only when the observer is quite close to the surface and the sea is rough. With an elevation of 3 m (1,5 for the observer's eye plus 1,5 for the boat's deck), the visible horizon is about 3,5 nautical miles away. Alvesgaspar 15:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support great work --AngMoKio 18:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good. Now the difference has been pointed out, I prefer the left version. BTW, in caption 4, for 'clump' read 'clamp'. --MichaelMaggs 19:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The "clump" is now fixed (should I say silent?...), thank you. Alvesgaspar 20:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support FP for sure. Lycaon 19:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment moved to User talk:Alvesgaspar#Sextant animation ~ trialsanderrors 19:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Amazingly clear ! I now understand Sextans ^0^y --Yug (talk) 09:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good, very informative --Digon3 15:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support whichever version you'll settle on. ~ trialsanderrors 19:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Amazing, now I wish to try one. --LucaG 20:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good work --Simonizer 11:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support It explains the use of a sextant very well. --Kgrr 04:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Support the image and the information associated to it. I feel like I understand the principle of a sextant now :) Benh 08:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Urby2004 16:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Photographer 02:10, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Malene Thyssen 13:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Leafnode 18:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support :-) --Tony Wills 12:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Pedroserafin 12:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 21 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Simonizer 06:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right (without swing), not featured

Image:Using sextant.gif
Info -- In this version the rotation of the sextant around the optical axis of the telescope (which may be considered less than perfect) is not visible. Alvesgaspar 09:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination - Alvesgaspar 20:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lestat 12:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: Nomination withdrawn => not featured. Simonizer 06:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image: chompchomp GMC.jpg, not featured

Info created by Elcucococo - uploaded by Elcucococo - nominated by Elcucococo --Elcucococo 02:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Got to support my own pic! :) Elcucococo 22:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too small - please read the guidelines. Lycaon 05:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Leafnode 18:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose what is the picture trying to show? Too small. --Digon3 19:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too small --Lestat 20:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as above --Karelj 14:11, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 07:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Plaza Mayor Salamanca.jpg, not featured

Info created by Keta - uploaded by Keta - nominated by Keta --Keta 06:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support but I just feel the script for resizing doesn't work very well here --Keta 06:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think the details in the dark aren't for FP --Orlovic (talk) 10:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose to dark in the dark, overexposed spots --Leafnode 18:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Karelj 14:12, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 07:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:2062 series locomotive (1).JPG, not featured

No. 1 No. 2

Info created by Orlovic - uploaded by Orlovic - nominated by --Orlovic (talk) 10:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Version #1

Oppose picture taken too close to the locomotive, so it's deformed and not really well visible, lack of contrast --che 14:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Contrast fixed in the meantime, --Orlovic (talk) 17:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - ditto to che on pic angle. The other pic Image:2062 series locomotive (2).JPG is better - MPF 10:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 0 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 07:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Version #2

Oppose the contrast is much better, but sky is blown out and wideangle perspective is still there --che 14:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The sky is blown out. --Digon3 23:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 0 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 07:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:F-16 On Tarmac.jpg, not featured

Info created by US AIR FORCE - uploaded by Orlovic - nominated by --Orlovic (talk) 01:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really stunning heat effect and good focus on plane --Orlovic (talk) 01:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - poor composition with messy background distracting from subject - MPF 10:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unfortunately I agree with MPF. Shot, to look better, would have to be full-front (not slightly to the right), showing whole right wing etc. I've made some great shots of F16, but unfortunately I can't publish them :( --Leafnode 12:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Lestat 20:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ack Leafnode -- Lycaon 20:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose composition and framing --Digon3 23:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as above --Karelj 14:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 1 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 07:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Lwt02830.jpg, not featured

Info created by US Geological Survey - uploaded by Alan Glennon - nominated by Kulshrax --Kulshrax 18:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kulshrax 18:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - numerous blemishes on photo (white spots, black spots, that bear no relationship to the photo subject and must be camera faults) - MPF 22:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ack MPF --Leafnode 06:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 07:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Laguna Negra de Urbión.JPG, not featured

Info created by Txo - uploaded by Txo - nominated by Txo --Txo (discusión) Mi discusión en castellano 19:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Txo (discusión) Mi discusión en castellano 19:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Sorry, but there are very bad colour fringes in parts of the pic (see e.g. the boulders, lower left corner) and other poor reproduction faults. Otherwise, a nice habitat photo though. - MPF 22:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Very poor photographic quality: image blurry, overexposed and full of artifacts. Was certainly upsampled from a lower resolution picture. Alvesgaspar 22:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't think this was upsampled. I would credit this to a poor quality lens at f/2.8 because center is much sharper than (very blurry) borders. Benh 14:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment La resolución es alq ue da la cámara, una canón IXUS II D de 3.2Megapixels, No hay una sobre exposición ni artefactos en la imagen, el cielo estaba blanco, tal y como s eve en la fotografía, y lo que paecen artefactos son copos de nieve (estaba nevando enese momento). La dierencia entre el centro y los bordes, seguramente es debida a la calidad de la óptica.--Txo (discusión) Mi discusión en castellano 11:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose overexposed, seems tilted and blurry --Digon3 22:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as above --Leafnode 06:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 07:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Grito 11-M.jpg, not featured

"Reminds" inside 11-M memorial

Info, Grito 11-M.jpg by Desiree Onievas.

This image is the view of the 11-M monument which represent the sorrow and recolects some messages of condolence in their original language which covered all walls of the Atocha Station the days after the bombings. Interactive info Ive decided to nominate it because:

Really amazing perspective with light and colours effects caused by the internal form of the monument (compare with the external view)
Good quality: 1280 × 960, not noised, the sentences are surprisingly legibles.
It shows messages in all laguages so people from all the world can understand the general meaning.--Serg!o 22:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose It is too small (244 KB). Please upload a higher resolution. --Digon3 23:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It should be about 2000 x 1000 and around 800 KB or higher. --Digon3 23:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've cleaned the image and upgraded the colours, please reconsider your votes--Serg!o 23:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think 1.5M is too much for such a resolution, probably this can be compressed down to around 500 Ko without noticeable effects. Benh 11:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - It is a good picture but resolution is not enough for FP, please check the guidelines. I should try again with a proper camera... Alvesgaspar 07:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (weak) Looks like an... apple OS X ~~paper peint~~ wallpaper yes I'm french ! :) I wish I support it but quality (of image, not composition etc.) is not good enough to me Benh 11:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too small --Lestat 12:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 0 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 07:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Mount Washington Cascades.jpg, not featured

Info created by Kgrr - uploaded by Kgrr - nominated by Kgrr --Kgrr 20:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kgrr 20:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Romary 19:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - MPF 20:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Quite poor quality, probably due to compression. The image has very little detail, the trees look like a shapeless green mass. ~~and the sky is noisy~~. Alvesgaspar 22:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "noise" you see is snow in the air, the moon, and two airplanes.--Kgrr 00:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what I mean :). Well, maybe the noise is not vey disturbing. Alvesgaspar 07:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Agree with Alvesgaspar on the poor quality image. At 1600x1200 pixels, it's probably scaled down and therefore should have much more detail per pixel. I also think the foreground is a little inappropriate here. Benh 08:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was not scaled-down. The lens on the mid-grade camera is not the greatest, however it was easy to pack for the hike. Would you cut the foreground, making it look more like an aerial shot of the mountain? Help me compose the picture better.Kgrr 17:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I said it all, IMO, you should get rid of the foreground. Maybe you can leave it but use it in a better way to make the pic less (as been said) "boring". But that's not the main reason of my oppose. I Agree with Alvesgaspar that you should get a new camera if it can't produce sharper details than this at 1600x1200 pixels. Benh 08:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Oppose Boring composition (horizon in middle of picture divides the picture in two parts) and low quality --Simonizer 09:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your feedback. But please give me some more precise feedback. I plan to hike up to the same spot again this week and take a higher resolution camera and a tripod to shoot the picture again. Composition: Would you have had less sky and closed in on the mountain? Would you skip the foreground and take a more 'clinical' photo of the mountain? Was the time of the day right - this photo was taken near noon, casting shadows on the mountain. If it's taken later in the evening, the mountain glows with more light, but the three-dimensionality of the mass is lost.Kgrr 17:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - You definitely need a better camera, the image lacks detail and sharpness. Also,the exposure solution might not be the best: with a tripode it should be possible to shoot with a smaller aperture and get a better DOF. Finally, the composition is a lttle boring, like Simonizer said. Try not to center the subjects, both in the foreground and background. About the time of the day, it is difficult to give an opinion not being there. Personnaly, I prefer the evening light because the colours are nicer and the shadows smoother. Alvesgaspar 18:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Alvesgaspar for your feedback. I will shoot it again with my Pentax *ist-DS (a much better camera) and shoot the shot more to the right so that the mountain will have Chester Morse Lake to the right of it. Perhaps, I will shoot it later in the evening so that the light will be more golden. Unfortunately, the mountains will not be snow-frosted because it's spring already.Kgrr 23:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I like it. Hugo.arg 19:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Karelj 21:37, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured.  Simonizer 07:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Perisphinctes sp.2 - Jurasico.JPG, not featured

Info created by Drow male - uploaded & nominated by Drow male 12:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Drow male 12:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Would be better with the descriptive note fully visible, not partly hidden underneath the fossil. - MPF 14:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Poor quality due to compression and too much light. Composition is not good either. Alvesgaspar 16:58, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm not worried about the note as the image description should contain those details in multiple languages. But focus looks off, and shadows are purple - colour balance? --Tony Wills 09:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Poor quality --Karelj 14:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose definitely not FP --Leafnode 06:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 07:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Wolf 610.JPG, not featured

Info created by amphibol - uploaded by amphibol - nominated by amphibol --Amphibol 15:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Amphibol 15:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - File highly compressed. The result is an image blurred, with no detail and full of artifacts. Alvesgaspar 16:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not sharp enough --Karelj 16:33, 14 April 2007 (CEST)
Question - location of photo? - MPF 19:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose focus on the background, left wolf is looking to the corner --che 12:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 07:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Pleiades Spitzer big.jpg, not featured

Info Infrared photo of Pleiades (M45) open star cluster created by Spitzer Telescope (Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech/J. Stauffer (SSC/Caltech)) - uploaded by Winiar - nominated by Winiar --Winiar^✉ 16:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Winiar^✉ 16:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why there are two versions here. Why don't you just nominate the large one? --MichaelMaggs 17:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Smaller version looks more sharp in 300px, but ok, I'll change nomination to larger only. Winiar^✉ 18:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I'm sure NASA can be the source of more clearer images, this one is too noisy. --Orlovic (talk) 13:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nice colors, but only this --Leafnode 06:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 07:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:P6250057.JPG

Info created by The bellman - uploaded by The bellman - nominated by Tomer T --Tomer T 19:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomer T 19:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Very poor quality, due to compression. Please check the guidelines before nominating. Alvesgaspar 20:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as above; also tilted - MPF 19:52, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as above Karelj 20:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 07:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative

Support Tomer T 08:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Jorgovan-pcela4.JPG, not featured

Info created by Pokrajac - uploaded by Pokrajac - nominated by Pokrajac --Pokrajac 22:58, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pokrajac 22:58, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Poor quality (noise), overexposed, subject unfocused. Please check here the kind of quality we are seeking in Commons:FP - Alvesgaspar 07:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Noise, strange DoF --Leafnode 12:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as above --Karelj 14:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose far from current similar FP images, as alvesgaspar --Orlovic (talk) 13:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 07:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:C17virginia.jpg

#1 #2 #3

Info created by the US government - uploaded by Orlovic - nominated by --Orlovic 13:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Orlovic 13:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support A good example of Atmospheric perspective (or aerial perspective) too. --Atoma 15:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good image. --MichaelMaggs 19:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LucaG 20:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - "Seventeen C-17 Globemaster III aircraft fly over ..." Someone at the USAF can't count? Or have four crashed? There's also a fault in the pic on the tail of the lead plane, a blurry blob half way up the tail stem. And the source link doesn't lead to the right pic at the source website. - MPF 20:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There's also a raindrop on the lens on the lower right, just above the horizon. ~ trialsanderrors 21:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I believe, that they made this photo from another C-17, so rest of the planes are behind the camera --Leafnode 06:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- noisy (and airforce publicity) Lycaon 20:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Leafnode 06:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent. --Karelj 16:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --WarX 19:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC) thiz image lookz gr8 :)[reply]
Oppose - Good composition, image quality quite far from it. - Alvesgaspar 22:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose noisy Romary 19:12, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose due to blurry blob fault half way up the tail stem - MPF 22:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose agree with Alvesgaspar --Simonizer 08:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 7 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured.  Simonizer 07:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative #2, featured

Comment - The air looks really muddy on this image. I like the other image DF-SD-06-03299 051220-F-5964B-161 that is the exact same shot. However, it looks post-processed to be brighter. Find it with the search at the Defense Visiual Information Center. Is there a way to vote on the alternate? Kgrr 04:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Added as alternative. ~ trialsanderrors 05:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support you could have simply changed the first image. I must vote for the second. --Orlovic 09:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support The second image looks better, less smoggy. Kgrr 16:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose noisy like the first version Romary 19:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good picture ! --Alipho 20:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj 21:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Under the circumstance of moving objects, both pics are quite good. It is much easyer to make better quality still photohtaphs with some insect or building waiting for you infinitely. Ziga 06:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Malene Thyssen 13:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as above Lycaon 06:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose due to blurry blob fault half way up the tail stem - MPF 22:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Removed. ~ trialsanderrors 00:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support ~ trialsanderrors 00:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose good composition but noisy! --Simonizer 08:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Arad 01:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 8 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 08:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative #3, not featured

Comment - This image version was cleaned up by Fir0002 and is about as clear as the image can possibly be. It retains the original lighting. Unfortunately the smudge is still on the tail of the main plane, bit it's pretty damn good! Witty lama
Support Witty lama 00:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as above + introduced vignetting and halo on tail. Lycaon 10:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as above--Pedroserafin 15:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose agree with Lycaon --Simonizer 08:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day)Simonizer 08:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:MergellusAlbellusTakeOff.jpg

Info created by Thermos - uploaded by Thermos - nominated by Thermos --Thermos 17:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Thermos 17:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC) Changed support for new version[reply]
{Support}} - amazing sharp detail in the water droplets! I'd be inclined to brighten the image a bit, though. Location of the bird in the image description would also be nice. - MPF 20:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC) Changed support for new version[reply]

Comment Location information is now added in image description. --Thermos 21:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Beautiful, but image so darked --The Photographer 02:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 0 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 07:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose -- rather dull (not sure if I'm expressing this right but...) dull colors, no contrast. Nice motion shot though. --Spundun 22:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New version (on the right), featured

Support Uploaded a new version, adjusted for brightness --Thermos 05:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support (weak one) because it's amazing how all the relevant details of the picture are in focus in a shallow depth of field. But I think lighting of the bird is a little poor. Benh 08:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Digon3 15:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj 21:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - MPF 23:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cool. Would be interesting to see a more narrow vertical crop. --Atoma 15:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Basik07 22:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Leafnode 18:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice pic, but i think the harsh shadows and the flat colours, caused by difficult light conditions, are not FP-worthy - forgot to sign --Simonizer 13:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Pedroserafin 15:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- as per first version --Spundun 22:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tony Wills 11:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 10 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 08:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Plunging bronco, Bar Diamond Bar range.jpg, not featured

Info created by Erwin E. Smith - uploaded by Brian0918 - nominated by me. --Yonatan ^talk 12:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yonatan ^talk 12:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - as historical photos go, it is fairly good quality, but nothing to compare with modern photographic quality. As the subject is not of any particular unrepeatable historical significance (it would be easy enough to repeat, given a well-trained horse and rider), I don't see any good reason for supporting it - MPF 23:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose like MPF, nice but no historical significance --Packa 06:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support of course. High quality picture by well-known photographer. ~ trialsanderrors 08:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T 09:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support as long as there is no better image of this rather iconic pose in commons, I'll support this. :) --Spundun 22:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tony Wills 11:30, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ack MPF -- Lycaon 11:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 09:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:St Louis Gateway Arch.jpg, not featured

Info created by Bev Sykes - uploaded by FlickrLickr - nominated by Tomer T --Tomer T 16:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomer T 16:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The horizon is tilted a bit, and the sky is a tad noisy. Try straightening the image in a graphics editor and you might want to try some noise reduction if possible. The picture looks a bit plain since it is a head-on shot. --Kulshrax 16:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The hotel at the left looks like the leaning tower of pisa, so I have to agree with Kulshrax. The photo needs to be corrected for parallax also. The square buildings on the right are clearly narrower on top.Kgrr 16:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - ditto to Kulshrax and Kgrr - MPF 23:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Tilted --Tarawneh 13:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj 21:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Leafnode 18:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 09:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Skyline Frankfurt am Main.jpg, featured

Info created by Nicolas17 - uploaded by Nicolas17 - nominated by Nicolas17 -- Nicolas17 20:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Nicolas17 07:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good picture, no reason to oppose. Wooyi 20:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great picture; has a little bit of noise in the sky though. Kulshrax 22:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't like it, too excessive light and boring composition. --norro 22:27, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the exposure was chosen too long. The photo was taken after 10pm in April. Shouldn't the sky be black? --AngMoKio 23:09, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The photo was taken at 7:47pm (summertime), during late twilight. There is also a lot of light pollution. -- Nicolas17 23:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The metadata states 19:47; I presume that is local time (Germany, UTC +1), but possibly not corrected for daylight-saving changes - MPF

sorry i mixed the lines in the EXIF.--AngMoKio 08:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - ditto to norro - MPF 23:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support a little kitschy, but nice --Packa 06:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose but a weak oppose. At f9, and with any lens (even the kit), it should be sharper than that. I wonder if it's out of focus or if it's due to a slight camera shaking. Maybe you can try again ? Benh 08:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice picture. I like it because the long exposure creates brilliant lights and reflections. -- Physikas 09:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I love it. It has that "wow" factor. Maybe could use a tiny bit of sharpening. Fg2 11:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it a lot. I wish I had taken that photo myself. --Eirissa 12:51, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support very nice --Tarawneh 13:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj 21:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Geisterbanker 00:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Atoma 15:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Rakshat 06:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too kitschy Lycaon 17:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice. Appears a little bit skewed clockwise though, but maybe it's just my imagination :) --Leafnode 18:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support beautiful sky and river mirror. --Orlovic (talk) 00:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Is it just me, or is there a tilt to the right? Otherwise a great photograph --Digon3 01:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is, but very slightly. Benh 11:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Highlights overexposed, not sharp enough, tilted on left side. ---donald- 15:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose overexposed! --Torben 18:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Der Wolf im Wald 10:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 15 support, 6 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Simonizer 09:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Torre de Belem 20050728.jpg, not featured

Info created and uploaded by Zero - nominated by Tomer T --Tomer T 20:22, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomer T 20:22, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - The Tower of Belém deserves a better picture. This one is affected by a poor lighting (harsh shadows), geometric distortion and vigneting. Alvesgaspar 08:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Alvesgaspar --Digon3 15:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj 21:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I actually like the vignetting (who needs edges on this photo?), opposing just because the distortion. I could live with harsh shadows. --che 15:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Generally image is nice, but this geometry... --Leafnode 18:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Winiar^✉ 16:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Why bot?--Pedroserafin 13:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 09:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Dresden.jpg, not featured

Info created by Username - uploaded by Username - nominated by Username --Tackbert 12:58, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tackbert 12:58, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - spoilt by garish blue patch toward lower left - MPF 14:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There is nothing I could do about that. This ship is a theater and won´t leave.
Oppose as MPF --Karelj 21:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment just in case you haven't noticed, there's what I believe to be a stitching error in the middle, at the riverside level. It's not that easily seen because it's in a dark area. Benh 19:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day)Simonizer 09:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Nova zoomed.png, not featured

Info created by Wj32 - uploaded by Wj32 - nominated by Wj32 --wj32 ^{talk | contribs} 05:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC) withdrawn by nom. Ben Aveling 10:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The above image is ONLY A THUMBNAIL. The actual image is 6144x4608 and is 17.2MB. --wj32 ^{talk | contribs} 05:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --wj32 ^{talk | contribs} 05:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As I'm thinking about it, fractals are just a specialized category of sunsets. --che 14:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - We are talking about beauty here (like in sunsets) and I don't like this suggestion of volume given by the colouring choice. Alvesgaspar 21:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support There are so many other images of fractals that are already featured pictures, but none even come close to the resolution of this one. I think it should definitely be featured. Also, Question Why didn't you post the full sized image to be featured (you say that this image is "only a thumbnail") Kulshrax 23:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unattractive compared to Image:Mandel zoom 00 mandelbrot set.jpg. ~ trialsanderrors 00:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Question Isn't that picture already featured? Or maybe it's only featured on Wikipedia... Kulshrax 01:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Info My picture is 27mpx, the limit for generating previews is 12mpx. No, this was uploaded yesterday or the day before. --wj32 ^{talk | contribs} 05:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Info Oh, and BTW, I've also got a 6144x4608 mandelbrot one. It's more attractive than this one. I think I'll try and feature that one. --wj32 ^{talk | contribs} 05:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Info And second BTW: I tried making a more beautiful version of this but it was already 30MB when it had rendered around half-way. I gave up. --wj32 ^{talk | contribs} 05:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: Nomination withdrawn => not featured. Simonizer 09:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Calle Carabobo en el Saladillo de Maracaibo 18.JPG, not featured

Info created by Wilfredo R. Rodriguez H.

- uploaded by Wilfredo R. Rodriguez H. - nominated by Wilfredo R. Rodriguez H.--libertad0 15:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support --libertad0 15:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have included the correct author's identification - Alvesgaspar 15:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - The car should be cropped out and the geometric distorton corrected (vertical lines parallel). Alvesgaspar 15:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Info Sorry, I can't undestand "vertical lines parallel", Where is exactly it?

--libertad0 17:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He/She means that lines going down are slightly skew at the moment: like this: / instead of this |.

Oppose Agree with Alvesgaspar. I also would have taken the picture from directly in front of the houses, that would emphasize the really nice colours. --Simonizer 10:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as Alvesgaspar and Simonizer --Leafnode 06:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There is nothing interesting here. --Karelj 19:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Please make a different entry for each nomination, if that is indeed the intention of the author. A little more care and preparation might result better than a flood of substandard alternatives. Alvesgaspar 22:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Info Thaks --libertad0 23:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Info - Note the geometrically corrected picture at right (not a candidadte) - Alvesgaspar 11:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Info Thak's Alvergaspar, Now I can undestand the enderezar process / ==> | --libertad0 15:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day)Simonizer 09:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Stella Artois Dielectric.jpg, not featured

Info created by Mehran Moghtadai uploaded by Arad - nominated by Arad --Arad 17:36, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Arad 17:36, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A nice one :) from your user page I guess it's from your friend. This is just me, but couldn't he make the logos smaller and opaque ?? I think this would be much closer to the real model stella glasses ;). Benh 19:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm not sure this image is compatible with Commons policy, as it contains a trademarked/copyrighted logo in a context where it is not an incidental part of the image. That makes it non-free, AFAIK. --Yummifruitbat 21:36, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I would say the logo is incidental, since it is not even completely visible.--Eloquence 02:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When I say "incidental", I mean that the logo doesn't add any useful information to the image that couldn't have been provided by some other means - it's not a photo of actual Stella glasses; it's not a photo that happens to contain a Stella logo because it's part of a scene; it's a piece of art which, fairly gratuitously, incorporates a trademarked logo where some other form of marking or graphics would have served exactly the same purpose. That seems to me to make it a derivative work and therefore non-free. --Yummifruitbat 03:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know much about copyright/free stuffs, but I think that the logos can be arranged to be seen in part so there's not violation of copyright (and so the image can be freed) and anyone familiar with the brand can guess it's "Stella Artois". That's already the case for the lying glass, but maybe we can see too much on the standing one. Benh 06:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Sorry, but the picture just doesn't have any esthetic value as far as I'm concerned. The glasses aren't centered and the colour of the liquid clashes with the background. Anrie 19:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose bad lighting, lo-res --Leafnode 06:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose If nothing else, there are problem with picture licence. --Karelj 19:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A definite violation of Stella Artois's copyright in their logo. It's not just incidental, either: the creater has spent some considerable effort making an exact copy of their copyright work. A substantial part of the copyright work (ie the logo) has been taken; it doesn't matter that it's quite small in the resulting image. --MichaelMaggs 21:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm copying here my comment from wikipedia for the same nomination “I checked Fair use and it might be possible that in this case, the picture doesn't violate copyrights. Although the material copied is clearly a copyrighted one, we can safely assume there is no commercial intention behind the picture. The goal of author was probably to make a realistic rendering of a glass of beer, and he had to use a realistic logo to do so. He arranged the scene so only parts of logos are in sight (but maybe more than one third the logo is too much). Also, I think this may only benefit to the brand.”. I'm not very sure, but so far, there's nothing so sure about the opposite neither. The question is how much part of the logo being in sight would be acceptable ? Benh 16:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day)Simonizer 09:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Potsdam Park bw amk.jpg, featured

#1 #2
#3 #4
#5

Info created, uploaded and nominated by AngMoKio --AngMoKio 10:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support A melancholic winter view of a park in Potsdam (near Berlin) --AngMoKio 10:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support A calm place for a winter walk.. --Eirissa 12:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Everyone loves non-trampled snow, but the picture is noisy, ruining the effect. Kulshrax 15:22, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I like this picture a lot, pitty about the noise. What about croping most part of the snow in the foreground? - Alvesgaspar 17:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - don't care for b/w - MPF 23:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment the fact you don't care about b/w doesn't make any b/w picture less good. And (at least to me and apparently to others) this picture is good. I don't mean to be "harsh" or something but why not keeping from voting a FP candidate when you know from start you won't like the subject because of your tastes and not the qualities of the picture itself, which is what is being judged here ? Benh 11:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Like it a lot, nice composition, and noise isn't such a big issue here I believe. Benh 11:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- BW, no wow factor, not FP quality. Lycaon 16:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent composition, very evocative, noise problems not overhwelming. ~ trialsanderrors 00:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This still needs to be switched to greyscale, there is no reason to keep this in RGB mode. ~ trialsanderrors 00:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support A colour version wouldn't have the same impact. --Tony Wills 11:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 5 support, 2 oppose, 2 neutral => featured. Simonizer 06:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit #2, not featured

Comment Added new retouched version. Kulshrax 01:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose You killed the whole foregound. ~ trialsanderrors 02:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - don't care for b/w - MPF 23:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- BW, no wow factor, not FP quality. Lycaon 16:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 0 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit #3

Info Noise reduced, contrast enhanced with curves; I also switched the color mode to greyscale, which reduces the file size. ~ trialsanderrors 04:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - don't care for b/w - MPF 23:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- BW, no wow factor, not FP quality. Lycaon 16:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think it's the closest to version 1 which I already support. As has been said, very nice mood. Benh 11:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit #4, not featured

Info taking up Alvesgaspars idea i created a cropped version of the original. It is not noise reduced as i dont have a good method for it. --AngMoKio 09:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ - Beautiful. I'll wait for someone of good will to apply the noise reduction. Alvesgaspar 09:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC) Moved my vote to next version Alvesgaspar 19:07, 9 April 2007 (UTC) [reply]
Oppose - don't care for b/w - MPF 23:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Foreground is part of the composition. ~ trialsanderrors 00:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- BW, no wow factor, not FP quality. Lycaon 16:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose agree with Trialsanderrors. Benh 11:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 0 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit #5

Support Very nice mood and composition. This is as #4 but with conservative noise reduction applied (I also tried some additional sharpening, but in my opinion it spoiled the mood of the image and created some additional halos) --Thermos 10:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Per above Alvesgaspar 11:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - don't care for b/w. Is there a colour original? - MPF 23:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Foreground is part of the compostion. ~ trialsanderrors 00:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- BW, no wow factor, not FP quality. Lycaon 16:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose agree with Trialsanderrors. Benh 11:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Black and white photos are excellent in conveying light contrasts, which works well with the naked trees and the snow here. The empty bench and the "constructedness" of the dome works very well together to add to that "cold" feeling. Anrie 11:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC) (Liked the previous edits too, btw.)[reply]
Support A colour version wouldn't have the same impact. --Tony Wills 11:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 06:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Agawa River, Ontario.jpg, not featured

Info created by Dustin M. Ramsey - uploaded by Hugo.arg - nominated by Hugo.arg
Support --Hugo.arg 19:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's a river, a nice river even, but it's oversharpened (see conifer left top) and yet still unfocussed. Lycaon 20:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice picture, maybe a Quality Image. Lacks the touch of magic (and it is tilted) - Alvesgaspar 20:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj 21:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice pic, but colours a bit over-saturated - MPF 23:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~, nice landscape. =) - 84.250.52.148 16:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC) please log on to vote. Lycaon 17:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose tilt and oversaturated. --Digon3 19:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think it is tilted at all, refer to the man made object half way up on the right side, and the average direction of the conifers, I hope people aren't using the bank of the river in the far distance as their reference - that is not a horizon! :-) --Tony Wills 09:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 06:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Mandelbrot zoomed.png, not featured

$Mandelbrot fractal, zoomed.$

Info created by Wj32 - uploaded by Wj32 - nominated by Wj32 --wj32 ^{talk | contribs} 06:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Info again, THE ABOVE DISPLAYED IMAGE IS ONLY A THUMBNAIL. The actual image is Image:Mandelbrot zoomed.png. I've made a thumbnail version because the limit for MediaWiki generating a preview is 12mpx. My image is 27mpx. --wj32 ^{talk | contribs} 06:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --wj32 ^{talk | contribs} 06:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Another fractal...? --Karelj 20:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If you're talking about my previous nomination, I "withdrew" that one. If your oppose is purely based on mine being a fractal, please don't oppose. Why not say "Another photograph...?" to all of the other nominations? --wj32 ^{talk | contribs} 23:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Info discussion about "another fractal/photo/somethings" can be seen at Commons talk:Featured picture candidates#People keep on saying "Another XYZ...". --che 10:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Not because it is another fractal, their variety is infinite! But I don't like the colour pallet, seems a little kitschy to me. Alvesgaspar 16:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Question Could you suggest other colours so maybe I could do another render? --wj32 ^{talk | contribs} 00:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - That is the main issue here isn't it? If we look at this examples, we will note that the colours in use are much more discrete, specially when the full Mandelbort set (or one of its smaller replicas, like in your picture) is depicted. For me, the best solution is to use several grades of a reduced set of colours and avoid sharp contrasts, except at the border of the set itself. That is the solution adopted in most of the more beatiful pictures Alvesgaspar 09:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 06:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Machadograve.jpg, not featured

Info created by Pedroserafin - nominated by --80.39.180.97 10:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC) )[reply]
Oppose messy composition, noisy and blurred --Jacopo 11:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose boring composition, not FP quality --Simonizer 11:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It isn't my best picture. I wouldn't have proposed. --Pedroserafin 12:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as above --Leafnode 06:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose why??? --Karelj 20:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 0 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 06:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Highcliffe Castle.jpg, not featured

Info created by Pedroserafin - Uploaded by --Pedroserafin 12:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)- nominated by --Pedroserafin 12:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ...quoting from the guidelines: "At least 2 million pixels (e.g. 2000 x 1000) seems reasonable right now.". Lycaon 13:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Info Now, It's more than 2 million pixels, isn't it?--Pedroserafin 16:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
- Support--Pedroserafin 16:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sky and water overexposed. Lots of noise in the darker parts. Not FP. Lycaon 18:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nothing interesting in this picture, dark parts too dark, pinkish colors, overexposed sky, water --Leafnode 06:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Could be better. --Arad 01:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 06:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Arco di Costantino (particolare).jpg, not featured

Info created by User:Belmonte77 - uploaded by User:Belmonte77 - nominated by User:Belmonte77 --Belmonte77 17:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Belmonte77 17:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose tilt, unsharp --Leafnode 05:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose flat, no contrast --Karelj 20:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - blurred. Shame, as nice otherwise - MPF 22:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 06:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Venezuela Division Politica Territorial.svg, not featured

Info created by libertad0 - uploaded by libertad0 - nominated by libertad0 --libertad0 21:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --libertad0 21:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - As far as I remember Venezuela is not an island or a baloon floating in the air! All maps should be inserted in their proper geographic context, in this case, the northern part of South America and the Caribbean Sea. Alvesgaspar 23:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please, show me a sample, thax --libertad0 23:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Info - Here is a simple example: Alvesgaspar 23:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Not sure what Alvesgaspar's complaint is about (that it isn't like the dragefestival pic above??), but I'm rather uneasy about the "Zona en Reclamación" cut out of Guyana - is the map trying to make a political (or even military?) statement? It is not explained on the image description. Some of the lettering (islands, Dto. Capital, etc.) is also too small to read easily in typical wikipedia page thumbnail size (it should be readable together with the article text without having to open the image separately). - MPF 22:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Info - The object of my complaint is now fixed. The map of Venezuela was "floating" in a transparente background, i.e., not inserted in its geographical context. - Alvesgaspar 11:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

InfoIt is a map about the states of Venezuela or territorial political division. The zone in claim not yet knows if it belongs to Guyana or Venezuela, for that reason usually it is placed of that way --libertad0 23:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have consulted several world atlas, including the Times Atlas of the World, and in none of them there is any mention to the claimed territory, or any variation from the internationally accepted borders between Venezuela and Guyana. The statement that "the zone not yet knows if it belongs to Guyana or Venezuela" is extraordinary (note that the territory of Guyana would be reduced to less than one third if the disput were resolved in Venezuela favour). Commons is not the right place for this kind of polytical campaign. Alvesgaspar 08:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This kind of map you will only find in Venezuela. The "Zona en Reclamación" is also know as Essequibo region. An arbitration in they year 1899 awarded the territory to the former colony of British Guayana. Since this time there is a dispute between Guyana and Venezuela, because Venezuela feels itself treated unfairly. You have to know that this region is high in mineral and natural resources. In the beginning of the eighties, both sides agreed that the matter should be solved by the United Nations. The issue is now in the hands of the Secretary General, who has the task to find a solution. Until the UN hasnt find one, the territory belongs to Guyana. --Simonizer 10:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Why normal map should be in this category? --Karelj 16:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, not much 'wow', it would probably go well in Quality images candidates --Tony Wills 12:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 06:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:William-Adolphe Bouguereau (1825-1905) - Nymphs and Satyr (1873).jpg, not featured

Info created by William-Adolphe Bouguereau, uploaded by Thebrid and nominated by Fernando S. Aldado 01:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - low resolution - MPF 09:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - ditto low resolution. -- Ram-Man 14:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Am I seeing the same image? 1488 × 2125 pixel is not low resolution! --Arad 17:38, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - It's pretty nice --Arad 17:38, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - resolution is not too low, but the quality is. heavy compression artifacts. Husky ^{(talk to me)} 00:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Tawny Frogmouth 1.jpg, not featured

Info created by, uploaded by, nominated by --Benjamint444 03:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support This was a completely wild bird, it's probably never seen a person before and yet it let me walk right up to it. alot of animals seem to have this lack of survival instict. Frogmouths haven't had any any natural predators for quite a few thousand years so I guess it has an excuse --Benjamint444 03:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - maybe it realised you weren't a predator, and therefore not a threat to its survival ;-) MPF 10:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This picture looks very neat. Just the way it was taken...I say yes! Happyme22 21:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Leafnode 18:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice image, but the black background just doesn't seem right, it ressembles in no way with a bird's natural habitat. The use of flash is unnatural for this kind of shots, moreover it reflects in the bird's eye. Taking account the shooting distance it looks very much like a ZOO pic or a photo of a tamed animal.

Why is the background that black by the way? Night time shot? --Atoma 13:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment - yes, night shot. The species is nocturnal, and the metadata records the photo as taken at 01:17 hours - MPF 22:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose looks unnatural --Simonizer 09:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Black background at night looks natural to me :-) --Tony Wills 10:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Given the (I guess) conditions it probably couldn't have been done another way, but the flash makes the subject looks flat. Also, colours are either undersaturated or too cold to me. Benh 11:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose very difficult subject, but the picture doesn't look really nice and it's not worth being between the best ones Alessio Damato 15:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj 14:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Packa 12:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very flat lighting because of flash near optical axis. It would be worth purchasing an angle arm so that the flash can be held well way from the lens in shots like this. --MichaelMaggs 13:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Flat lighting, boring composition, I'd wish to see more of the bird's body. Still, I admit that it is a difficult subject! --Siebengang 15:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Belmonte77 22:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tony Wills 07:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Anrie 07:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 9 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Phutthamonthon Buddha.JPG, not featured

Buddhist priest parade in Thailand at Phutthamonthon.Nakonphatom,Thailand 2006.

Info created by Teva - uploaded by Teva - nominated by Tevaprapas (talk) --Teva 20:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support beg for participate in the activity too ^_^--Tevaprapas 20:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - very nice pic, but rather small. Is there a larger version available? - MPF 23:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Suffering from excessive noise and JPEG compression artifacts. -Kulshrax 18:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lestat 20:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support -Hugo.arg 08:46, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj 14:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too much post-processing has created horrible effects on the backs of the monks and around the edges of the robes.--MichaelMaggs 21:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose oversharpened, tons of JPEG artifacts --Leafnode 06:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- agree with the above. Anrie 08:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Image format should be in JPEG but with higher quality settings. Converting to GIF doesn't help improving image quality problem. -- Lerdsuwa 15:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose agree with the above. --Digon3 21:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 4 support, 5 oppose, 2 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Cologne cathedral at dusk.jpg, not featured

Info created by Yoceto - uploaded by MathKnight - nominated by Tomer T --Tomer T 09:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomer T 09:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose exactly the right time of the day, but the building doesn't fit in the picture. I'm afraid you need a wide angle lens for this kind of monuments. --che 10:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Blurry, noisy, full of artifacts. I don't like the angle either. Alvesgaspar 11:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Nice!!! but blurry and noisy. --Pedroserafin 15:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - composition. Need to find an angle which cuts out that nasty portakabin-like building at the right, and also to wait until the scaffolding is removed ;-) - MPF 22:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - as MPF --Karelj 16:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - ack MPF --Leafnode 07:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 1 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 07:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Crane machine.svg, not featured

Info created by Wilfredo R. Rodriguez H. - uploaded by Wilfredo R. Rodriguez H. - nominated by libertad0 --libertad0 22:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --libertad0 22:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - lettering too small to read at thumbnail size, and should be numbers anyway so it can be used with multiple languages - MPF 22:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Info I uploaded the spanish and english description Image SVG --libertad0 23:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Maybe with a lot of careful work can reach FP status. Like it is seems only a sketch. Note, for example, the lines used to draw the crane's arm. Or the crudeness of the human figure. As for the labels, this is not for sure the correct type of font.Alvesgaspar 07:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Why should be this picture in the group of candidates? --Karelj 17:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- ack Karelj Lycaon 11:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question I don't know about this particular picture, but is there something wrong about SVG drawings or what? --che 16:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Another case of not enough 'wow' to 'woo' us ;-), it might go better in Quality images candidates --Tony Wills 12:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - mere sketch, but good base to work something out --Leafnode 07:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 07:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:New Jersey Sunset.jpg, not featured

Info Created, uploaded, and nominated by Uria Ashkenazy --Uria a 05:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uria a 05:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Not acceptable, it is just not possible to compress a 7400 x 2500 photo into 1.4 Mb without serious quality degrading. Please try again with the original photo, if there is one. Alvesgaspar 10:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose For a 7400 x 2500 photo it should be at least 5MB. --Digon3 17:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Info You are right. JPG settings were wrong. I uploaded a new version and it is now 8.5 MB.
Comment could someone crop the frame? Lycaon 11:42, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Frame Removed --Uria a 15:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question Did it actually look exactly like that, or is it just the over-exposure of the red channel that has produced that flame like effect? --Tony Wills 11:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sunset like many --Leafnode 07:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Heavy artifacts in the sky. Looks like the original image was artificially enlarged. Alvesgaspar 09:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 07:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:NGC_1672_HST.jpg, featured

Info created by HST - uploaded by Winiar - nominated by Winiar --Winiar^✉ 19:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Winiar^✉ 19:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too small - please read the guidelines. Lycaon 20:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - hi-res version from NASA website uploaded on top, now 1.41 MB - MPF 22:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - still too small. There are much better and higher res images available from Hubble... Lycaon 12:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment - bigger version can be found here but it is about 25 MB (res. 5302 X 3805 px) - Winiar^✉ 16:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - MPF 22:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MichaelMaggs 06:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Benh 11:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj 14:20, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Belmonte77 22:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Leafnode 06:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T 09:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 07:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Brandenburgertor SN.jpg, not featured

Info created by Ger1axg - uploaded by Ger1axg - nominated by Ger1axg
Oppose excellent light, but the cron is too tight; also resolution is quite low --che 22:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - too small (only 108 KB!) - MPF 22:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too small and too tight of a crop, otherwise I like it --Digon3 22:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don´t think that small size iz reason for non voting the picture --Karelj 14:23, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are guidelines which have to be fulfilled. ---donald- 15:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment :-) No! they are just guidelines, not absolutes. --Tony Wills 12:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose ---donald- 15:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is a pity that the image is so small. Perhaps a larger image could be provided? --Thermos 11:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose tight crop, low res. But I like this shot - upload larger one :-) --Leafnode 06:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 15:58, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:MSM sunset 02.JPG, featured

Info created by Benh - uploaded by Benh - nominated by Digon3 --Digon3 22:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Digon3 22:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sunset? Its night on this picture. Composition is not FP-worthy, imo --Simonizer 09:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, maybe "MSM_twilight_02.jpg" would have been more appropriate, but I didn't know about that word until a few weeks ago :) Benh 11:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support It's pretty good --Arad 13:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support ---donald- 16:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful photo; love the composition. Fg2 01:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice, the composition is net excellent, but it is “FP-worthy” :) --Packa 13:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - ditto to Simonizer on composition - MPF 14:11, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Apart from the naming it is great. --AM 21:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful! --Spundun 22:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Pedroserafin 07:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Been there, that's totally cool. --Atoma 19:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 9 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 15:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Yellow Admiral (Vanessa itea).jpg, not featured

Info created by Tony Wills - uploaded by Tony Wills - nominated by Tony Wills --Tony Wills 10:58, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tony Wills 10:58, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Info Beauty and the beast - This rather small butterfly is perched on the base of my little finger, so that hairy bit is the back of my left hand :-) --Tony Wills 11:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support; Question which is the beauty, and which is the beast?? ;-) - MPF 14:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj 14:29, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Benjamint444 03:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but I feel the hand detracts from what otherwise would be a good nature shot --MichaelMaggs 14:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am part of nature too ;-) --Tony Wills 22:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Distracting background, the hand/arm more hurts than helps. --Siebengang 15:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ Sorry, but the hand distracts too much for me. Anrie 20:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral, I actually prefer the first to the second, but I still just can't bring myself to support it as a feautured picture. Sorry. Anrie 18:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose distracting hands --Leafnode 06:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 16:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative

Info Ok, new rotated and closer cropped version --Tony Wills 08:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tony Wills 12:42, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose This would easily be considered a quality image, but I don't think it is quite a FP. It doesn't look great blown up to large print size magnifications, but that's probably not a reasonable thing to do considering the subject. At normal sizes it looks pretty good, but I think the composition with the finger is a little distracting. Its a close call though. -- Ram-Man 19:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it already made QI :). It's a macro shot, taken as close as possible to the butterfly, the camera lens is balanced on the other end of my little finger to minimise movement during the 1/15sec exposure. Without the hand I'd never have gotten a shot this close and this detailed (about 10x actual size when viewed on 17" screen at 100% mag.). --Tony Wills 23:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Wasp and spider 02.jpg, featured

Info created by Tony Wills - uploaded by Tony Wills - nominated by Tony Wills --Tony Wills 11:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tony Wills 11:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Info The wasp has just paralysed the spider and is dragging it rapidly to its nest where the wasp will lay eggs on it so they will have fresh meat when they hatch :-( --Tony Wills 11:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Great action pic! I just find the focus on the Pompilid a bit lacking. I'ld also appreciate some sort of id on the spider. Lycaon 13:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Info My best guess for the spider is some type of Amphinectidae, probably Paramamoea. --Tony Wills 04:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - ditto to Lycaon; some rather bad colour fringing at the left of the pic on the wasp and on the frame where it is standing - MPF 14:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - It is just fair to invoke the "mitigating reasons" for the small size and technical flaws, because this is a superb catch. The result is a "neutral vote", which takes nothing away from the quality and usefulness of the picture. Alvesgaspar 23:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Winiar^✉ 10:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj 14:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I love this scenery and think, that this is a really special shot. --norro 21:38, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sharp,especially according to circumstances,beautiful perspective,impressive picture. User:Vassil 17 April 2007
Neutral impressive shot, but as Alvesgaspar - many technical flaws, but this is macro, so neutral --Leafnode 06:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support As Vassil say, beautiful according to circumstances Nino Barbieri 15:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The contrast is too high due to the harsh lighting, but clearly one couldn't just wait for better light, given the subject. I agree with Alvesgaspar: a great catch and very useful picture. -- Ram-Man 19:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Amada44 18:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support - This is a really cool picture. Cary Bass ^demandez 19:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 4 neutral => featured. Simonizer 16:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Muzeum Sułkowskich - niebieski salonik.JPG, not featured

Info created, uploaded & nominated by Lestat --Lestat 13:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lestat 13:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - MPF 14:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Good composition and colours but quality not good enough for FP: noise and some artifacts. The glare (of a flash?) in the painting doesn't help either. Alvesgaspar 16:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose agree with Alvesgaspar ...i am also not totally satisfied with composition - too man cut off things on the left and right side --AngMoKio 17:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Winiar^✉ 10:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --WarX 09:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC) I like it very much[reply]
Neutral I like it, but composition could be better - too many cropped things: chair leg, chest in the right... --Leafnode 06:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - Husky ^{(talk to me)} 00:23, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tony Wills 11:22, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose agree with AngMoKio -- Lycaon 11:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the glare detracts enough to oppose. I'm also not sure that the composition or the image content is spectacular enough for an FP. What is the importance of this image? Since this was taken in a museum, could the arrangement be considered copyrightable since it is creative and thus this picture a copyvio? -- Ram-Man 19:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No if Chief of museum says: go and do photos you like and all his workers support you with it! --WarX 20:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wpedzich 20:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC) Like it a lot.[reply]
Support Masur 20:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC) Sweeet.[reply]
Oppose ack Alvesgaspar and Ram-Man --Digon3 23:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 7 support, 5 oppose, 2 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 16:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Triple expansion engine animation.gif, not featured

Info created by Emoscopes - uploaded by Emoscopes - nominated by Cool Cat -- Cat ^chi? 12:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cat ^chi? 12:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's not entirely clear that it is the exhaust gases that pass from one stage to the next, other than that it is a clear and interesting animation. (now do a 3D version :-) --Tony Wills 13:52, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support very nice --Karelj 14:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose very nice, but could be done much better - maybe 2 times more frames, more smooth move of parts, placement of exhaust, and some other minor fixes ... --WarX 17:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - ditto to WarX; not very clear what is happening in it - MPF 19:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ditto to WarX. -- Dennis Wood 21:09, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral very nice, but like WarX --Packa 12:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral as WarX - I'm not sure what's going on here --Leafnode 06:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 2 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 20:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Triple expansion engine animation.gif, not featured

Info created by Emoscopes - uploaded by Emoscopes - nominated by Cool Cat -- Cat ^chi? 12:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cat ^chi? 12:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's not entirely clear that it is the exhaust gases that pass from one stage to the next, other than that it is a clear and interesting animation. (now do a 3D version :-) --Tony Wills 13:52, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support very nice --Karelj 14:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose very nice, but could be done much better - maybe 2 times more frames, more smooth move of parts, placement of exhaust, and some other minor fixes ... --WarX 17:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - ditto to WarX; not very clear what is happening in it - MPF 19:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ditto to WarX. -- Dennis Wood 21:09, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral very nice, but like WarX --Packa 12:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral as WarX - I'm not sure what's going on here --Leafnode 06:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 2 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 20:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Broadway tower Edit1.jpg

Info created by Newton2 - uploaded by Arad - nominated by Arad --Arad 13:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Arad 13:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would look much better without any people in the picture. --Digon3 13:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, IMO, I think they are very useful. They give a sens of scale plus their shirt have a nice composition with the image (the woman in red and the man in blue). I strongly prefer the image with them in it. --Arad 14:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support I agree with Arad. ---donald- 16:05, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fantastic. Witty lama 16:09, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support A good one. I just wonder if it would be even better with the man on the left removed. Perhaps it would create a composition where you have a single tower and single human, almost perfectly alligned for about the same distance from the images edges. In any case, deserves support. --Thermos 16:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)Changed support to edit 2--Thermos 11:01, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support very interesting --Winiar^✉ 16:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Info as may be guessed, original nomination is an edit which removes a light source behind a window and a white flag. I added an alternative from en wikipedia (where it is also FP candidate) which doesn't have these edits and has one person removed. Benh 19:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - ditto to Digon3; colours also look a little over-saturated - MPF 20:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ditto to MPF, clearly oversaturated. -- Dennis Wood 21:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - unnecessary removal of elements of the subject. The white thing is part of the guttering system, not a flag. --Yummifruitbat 21:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with Arad on scale/tourist argument, Ack MPF on saturation, this pic looks like out of disneyland, I like Image:Broadway-tower-cotswolds.jpg better. Thanks to WindowsXp Bliss wallpaper, this scheme is a bit boring now ;) --Spundun 22:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 20:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edited Version Center, not featured

Guttering, interior light and one tourist cloned out.

Oppose - per my objection to Arad's first edit. --Yummifruitbat 21:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support -Arad 22:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - as per 1st version - MPF 20:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- As per 1st version -Spundun 22:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 20:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit 2 right, featured

Info above original nomination is an edit which removes a light source behind a window and a white flag. This alternative from en wikipedia (where it is also FP candidate) doesn't have these edits and has one person removed. Benh 19:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I support alternative version which I believe has a more dramatic aspect. Benh 19:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Oversaturated. -- Dennis Wood 21:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Distracting white flags and red light. --Arad 21:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Great shot; saturation perhaps a little high but not unpleasantly so. The colours are attractive without being garish. --Yummifruitbat 21:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ack Benh. --Thermos 10:58, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support like Benh & other(s) --Packa 12:38, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj 21:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Simonizer 07:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Atoma 11:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support better --Digon3 13:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Amazing picture. However, the human presence only serves to fool the viewer about the scale of the building because the woman is closer to the observer. Alvesgaspar 11:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Leafnode 06:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lycaon 08:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - as per 1st version - MPF 20:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- As per 1st version -Spundun 22:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lerdsuwa 14:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Malene Thyssen 18:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 13 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 20:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Goat family.jpg, not featured

Info created - uploaded by Fir0002 - nominated by Arad --Arad 14:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Arad 14:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support cute --Winiar^✉ 16:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support very nice. -- Dennis Wood 21:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose no contrast, flat picture --Karelj 21:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose aggree Karelj --Atoma 11:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice!!!!--Pedroserafin 19:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as Karelj --Leafnode 06:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ack Karelj -- Lycaon 21:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Below acceptable size limit, and confusing compostion with one kid behind the other. --MichaelMaggs 06:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Same as Maggs, it seem another head out of the behind. --Nino Barbieri 08:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 4 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 20:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Baby goats jan 2007.jpg, not featured

Info created - uploaded by Fir0002 - nominated by Arad --Arad 14:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Arad 14:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Winiar^✉ 16:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - MPF 20:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Dennis Wood 21:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question Nice, but why downsampled to so small resolution? --WarX 09:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because Fir0002 wants to sell his works and also because he wants the images to upload faster. --Arad 09:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not so sure. On his user page, he states that Wikipedia licences don't prevent his high res pictures from being used commercially, and that is what he disapproves. Benh 14:52, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because as it is the case with another good photograph Diliff, that if they put the original size here, no one will buy it from them. They have some rights after all. --Arad 21:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've just checked (and should have done that before, sorry). Now I kinda feel like wikipedia is a way to advertise... but maybe I'm wrong and also everyone is a winner here, wikipedia gets outstanding pictures and fir0002 gets some (probably deserved) attention. where have you seen that diliff sells pictures ? Benh 19:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In a nomination of a photo of Westminster in Wikipedia, he stated that he no longer wishes to submit high res photo because the licensing doesn't prevent people from using his photo is commercial ways. He never said he wants to sell his photo (as far as I know) but he doesnt want them be used for free with out his permission on some commercial website or something. --Arad 21:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose bad contrast, right baby almost invisible on background --Karelj 21:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But that's the whole point isn't it - wouldn't do much for a baby (vulnerable) goat to be colored a striking red would it? They'd get picked off by eagles, foxes etc in days! --124.176.216.184 10:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

haha. It's so true. That is the whole point. --Arad 15:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Eloquence 02:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral It's nice enough, but is it really featured quality? The white on white isn't good, especially between its front legs. (I can overlook the fact that the tail is blurry.) The contrast between the two goats is nice, as is the general coloring of the LH goat. No big problems, I agree, but given how common baby goats are, is it really something special? Regards, Ben Aveling 11:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --WarX 12:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC) Uploading of downsampled works is for me proof of bad faith and should be punished not awarded!![reply]
Support -- Belmonte77 23:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose pale, nothing very interesting --Leafnode 06:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pedroserafin 10:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have asked Fir0002 here if he'd consider uploading larger pictures, as at this size they are unlikely to be promoted as Commons FPs. Others may like to comment there as well. --MichaelMaggs 13:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose until a larger version can be provided. --MichaelMaggs 13:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose no mitigating circumstances for smallish size Lycaon 16:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cute goats with opposite colors -- Lerdsuwa 14:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - cute, and nice composition too Husky ^{(talk to me)} 00:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice Easter postcard! --Nino Barbieri 08:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No strong mitigating reasons for size. --Digon3 13:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 9 support, 7 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 20:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Dawn over swifts creek panorama edit.jpg, featured

Info created - uploaded by Fir0002 - nominated by Arad --Arad 14:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Arad 14:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Thermos 15:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support ---donald- 15:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Winiar^✉ 16:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Digon3 19:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - colour artefact at right end; support after a 4% crop of the right edge to remove this - MPF 20:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support stunning picture. -- Dennis Wood 21:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tevaprapas 02:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral very nice picture, but poor description and I do not like the advertisement here--Packa 12:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support flawless stitch to my eyes and stunning view (and sky) with the glare from the sun adding to the pic imo. Benh 14:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Exceptional photo. - Alvesgaspar 23:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support amazing. --wj32 ^{talk | contribs} 06:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice light conditions. Great atmosphere --Simonizer 11:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support User:Vassil 17 April 2007
Support --Belmonte77 23:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Leafnode 06:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Spectacular landscape ; really beautiful. --Floflo 20:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 2 neutral => featured. Simonizer 20:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Tian Tan Buddha Face.jpg, not featured

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Witty lama
Support --Witty lama 13:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - MPF 20:22, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose bad light. -- Dennis Wood 21:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because of the composition --che 23:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as above --Karelj 21:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The face is too dark. User:Vassil 17 April 2007
Oppose subject of this photo (face) is too dark --Leafnode 06:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose bad composition. The angle and the blue+white background for the dark statue make it very uninteresting image to me. --Spundun 21:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 2 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 20:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Parthenon XL.jpg, not featured

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Thermos --Thermos 16:29, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Thermos 16:29, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - sky un-naturally dark grey-blue. Support if this is lightened to natural colour - MPF 20:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ditto to MPF. -- Dennis Wood 20:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, ^ yep --che 23:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not sharp enough, composition ?, --Karelj 21:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

not sharp enough ? are we seeing the same picture ??? Benh 19:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah I agree, its pretty sharp! --Spundun 21:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support Unnatural sky helps the image be more dramatic. It seems sharp enough: how perfect od you want to get? The composition could be considered a bit strange, but I don't see this as a major problem. Kulshrax 01:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - This is a nice picture, both technically and aesthetically. But not close to this one, IMO. Quality image? Sure. - Alvesgaspar 07:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose tight crop - I'm not sure what is the point of this photo --Leafnode 06:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice close-up of the frieze and architrave, nicely shows the damage and restauration efforts. ~ trialsanderrors 06:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral ack Leafnode --Spundun 21:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Benh 16:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 3 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 20:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Taraxacum officinale, featured

Info created by Luc Viatour - uploaded by Luc Viatour - nominated by --Luc Viatour 21:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Luc Viatour 21:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support, wow. --che 23:34, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support--AngMoKio 09:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support yes! -- Lycaon 10:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Winiar^✉ 10:58, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - MPF 11:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great --Simonizer 18:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj 21:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice but I have two questions:

Question how come all the small threads are that pixelized, looking like an non-antialised line?
Question is there maybe another version of this photo with a bigger DOF where we can see the entire subject in-focus? --Atoma 11:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is high resolution, posting 1/1 is very strongly increases. On print paper that is not visible.

More DOF is not possible, with report/ratio 1/1 the maximum depth is 1,5cm. --Luc Viatour 12:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Closing up the diaphragm gives more DOF, the photo is at F5.6. Going to F11 or less (up to F22 with the 150mm/2.8) gives more DOF without changing the 1/1 ratio. --Atoma 14:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

but for with 150mm of focal, one needs a speed of minimum 1/150s second ;) --Luc Viatour 14:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So the tripod was at home ^^ --Atoma 15:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support --MichaelMaggs 13:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XN 22:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support great! --Leafnode 06:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Where better if better centered Nino Barbieri 16:05, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yarnalgo 05:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 20:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Jökulsárlón April 07-3.JPG, not featured

Info created by Martinp23 - uploaded by Martinp23 - nominated by Martinp23. This is my first featured picture candidacy - I hope that it meets the requirements, and the if it doesn't, I recieve some creative feedback :) --Martinp23 10:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Martinp23 10:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - MPF 11:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, sorry for not being very creative, but I don't like the composition of the picture. There's too much empty space in the upper third and nothing in the picture really catches my eye. --che 12:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes - the issue is that I didn't have much choice, as I wanted to be sure to have the full glacier in the background, with the cloud rolling over it. If I had tilted down, all that would be shown would be a load of black glacial till, which doesn't really make a picture :). However, I do appreciate your feedback. Martinp23 12:38, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment What if you cropped out some of the sky now? --Spundun 21:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that with the position you chose there's probably not much to improve. But looking on the category, I'd say it's possible to find better views. --che 15:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support you are right, che, but this is the nature of a country… --Packa 12:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The nature of the country doesn't prohibit making pictures with a different composition. You get closer to the ice, find some element to put in the foreground, or something else. --che 15:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Perhaps - this one is another I took at the time, and it certainly has good features (the layers in the ice in the foreground), but I think you'll agree that it would be hard to get the juxtaposition between perfectly calm sky at the top, ice covered volcanoes in the middle, and the sea and ice at the bottom, without having the fairly large empty space at the top. With the fairly equal split, with the mountains in the middle if the photo, we get a real sense of the division (though that wasn't my intention when taking the photo!). Thanks, Martinp23 16:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the same as Che --Karelj 21:39, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Pedroserafin 19:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree that boring landscape is not an excuse to promote boring pictures --Leafnode 06:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with che --Simonizer 15:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 20:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative , not featured

Info - cropped image, not sure if I've cropped it back too far - what do you think? Martinp23 22:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you cropped it just a bit too much. --Digon3 17:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - I've re done it, and reuploaded - what do you think? Martinp23 22:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 0 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 20:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:MC SanFranciscoPano.jpg, not featured

Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Chmehl --Chmehl 13:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Chmehl 13:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - would look a lot better in daytime - MPF 14:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Info - During daytime such a view is almost impossible due to clouds, fog, and/or smog. That's why I took the picture in the evening after a rainy day. - Chmehl 05:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Woa ! I very much like this one. It's sharp, it's technically flawless as far as I can see and know and the composition is very original to me. Benh 15:01, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support yep ^ --che 15:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Urby2004 18:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nothig special, poor copmosition.. --Karelj 21:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I have a problem with having to look through the golden gate bridge. It is a very nice picture otherwise. --Digon3 13:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Urban 18:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral This is a very artistic and beautiful shot. But in evaluating it, I asked myself if I didn't know it was a famous bridge, what would I think? In that case I find the vertical bars distracting. Alas, often we choose the less artistic pictures over the artistic ones because they have more educational value. -- Ram-Man 20:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hugo.arg 21:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose dark, disturbing composition. Lycaon 05:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose bridge is only distracting, bit dark --Leafnode 06:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- ack Ram-Man, alas. I'dve been neutral-support if there was not foreground bridge/bars. --Spundun 21:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support great quality. interesting composition. --Dschwen 20:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 7 support, 6 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 20:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Gauchowheat edit2.jpg, not featured

Info created by Frissell, Toni - uploaded/nominated by Arad --Arad 01:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Historical --Arad 01:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - may be an old photo, but not a historical event; strange mismatch in skyline behind woman - MPF 12:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 21:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Palmercarpenter edit1.jpg, not featured

Info created by Palmer, Alfred T - uploaded/nominated by Arad --Arad 01:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Historical --Arad 01:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Hands and tool out of focus --Nino Barbieri 11:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - gloomy background, and ditto to Nino Barbieri - MPF 12:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but considering the time it was taken, I doubt they had those good cameras we have today. --Arad 13:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Appears an obvious studio shot with a non-matching background.--MichaelMaggs 21:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Not necessarily. Similar color separation effects can be done with a powerful flash unit and color filters. --che 13:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It was almost certainly taken on location. Go to http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/fsac.1a35241 and click through on "Tennessee Valley Authority" for a gallery of Palmer's pictures from the same location. ~ trialsanderrors 03:04, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 21:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Tulipcenter.jpg, not featured

Info created by Orroz - uploaded by Orroz - nominated by Orroz --OrrOz 16:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --OrrOz 16:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose so low resolution, that I can barely see it's unsharp... --Leafnode 09:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Please read the guidelines carefully before nominating. Alvesgaspar 09:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Besides the resolution problem, this type of picture is very easy to take and so it would otherwise have to be exceptional, and it doesn't appear to be so. -- Ram-Man 18:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 21:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:- Shoppig carts -.jpg, not featured

Info created by Nino Barbieri - uploaded by Nino Barbieri - nominated by Nino Barbieri --Nino Barbieri 04:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Nino Barbieri 04:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Every critic is welcome!--Nino Barbieri 04:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I don't like the absence of background. Furthermore the carts are cut at the bottom. --norro 08:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Danke für Deine persönliche Meinung. Hätte ich nur Einkausfwagen fotografieren wollen, hätte ich es auch getan. Ich glaube Du hast das Bild überhaupt nicht verstanden! Ciao --Nino Barbieri 10:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Bitte nicht unfreundlich werden. Du hast selbst geschrieben Every critic is welcome!. Und Kritik ist meistens etwas persönliches. Denn Photografie ist Kunst und Kunst ist Geschmacksache. Und über Geschmack läßt sich bekanntlich streiten --Simonizer 12:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question What is this picture supposed to show? --che 11:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Info Only a simple feeling of colors and rhythm. Maybe the same reason of your Praha Repy cemetery detail. So long--Nino Barbieri 12:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral I like it very much. The repetition of geometrical forms and colours has in general something comforting. But i think the picture is a little tilt. The steel pipes in the foreground should be horizontal. And i would crop it a little more on the left and on the lower side. If this correction is done I would support it. --Simonizer 12:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Info It is not soooo tilt, maybe a fraction of grad. It is just a optical effect of the diagonal lines. Try to download the image and proof the middle bar. Or push the pictures up till the middle bar touch the upper border of the screen. But I'll try to follow your advice, if I am able to find the original in the chaos of about 16.000 raw pictures. Thanks anyway. Ciao --Nino Barbieri 15:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose ~ trialsanderrors 23:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I can't quite bring myself to support this, but I want to say that I like it. Regards, Ben Aveling 09:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 2 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 21:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Sončni vzhod, Gorenje pri Zrečah.jpg, not featured

Info created uploaded and nominated byMihael Simonič
Support --Mihael Simonič 12:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A lot of noise on the ground and some in the sky. Quote from guidelines, "almost all sunsets are pretty, and most such pictures are not essence different from others". This seems like a normal sunset. --Digon3 20:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as Digon3 --Karelj 22:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - a cut above most of the sunsets in the natural appearance of the landform. Would support if that radio mast on top of the hill were edited out - MPF 19:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as Digon3 --Leafnode 08:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as Digon3. Although this image does probably fulfill the general evaluation guidelines better than the vast majority of sunset-type photos one encounters here, I don't think the symbolic meaning or value is such that one could support even with the modifications proposed by MPF. Jahiegel 08:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 21:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]