Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/January 2008

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search


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


Image:Hiroshige - Evening Shower at Atake and the Great Bridge.jpg, not featured[edit]

Hiroshige - Evening Shower at Atake and the Great Bridge.jpg

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Uploaded by Kuxu76 - nominated by Kuxu76 --Kuxu76 02:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment (orange).svg Comment Woodcut Evening Shower at Atake and the Great Bridge (1857) by Hiroshige (1797-1858), considered as one of the outstanding figures of Japanese woodblock printing. The drawing has some flaws, but is very well executed and I find it very expressive.
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Kuxu76 02:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I like the image, but resolution and sharpness are not good enough for me. --startaq 08:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dialog-warning.svg
 Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: too small Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

--MichaelMaggs 09:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It's a great painting but what or who are we featuring ? Ichiyusai Hiroshige, the painter ? Uoya Eikichi, the publisher? visipix.com, the website ? For me, it makes no sense featuring pictures just picked off. Though, I feel opposed to the other oppositions : 1) it is a wood painting so low resolution is due to the painting process and 2) why the hell 2 megapixels would be a fatal barrier ("should" is not "must")--B.navez 14:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment (orange).svg Comment I admit that the picture hasn't a very high resolution quality but it's a woodcut of 1857, not a modern picture made with the last digital camera with 10 megapixels. And of course, I propose to vote for the painting itself, not Hiroshige or the publisher or visipix.com (what interest?). But maybe Commons doesn't feature old paintings, but just actual and original works ? As I am a french-speaker, I hope you'll understand my poor english. Kuxu76 22:23, 1 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image:Diagrama bicicleta.svg, delisted[edit]

Short description 

 Result: 5 delist, 0 keep --> Delisted - Alvesgaspar 10:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image:Hypselodoris bullocki.JPG, not delisted[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Noisy, blurry image. The only bit in focus is part of the foreground. Obvious error of judgement. (Original nomination)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist --Lycaon 23:37, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist Agree --Richard Bartz 11:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment (orange).svg Comment opposers should try to take this kind of photo. The glass at public aquariums has the material with the worst optics you will ever encounter. Glass isn't that smooth and cover with slimy thing inside, auto-focus would be off, severe chromatic aberration from glass and salt water. --Lerdsuwa 05:41, 25 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • This is a fake argument. It is the result that counts, not the circumstances. If I take a picture of the moon with my 4 Mpx first generation digital camera, then I can't claim FP quality neither. Please be serious. Lycaon 20:14, 25 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol keep vote.svg KeepIt is a good underwater (not an aquarium) image of a small and very difficult subject, which IMO is in a perfect focus. It could be the only nudibranch image photographed in their natural habitat, which FP has.--Mbz1 15:51, 25 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • It is not a good picture, it is not in focus and it is not a difficult object to take a picture of (it virtually doesn't move). Lycaon 20:14, 25 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Hi, Lycaon. May I please respond your remarks? IMO any subject, which was photographed under water is a difficult subject by the definition. An underwater subject does not have to be moving to make it difficult simply because the photographer and the water around him moves. Most of the time it is really hard to stay in one place wile under water and taking a picture. Nudibranchs are not so easy to find. Most of the time they are very, very small, which makes photography of them underwater macro. I've taken pictures of dozens of different nudibranchs myself and they never were an easy subject for me. Thank you.--Mbz1 21:03, 25 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep per Mbz1 --Lerdsuwa 18:50, 25 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep As the original nominator, I'm not even sure if my vote counts, but for what it's worth I'd vote to keep it. Mbz1 has already described the difficulty of shooting under water, so I won't repeat what Mbz1 says. As for underwater photos in general, I can add that for every decent photo, I would throw out ten. Of those decent photos, you get an occasional great photo. This is one of them. I agree that there are some minor flaws, but the composition in this case is what makes this a good picture, although nudibranches are not fast moving, they are small macro subjects as mentioned by Mbz1 and they are not often found in such a fantastic pose. What it comes down to is the wow factor, and for me it's an image that peaks interest in the subject. I know for a fact that this image has prompted at least one kid to find out more about these mysterious creatures, and that is what makes it special. As it says in the Featured Picture guidelines; "A bad picture of a very difficult subject is a better picture than a good picture of an ordinary subject. A good picture of a difficult subject is an extraordinary photograph." Despite some minor flaws, this is a good picture of a difficult subject. On a separate matter, I am curious as to what the rules are on delist nomination. This image was featured in January. It hasn't even been a year yet and it's already up for delisting. Technical advancement has hardly improved that much, so the nomination isn't based on the image being outdated, but an opinion that it was promoted in error. I don't think nominating a delist based on "error of judgement" is a good basis to delist. Cheers! --Jnpet 15:22, 26 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment (orange).svg Comment I often took razorsharp pictures in a public aquarium, where sometimes the light situation was good enough. It's not possible to make pictures at any cost, so i agree with Lycaon on the circumstances. The result is what counts and here it's really not the best --Richard Bartz 16:56, 26 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • There seems to be a perception that this image was taken at an aquarium. Allow me to correct this perception, this is taken under water at 25 meters depth wearing scuba gear and fighting water currents. At the same time, you need to be aware of the environment so you don't damage corals or accidentally put your knee on the spines of a scorpion fish. Keeping the camera still is not easy and then you have to consider that water filters out red and you frequently get images saturated blue. On top of this, noise from floating particles reflected by the flash ruins a number of shots. I think you need only look at all the featured pictures. I count only a total of six images that are under water pictures. Six out of hundreds of FP images in the animal category. I think that says it all. Cheers! --Jnpet 17:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • That doesn't say anything. We had a similar argument on South American noms not too long ago. It doesn't cut wood. Lycaon 02:54, 1 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep; Commons:Image_guidelines allow us to make allowances for the importance of the subject and the difficulty of the shot. I echo the comment of two of the initial reviewers, "keep because it is so weird" (Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Hypselodoris bullocki.JPG). Note that the white band is intrinsically fuzzy; see Image:Hypselodoris bullocki 3.jpg for an image with sand grains and the white band. The former are much sharper than the latter. That said, I agree with those that argue that the image has technical flaws (subject motion and depth of field, I think); those do not outweigh its value, in my judgement. Walter Siegmund

(talk) 16:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Pictogram voting comment (orange).svg Comment Those are very poor arguments for quite a common nudibranch. And intrinsically fuzzy? You are pulling my leg aren't you? (See here and here for what the real fuss is all about). Lycaon 15:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The color of the tentacles is different, so could be different species/subspecies. Also the sample web photo you gave is small. Try finding one with 2MP or more and see if the pattern is sharp or not. --Lerdsuwa 15:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep Basik07 23:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep, as per Walter's argument. Anrie 09:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist I appreciate the difficulties, but I'm afraid the resulting image is simply not in focus. --MichaelMaggs 09:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 3 Delist, 5 Keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. --Simonizer 15:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC) (Other votes too late)Reply[reply]

Image:Judas and money.jpg, not featured[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by --Tomascastelazo 00:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Although I took the photograph, the credit goes to Miguel Antonio Martinez Pocasangre, who spent 30 plus years on his back, on a scaffold in a very dark church in Atotonilco, Guanajuato, Mexico. Before you vote, please visit this site with very brief info so you can get a better picture of what this is about [1] --Tomascastelazo 00:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Missing signature, Oppose without a reason: Guess not valid. Acarpentier 13:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment (orange).svg Comment Infobox need to be filled (date is missing) --QWerk 16:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
CA problem highlighted
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Quite severe chromatic aberration. Should be easy to remove with a suitable software. --Lerdsuwa 16:45, 19 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Pictogram-voting question.svg Question For chromatic aberration I understand a color cast. Unfortunately I did not use a color chart (Macbeth) so it will be very hard to figure out the real color. The church is very dark and to the naked eye, it appears reddish anyway. What do you suggest? In any case, without the color chart reference it will be an interpretation anyway... I shot this in raw, so I can play with the color temperature. I will play with it, upload another version and ask for your opinion --Tomascastelazo 18:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Pictogram voting comment (orange).svg Comment Lerdsuwa, do you really mean chromatic aberration (CA) as a lens defect or colour cast as Tomas asks? If you really mean CA, could you give an example of where you see it? I fail to see noticeable CA in the photo. Tomas: If you click on the very general categories of Mexico and Religion in the image page I think you will find much more specific categories, which better match your photo. I suggest you only select the most specific categories to increase chances that other users can find your nice contributions in a valid context for Wikimedia projects. -- Slaunger 10:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I mean chromatic aberration, not color cast/white balance. See the photo on the right for example, from top-left crop. You can see there is a thin red line along the head of those people, quite thick at about 3-4 pixels. The same red lines are actually present in other area as well. It's still evident when view at 50% (about full screen width on my monitor). This can be corrected and I am happy to support the corrected version. --Lerdsuwa 15:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thank you for the enlightening zoom on the upper left corner. Yes, that does appear to be CA, and there is similar traces of fringing in the lower right corner. However, it only seems to be visible in the corners of the photo, and personally, I do not find it distracting.-- Slaunger 19:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment (orange).svg Comment I opened the original RAW file and I see the same problem. I guess that lenses ain´t what them used to be! --Tomascastelazo 21:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Is it really chromatic aberrations, not just the drawing lines? --B.navez
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Who should be featured ? The painter or the photographer ? The painting is so so and the color-quality is really bad, forget about CA the color problem is a worse thing. When i visited the church a few years ago i memorized the colors more realistic and not with that unfortune orange look --Richard Bartz 19:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment (orange).svg Comment In this case, the photographer is just a medium who may/may not do justice to the work at hand. As far as the color cast, neither mine nor yours can be said to reflect the correct cast. The only way to do it correctly wold be to use a Macbeth color chart and adjust colors accordingly. What I did was to shoot in RAW format and then I adjusted the white balance according to the type of light, so as to get a what I wished for "correct color rendering". I used a long exposure and small aperture to get a good DOF due to the fact, as you may recall, that the painting is in a dome ceiling, not a flat surface. Also, it is a very, very dark church, so even if the painter mixed his colors outside, their cast would be altered by the low light conditions inside, at least to the human eye. As far as the panting being so-so, well, it is not the vatican, and a comparison would be an unfair comparison considering the Rennaissance techniques, budgets, artists, etc., etc. Its value resides in other variables, such as the rendering of the characters, their clothing, the instruments (of the entire works) that the artist used. Remember that this is a representation of an event 17 centuries later, by a person who may not have travelled more than a 100 miles from his town in his life, etc., etc. What the painting does say to us, from the documentary point of view, is the type of clothing, weapons, instruments used in the 18th century, for the people and artifacts of his time were his models. More than the quality or mastery of technique, this is a document that has many messages. And true, photographically speaking I may have screwed it up, but look beyond the photograph. --Tomascastelazo 18:27, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 09:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image:Uria lomvia 2.jpg, not featured[edit]

A cliff

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Michael Haferkamp - uploaded by Michael Haferkamp - nominated by Sasumaro Yakanti --Sasumaro yakanti 12:26, 19 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Sasumaro yakanti 12:26, 19 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I'm sorry. The perspective is great but the picture lacks quality. Because there is no sun the picture is a bit to dark and the rocks look flat. It's a bit blurred, noisy and overly sharpened (cheap camera?). --TM 20:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Pictogram-voting question.svg Question What country is the cliff in that picture? --I am V for Vendetta! 5:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
The country is Bjørnøya
The country is Norway. ;) --Aqwis 10:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Rabensteiner 02:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It is a nice scenary and a resonable composition, but the technical quality of this 2002 shot is well below current standards (very noisy and blurred). As an aside further value could be added to the image page by adding geodata. -- Slaunger 10:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Jon Harald Søby 00:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose nice picture but the quality is not excellent --Richard Bartz 19:30, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support unless it is easy to improve. -Susanlesch 10:29, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose noise, try fix it --Beyond silence 19:34, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Karelj 00:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Overcast days are more suitable for portraiture than landscape photography. Sometimes this kind of lighting can achieve a sense of mystery - such as when a fog envelops part of the seaside cliffs. Durova 22:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose too low quality --Chrumps 01:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 4 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 09:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC) (Last two votes after voting period)Reply[reply]

Image:Lange-MigrantMother02.jpg, featured[edit]

Short description 

result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 09:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC) (Last two votes after voting period)Reply[reply]

Image:Korea-Gyeongbokgung-Guard.ceremony-11.jpg, not featured[edit]

This image holds good features in artistic and informational aspects 

result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 10:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image:Elephant seal colony.jpg, not featured[edit]

Elephant seals

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Elephant seals (Mirounga angustirostris) on a beach near San Simeon, California, USA. April 21, 2007. Moulting season. Image created, uploaded and nominated by Filtv --Helen Filatova 16:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Helen Filatova 16:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment (orange).svg Comment - This would be more accurately described as an elephant seal harem--there's no apparent mating going on, and these seals are all female. (The males have huge noses.) Typically big males have a harem of females they tend to and impregnate, which is what I imagine is going on here. Calliopejen 17:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support they are so cute, but rectify : they are not mating, just moulting, loosing their fur in a collective mud bath. There is no sexual activity : it is not an orgy. These are only young ones. I am not completely sure but they look like being born in the year.--B.navez 17:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC) I just gave a look on the pictures of the same gallery : these are young seals born in the year, both sexes --B.navez 17:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pictogram voting comment (orange).svg Comment You are absolutely right. 'Moulting' much better describes the situation. Thank you for your comment! Helen Filatova 21:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Composition. --Karelj 18:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as above. I dislike the composition. Sorry. --[[Anonymous Dissident]] 21:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as above. --Rabensteiner 21:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Love it! --Tomascastelazo 04:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice. Slightly too high JPEG compression setting though (visible at 100%). --Lerdsuwa 15:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Wisnia6522 18:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Composition and colors look flat--Richard Bartz 19:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    clearly, I prefer colors and crop of the picture above : less light effects but more precise and giving back real natural colors and fair pack feeling--B.navez 05:17, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    surely a matter of taste ;) --Richard Bartz 11:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose crop feels a bit uneasy Tbc 01:53, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like it much --Simonizer 14:09, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose--Applebee 14:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Composition --Chrumps 01:22, 1 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I can't tell if it's jpeg artefacts or oversharpening, but something's wrong when I look at this full res. BTW, I think the composition and crop are fine. Samsara 10:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 6 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 10:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC) (Last two votes after voting period)Reply[reply]

Image:SalersBreed YoungCow.JPG, not featured[edit]

Young cow of Salers breed 

result: 10 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 10:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC) (Last two votes after voting period)Reply[reply]

Image:Ansel Adams - Farm workers and Mt. Williamson.jpg, featured[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Ansel Adams - uploaded by MarkSweep - nominated by Durova. Manzanar internment camp, central California, World War II. An encyclopedic subject recorded by one of the great photographers. Public domain as a federal U.S. Government commissioned work. --Durova 04:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Durova 04:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It is Ansel! For me, he is to photography what Michaelangelo is to sculpture. --Tomascastelazo 04:44, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support...unique image.--MONGO 08:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Lerdsuwa 15:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Karelj 17:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment (orange).svg Comment see English wikipedia peer picture review. Muhammad Mahdi Karim 18:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Strange, isn't it? The rumor I'd heard was that Commons FPC is much harsher than English Wikipedia. The reverse appears to be true. Durova 19:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This is one of the more boring but famous pictures by mister Adams. Freeway Interchange is my fav. I downloaded the 20mb tiff scan and come to the conclusion that the restaurated edit presented here is not excellent in my eyes because of way 2 much contrast (the orig is grayscale not b/w) where the picture looses any gradients in the darker zones. So now it looks like a strange hybrid of a B/W and grayscale picture --Richard Bartz 20:20, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose May be valuable for its historical interest, but I'm no fan of mediocre quality BW pictures. Lycaon 08:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great DOF, historical value, aesthetically interesting -- Ianare 09:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose ack Richard. Dori - Talk 14:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 5 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 10:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC) (Last three votes after voting period)Reply[reply]

Image:Jewel House guard.JPG, not featured[edit]

Coldstream Guards sentry outside the Jewel House in the Tower of London

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by RedCoat - uploaded by RedCoat - nominated by RedCoat --RedCoat 11:09, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --RedCoat 11:09, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Neat image. Rocket000 14:09, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Composition doesnt cut it - it is 2 tight for me, but i know that the rails on the left side would disturb if you give more space ... hard descission for me --Richard Bartz 19:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I like the general composition, the verticals, but the crop is a little too tight. Moving the camera a little to the right so as to shorten the gap between guard and cannon would give the cannon a little room to the left. --Tomascastelazo 18:04, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Pudelek 19:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Composition and crop. Sorry. --MichaelMaggs 09:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral There's a featured picture in here (and perhaps two), but this shot doesn't nail either. Vintage cannons, painted bright green with the paint peeling - that could be good for a close-up. Likewise with the guard standing watch. Try returning and shooting earlier in the morning when the face won't be completely shadowed and the textures will be more visible on the cannons. Durova 22:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Composition --Chrumps 01:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as per Durova. There is great potential here, but it didn't quite get captured. Sorry, Ben Aveling 06:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 10:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC) (Last four votes after voting period)Reply[reply]

Image:Kingfisher.jpg, not featured[edit]

white throated Kingfisher 

result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 14:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image:San Francisco in ruin edit2.jpg, featured[edit]

Short description

This is Commons, not Wikipedia. --Aqwis 17:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes it is, «Thus it provides a central repository for freely licensed photographs, diagrams, animations, music, spoken text, video clips, and media of all sorts that are useful for any Wikimedia project.» (from «What is the Wikimedia Commons?» on Commons:Welcome)--B.navez 17:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose May be valuable for its historical interest, but I'm no fan of tilted BW pictures. Lycaon 08:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 9 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Simonizer 15:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC) (other votes too late)Reply[reply]


  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Illustrative of its subject definitely... it has a good historical value, too... - Noumenon talk 04:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image:Frosted rose 01.jpg, not featured[edit]

A frosted rose

Sorry, you should try Commons:Quality images candidates first! --Beyond silence 19:32, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    • It's not my own work by the way. I just saw this picture and thought it'd be a nice candidate. I'm curious: there's no rule that candidates must pass the Commons:Quality images candidates before being nominated here is there? Freestyle  nl (talk) 20:21, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      You are right. There is no rule that a photo needs to pass as a QI to be nominated here. However, if a photo cannot make it through QI, there normally has to be pretty strong mitigating reasons for it to be promoted in the end, such as, e.g., a unique historical event, or something very unique, which is hard to reproduce due to the circumstances. -- Slaunger 23:39, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not sharp, noisy. --Karelj 23:54, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Some noise in the BG and could use more DOF. -- Relic38 23:59, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support But it's noisy.--Pianist 05:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Pleasant combination of grey and red. --AKA MBG 18:00, 24 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice picture but what is it for, as an encyclopedic illustration ? It does not look like a frozen rose but like a single flower put outside under the snow. Why is the background grey ? What does it mean ? --B.navez 06:15, 25 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • AFAIK, the images in Wikimedia Commons are not solely for the purpose of encyclopedic illustrations. Furthermore you pose some interesting questions, yet I don't think you should try to search for too much deeper meanings in this image. It's just a frosted rose :-) Freestyle  nl (talk) 09:59, 25 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Sorry, I do not consider Commons as an art gallery (there are other websites for that) but as a ressources bank for associated encyclopedic projects. So if a picture is just nice but not usable because making no sense, it can't be featured. --B.navez 10:37, 25 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose /Ö 17:12, 25 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--WarX 07:37, 26 December 2007 (UTC) lookz greatReply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Good from far, but far from good. Lycaon 10:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Declaration: Quite interesting to find my picture here by chance. The picture wasn't made for any encyclopedic purpose. So far I don't see it. I made it for decoration and art and as a kind of Xmas-Greeting card, as you can see here. Btw. it's a real rose growing in my garden. No cut and freece! The ice is frozen fog. The background was already quite colorless, but I reduced it even more to get a better contrast between the red and the rest. And with ISO 800 I would expect noise — at least with a 20D. And believe me, if I would have the intention to nominate it here, it would be far better than this quick free snapshot. --Kuebi 15:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 5 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 15:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image:Sa-warthog.jpg, featured[edit]

A warthog (Phacochoerus africanus) taking refuge from the hot sun

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info A warthog (Phacochoerus africanus) taking refuge from the hot sun. created by Sanjay Acharya - uploaded by Sanjay Acharya - nominated by Sanjay Acharya --Sanjay ach 21:20, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Sanjay ach 21:20, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Shame it is obviously in a zoo so no FP. Lycaon 21:38, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Pictogram-voting question.svg Question I do not understand this. Why are non-zoo animal pictures a criteria for featured pictures and what does a zoo environment got to do with "not" being in a feature picture? Sanjay Acharya 22:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • It's not a criteria, certain users feel that pictures of animals outside of their natural habitat have less value. Calibas 04:07, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Zoo pictures can be FP. But they tend to have less wow, so it can be an uphill battle. Regards, Ben Aveling 10:04, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I also never really understood that. If a picture of an animal in a zoo is good then I vote with support. Photos can also illustrate life of animals in a zoo. --AngMoKio 15:17, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I hope people here don't only count votes, but also make sure that irrelevant arguments are discarded. The place a picture is taken has nothing to do whatsoever with its quality. Jon Harald Søby 15:24, 24 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • All arguments that concern the intrinsic value of a photograph are relevant. These arguments are amongst others, dependent on the nature of the image (e.g. historical, biological, astronomical, etc.). The place a picture is taken can have lots of relevance. This picture, e.g., is not advertised as an image of a bored, confined animal in a zoo, which as such paints a misleading picture. Lycaon 10:21, 26 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, pin sharp, interesting. --Aqwis 17:04, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support If a animal isn't posing in front of a fence or unnatural objects i have no problem with pictures taken in a zoo or sanctuary. This is a remarkable good picture of a resting warthog, the comp is surely a matter of taste --Richard Bartz 18:10, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Pictogram-voting question.svg Question Was this picture nominated @ FPC before ? It looks so familiar ... --Richard Bartz 18:43, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I had posted this picture as a candidate for Quality Images. May be you must have seen it there. Sanjay Acharya 21:18, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    ...which can also easily be veried with What links here, no link to historic FPC logs. -- Slaunger 23:34, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nothing in the picture speaks obvious zoo pic to me. Very sharp and captures the moment well. I would not exclude an excellent shot just because it is in a zoo. In can be challenging to get shots without zoo structures in them. -- Relic38 23:46, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Simonizer 13:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Jon Harald Søby 15:24, 24 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral The quality is great. But i am not totally convinced by the compostition. --AngMoKio 17:33, 24 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support showing distinctly details of the head and a natural behaviour of the animal, so zoo location doesn't mind for me --B.navez 06:34, 25 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • This is not natural behaviour. This is typical zoo behaviour: being bored, not having to forage as food is given regularly. You won't readily see warthogs lulling in nature (and I have seen many of them all over southern Africa). This (and the pole) is what typifies it as an obvious zoo pic. I do like the details of the picture, so I gave it a QI stamp right away, but for FP it is too unnatural for me. Lycaon 20:30, 25 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Is natural/unnatural a criteria for FP? As i said above, an excellent photo can also illustrate zoo behaviour of animals. ...and as you say, this photo seems to illustrate exactly that behaviour. --AngMoKio 23:48, 25 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • That is correct, if it is canvassed as such. Lycaon 10:21, 26 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral quality is good, but for me the animal does not look interesting in this composition. /Ö 17:08, 25 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 2 neutral => featured. Simonizer 15:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC) (other votes too late)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The composition doesn't do it for me. Dori - Talk 00:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose composition is not that amazing -- Gorgo 18:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image:Sparrows in crabapple tree.jpg, not featured[edit]

Original nomination

Alternative

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Alternative - unsharpened version -- Carlos Ponte
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Carlos Ponte - uploaded by Carlos Ponte - nominated by Carlos Ponte --Calyponte 01:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Calyponte 01:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Can't see excellence on this although composition and colors are nice ... marry x-mas --Richard Bartz 11:52, 24 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose ack Richard. Poor quality, nice composition. Lycaon 12:50, 24 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice composition, good print of life--B.navez 13:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support alternative, but it appears to be slightly oversharpened - could you upload the unsharpened original, please? --Aqwis 14:06, 24 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very vivid, but I don't think the composition is good. --Applebee 14:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info The one on the right is the unsharpened version -- Carlos Ponte 01:18, 25 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Poor quality - Alvesgaspar 15:45, 25 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Basik07 00:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Bad shot, composition and moving. Sorry --Beyond silence 03:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I see the artistic value of this image but the quality is not so good. -- Laitche 11:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 15:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC) (other vote too late)Reply[reply]


Image:Misurina Lago .JPG, not featured[edit]

Misurina Lago.JPG 

result: 1 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 15:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bald Eagle, not featured[edit]

Bald Eagle.

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded, and nominated by V.J.Tornet Escudo de Carmona.png ¿Es conmigo? 20:21, 25 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --V.J.Tornet Escudo de Carmona.png ¿Es conmigo? 20:21, 25 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Trabajonacho 18:30, 26 December 2007 (UTC) Very goodReply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I dont know if the heavy ammount of grain/artefacts in 100% is to be due to the camera. The distorted background and the missing fine details on the animal doesnt look very nice, on the other hand a nice composition ... hard decission --Richard Bartz 16:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment (orange).svg Comment I could support this with a bit of noise reduction on the background, with maybe a tiny bit of sharpening first. -- Relic38 00:36, 27 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose photo needs noise reduction, the very distracting background with artifacts should be blurred. Fabelfroh 09:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Agree with Fabelfroh. Lycaon 09:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as User:Fabelfroh, unfortunately. — Manecke 20:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment (orange).svg Comment I can see that we will eventually need to embargo noms of photos of certain subjects. Maybe this will encourage people to take pictures of subjects other than bald eagles when visiting the zoo. Samsara 10:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 15:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Juncus compressus, not featured[edit]

Juncus compressus

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info technically maybe one of the sharpest and best plant photos I did this (last) year. also a very good composition, still has a "wow"-effect on me. created, uploaded, and nominated by Fabelfroh 14:01, 26 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Fabelfroh 14:01, 26 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • For now, a bit more Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose then support. I like it but it's not excellent in my eyes. There could be more DOF on the buds on the back + the truncated stem is disturbing. Otherwise if taken with a smaller aperture the background wouldn't be that smooth. I have to let it sink 4 a while ;), position could be change --Richard Bartz 16:35, 26 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - I don't like the framing (should be a portrait framing imo) and the cropped stem. Also, for a simple subject like this one the sharpness and detail should be better - Alvesgaspar 09:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I could say the same of your picture as above with the white flower: very interesting botanically (and so are many of your contributions), but insufficient quality for FP. Apart from being quite small, the framing doesn't work and as such the effective use of space for this rush is less than 1 Mpx. As a biologist I very much appreciate your contributions though. Lycaon 08:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Good subject, but framing and sharpness could be improved, as pointed out by previous commenters. Samsara 10:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 15:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC) (Rule of the 5th day)Reply[reply]

Image:Dombeya pilosa flowers.JPG, not featured[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded & nominated by B.navez --B.navez 18:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --B.navez 18:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Botanically very interesting (so are a lot of your pictures, BTW), but insufficient quality for FP. Lighting is not good and contrast is lacking. Also you should always try to snap the best specimen, because here with the withered flowers, it reduces the value of the picture. Lycaon 08:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Pictogram-voting question.svg Question Given that some flowers are not withered, does it reduce the botanical value of the shot that some flowers are? Regards, Ben Aveling 10:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Lighting may be discussed. I admit it. But for withering, as you can see on this picture, petals usually remain attached to the fruit. The flowers of an inflorescence do not open exactly at the same time : when the last ones open, the first ones have already turned brown. So, I also defend this picture particularly for its "botanical honesty".--B.navez 14:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Too dark and not interesting --Applebee 14:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Optik --Richard Bartz 15:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - the first opposition said it well. --- Anonymous DissidentTalk 12:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too dark. Mønobi 23:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 15:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC) (Rule of the 5th day)Reply[reply]

Image:Moka2.jpg, not featured[edit]

used italian moka express

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Used italian moka express. Created, uploaded and nominated by Imm808 17:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Imm808 17:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - The image is very noisy, and the chosen depth of field is so small that much of the subject is out of focus. Sorry. --MichaelMaggs 17:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - quality just not there. --- Anonymous DissidentTalk 19:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral the idea is excellent and we need more quality pictures of everyday life objects but this one is not faultless (Depth of Focus in particular). --Diligent 08:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I like the picture, and the idea, but it isn't quite featured quality (unfocused on the lower part on particular). Majorly (talk) 23:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I don't think the DOF is too bad, but it's just far too noisy. RedCoat 11:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Because this is a studio shot, the quality should be higher. To much parts of the object are out of focus. The lightning is not very good (dark foreground). --TM 12:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 2 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 15:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC) (Rule of the 5th day)Reply[reply]

Image:HafenKleinkunst2.JPG, not featured[edit]

Street performers

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created - uploaded - nominated by Username --Böhringer 23:18, 26 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Böhringer 23:18, 26 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Too many disturbing elements (e.g. bicyclewheels and other cut-off objects) in the background / surroundings of the subject. Freestyle  nl (talk) 12:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Rabensteiner 13:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose annoying background --Lerdsuwa 14:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose too busy and is of low quality.}} --- Anonymous DissidentTalk 09:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment (orange).svg Comment I disagree with low quality --Richard Bartz 18:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like busy background and cut-off wheels or legs, making contrast with the human statue. Could you just remove details in the left down corner--B.navez 19:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Poorly framed and distracting background. RedCoat 11:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Bad light (wrong direction). Ugly background (cropped feet and bicycles). What are the children doing there? --TM 12:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 2 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 10:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image:Cicadalilies.JPG, not featured[edit]

Two periodical cicadas on daylily leaves, from the United States.

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

--- Anonymous DissidentTalk 13:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image:Strawberry Farms logo.JPG, not featured[edit]

Example of a neighborhood complex, showing the "Strawberry Farms" logo.

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

--- Anonymous DissidentTalk 09:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image:Locomotives-Roundhouse2.jpg, featured[edit]

Short description

Its a shame. After that this went into the other one the 'message' at the top of my web browser said that the fund raising donations were going to san francisco. What would be nice to see here is evidence that the people who are actually working on things and capable continue and the software or people who emulate software cease for a while just to see if there is anyone with actual flawed, easily hurt, and perhaps too put down emotions and intelligence who is still able to contribute here. In 1982, I was enrolled in a community college where there was a teacher who had this beautiful vision of what the connected computers could do in the future. The vision was about sharing, not about forcing either lifestyle choices or turning everyone into the same psychological profiler and keeping people from owning their own computer. Dislocating them without reason. Is there any real person who can demonstrate an understanding of that as well as the difference between grain and noise? -- carol 20:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 10:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image:Well-clothed baby.jpg, not featured[edit]

Happy baby 

result: 6 support, 8 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 10:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image:Sfearthquake3b.jpg, featured[edit]

Sfearthquake3b.jpg

*Symbol support vote.svg Support --Karelj 20:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC) after 9 days -- Colin (talk) 19:35, 27 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply] 

result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 10:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image:Flamingo at the Columbus Zoo.JPG, not featured[edit]

Image of a flamingo at the Columbus Zoo.

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by ReadTycoon - uploaded by ReadTycoon - nominated by ReadTycoon --ReadTycoon 23:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Feet cut off, background distracting/ugly. Have seen better, sorry -- Ianare 09:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Probably should have been portrait orientation because a view of the bird's feet is more informative than the concrete-bordered pool behind it. When I look at this I want to take three steps to the left and bend down on one knee to shoot from the bird's eye level. The next trip to the zoo may nail it. Try less depth of field. Durova 19:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose background not optimal (concrete) Tbc 19:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Durova. Mønobi 23:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose ...and more feet. Samsara 10:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 0 support, 4 oppose, 2 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 10:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC) (Rule of the 5th day)Reply[reply]

Image:Soldado Wikipedico.svg, not featured[edit]

Solado de Errores de Wikipedia 

result: 2 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 21:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image:Hoverfly December 2007-8.jpg, featured[edit]

Short description 

result: 18 support, 1 oppose, x neutral => featured. Simonizer 21:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image:Argynnis adippe 2 Richard Bartz.jpg[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created & nominated by --Richard Bartz 00:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Richard Bartz 00:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good work. Hint: Separate the antennae from the background a little more (brighten the background). At the moment the antennae looks a bit confusing when displaying in thumbnail size. --TM 11:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very beautiful, nice composition. Chmehl 16:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I dont like the background. Its distracting in my opinion --Simonizer 16:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--B.navez 19:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose No wow factor, e.g. nothing special. --Karelj 19:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Böhringer 20:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry but artificial background. -- Laitche 20:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I also dislike the background. /Daniel78 00:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice. Pengo 10:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, nice composition, colours. --Aqwis 12:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Richard - you are to blame for raising the bar this high with your previous images. --MichaelMaggs 22:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Pictogram-voting question.svg Question Would you like to be judged the background as a painting? I mean that you intentionally made the background like as a painting. -- Laitche 07:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • This is a lens effect displaying a play of light on leaves in a forrest glade which you can see here, too. Through color/contrast tweaking you can strengthen this effect which causes interesting and sometimes abstract results. Shurely a matter of taste because its experimental--Richard Bartz 09:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I see. Thanks. I like the background's lens effect which looks like impressionist painting like this one :) -- Laitche 10:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination I will nominate a upright format (taxo picture) which should be more capable --Richard Bartz 09:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image:Small White November 2007.jpg[edit]

Pieris rapae

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by Laitche -- Laitche 11:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Laitche 11:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Excellent detail on the insect but background is too noisy and overexposed flower spoils the composition - Alvesgaspar 12:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination Thanks -- Laitche 05:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image:Pale Grass Blue October 2007.jpg[edit]

Pseudozizeeria maha

Image:MC Timberwolf.jpg, featured[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Portrait of a Timberwolf; created, uploaded, and nominated by Chmehl --Chmehl 09:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Chmehl 09:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Bit outta focus.. but only a tiny bit.. but it has a huuuge wow factor. Yzmo 12:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral - nice, but seems slightly crooked in the shot... --- Anonymous DissidentTalk 15:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Pictogram voting info.svg Info The wolf was standing on a slope. Chmehl 15:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Jon Harald Søby 18:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment (orange).svg Comment This is a clear example of an animal, although confined in a zoo, depicted in a simulated natural environment and without disturbing unnatural behaviour nor unnatural elements. Lycaon 18:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per Lycaon's. Informative picture. --Javier ME 22:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per myself ;-). Lycaon 22:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice! Calibas 23:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per Lycaon. --MichaelMaggs 09:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per Lycaon. -- Laitche 18:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Orientation is not a problem. The wolf's posture demonstrates that this is sloping ground. Durova 21:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral per Anonymous Dissident. I like it, but I don't think it's featured quality. Majorly (talk) 23:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Definitely has a "wow factor"... lovely composition, too. - Noumenon talk 04:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Wow, how did the photographer capture this nice creature in the frame? --Applebee 17:16, 1 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Really nice. --LucaG 20:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Aaaaaaaaaaaauaoooow --Richard Bartz 21:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Just piling on. Samsara 10:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support RedCoat 11:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support very good illustration of Eastern Timber Wolf's head, but we need the rest of wolf body to use in infobox :) Przykuta 13:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Simonizer 16:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Maire 21:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 2 neutral => featured. Simonizer 20:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image:U20-WorldCup2007-Okotie-Onka.JPG, featured[edit]

Goalkeeper makes a save

This is grass and not white marks --startaq 10:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Doesn't look like grass to me. It isn't on the ground, but it can easily be removed. Majorly (talk) 23:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's grass that's been kicked up from his studs as he dived, have a look around his feet at hi-res. Foxhill 00:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, grass it is. Then I'll Symbol support vote.svg Support. --MichaelMaggs 07:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • BTW, did he make the goal? I'll Symbol support vote.svg Support after the confirmation ;-) -- Alvesgaspar 22:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nope, it wasn't a goal - The keeper got a hold of it in the end. If I remember rightly, it was in the dying minutes of a 1-1 game, so it would have been a key goal, had it actually been a goal. Nwiebe 20:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Pretty good shot... nice capture of the "feeling". - Noumenon talk 04:18, 1 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Richard Bartz 21:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like it, and I do not care for football at all. It captures a moment of action very well. --Tsui 22:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, for I don't like the tight composition. Thierry Caro 15:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose too tight crop. Lycaon 15:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 11 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 21:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image:St Jude Medical pacemaker in hand.jpg, not featured[edit]

An artificial pacemaker with electrode shown in my hand to get an idea of size.

No, it wasn't. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 13:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - nothing. It's just not eye-catching. --- Anonymous DissidentTalk 09:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Why is it placed on a hand and not on a chest where it belongs to? Why is there gras in the background? --TM 11:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's a good suggestion actually, I'll consider creating one where I put it on my chest.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 13:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A neutral background would be even better. --AM 15:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See Image:St Jude Medical pacemaker with ruler.jpg. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 22:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, harsh shadows, not excellent. Maybe try a dark background? --TM 18:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I thought that a sleeve is the traditional background for this sort of mechanical device. -- carol 11:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 21:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC) (Rule of the 5th day)Reply[reply]

Image:Pseudorasbora parva(edited version).jpg[edit]

Laitche's edit, featured[edit]

Pseudorasbora parva

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Seotaro, nominated by -- Laitche 17:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Laitche 17:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I love it. Not often are there good images of fish, and this is a particularly nice one. Majorly (talk) 23:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Dtarazona 23:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I don't like the blotchy background (which makes it look painted), and there is apparently a whole editing story preceding this nom, possibly including an almost 200% upscaling. Lycaon 00:12, 1 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The author insists that the resolution of this image is not expanded. I want to believe him. -- Laitche 05:52, 1 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I'd want to believe that too, but the upload history and quality stages of that image, IMO tell a different story... And yet I can be mistaken... But for sure you could've done a better job on the background ;-). Lycaon 06:18, 1 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Looks as if the resolution was genuine, but the editing was a bit, let's call it unfortunate. I did a new edit from the original. It can be found after this nomination. The potential was there. Lycaon 19:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Do you mean close-up about background? -- Laitche 17:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great sharpness, no cause for oppose. --Beyond silence 23:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment (orange).svg Comment Please upload/reveal EXIF data to rule out upscaling suspicions. Lycaon 13:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Good image, but nothing special. --Karelj 19:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 16 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 21:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lycaon's edit[edit]

Pseudorasbora parva

Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nominationLycaon 21:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image:First United Methodist Church in Huntington WV.jpg[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created and uploaded by JaGa - nominated by Lycaon 22:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Hoe een dubbeltje rollen kan ;-) Lycaon 22:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Impressive picture, looks like a render. --LucaG 23:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Quite far from reality. Can't bring myself to oppose because of obvious effort involved and technical quality. --che 02:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Urban 06:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very nice. --Thermos 09:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Looks like a render because it is oversharpend --Simonizer 10:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Pictogram-voting question.svg Question Is this an HDR image? It is lacking contrast and the leaves look very strange. Chmehl 11:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, very nice HDR effect. --Aqwis 12:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The building is glowing, way oversharpened, HDR effect detracts from image. Dori - Talk 17:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Oversharpened and unnatural-looking. Sorry. --MichaelMaggs 22:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Böhringer 22:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Oonagh 08:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Karelj 12:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support RedCoat 14:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Top quality. -- MJJR 20:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support @ 100% it looks very nice, enjoying every single detail --Richard Bartz 21:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Beyond silence 21:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Simonizer. Cacophony 04:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Despite the unnatural look. Photography can also be an interpretation of reality rather than only a faithful representation of it -- Alvesgaspar 09:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral somehow those exagerated hdr images don't give me anything...although they are a big hype these days. I also think that the building is partly glowing. Still very high quality. --AngMoKio 21:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Wisnia6522 12:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination Lycaon 21:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image:Meatmarket.jpg, not featured[edit]

Short description

Pictogram-voting question.svg Question I see sausages, pig heads and ribs; is the stuff on the table intended for pozole, menudo or other? -- carol 07:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pictogram voting comment (orange).svg Comment Carol, most likely pozole. Menudo uses pork parts, but mainly cow insides. Pozole uses pork meat cuts and pork heads... either way, it is all good! --Tomascastelazo 01:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Poor composition and crop, awkward lighting and no "wow" factor. RedCoat 14:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 21:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC) (Rule of the 5th day)Reply[reply]

Image:Twenty pounds sterling banknote holograms.jpg[edit]

300px|he latest UK 20 pound note includes some fun holograms. 20 GBP is the equivalent of about 2 million dollars

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info uploaded by Arria Belli - nominated by Vini175 --Vini175 20:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Vini175 20:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment (orange).svg Comment Thanks, Vini175! Did you read my mind? ^^ I had thought of proposing this photo for FP, but decided against it because I wasn't sure it would pass (I thought too many people would not like the depth of field). Happy editing, Arria Belli | parlami 21:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Pictogram voting info.svg InfoI'm sorry because this is such a nice picture, but I have to delete it as it's a criminal offence under s18(1) of the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981 "to reproduce on any substance whatsoever, and whether or not on the correct scale, any British currency note or any part of a British currency note." --MichaelMaggs 21:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment (orange).svg Comment Ahhh, I didn't know! I will write to the Flickr uploader, then. Do you have any links I can use to send to him? Arria Belli | parlami 21:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
[2]. --MichaelMaggs 21:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Flickr user has since been notified of the criminal offence. Arria Belli | parlami 21:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I didn't know all! But the image is good. Vini175 22:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Pictogram voting info.svg InfoHang on. Why are you quoting a UK law, when the Wikimedia Foundation operates under the laws of Florida? The only people who could be affected by the 1981 act are uploaders located in the UK, but even so it is arguable whether or not reproducing images in light on a screen is a "substance" within the meaning of the Act anyway, as that implies a tangible form. -- Arwel 22:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Interesting point. "Choose your weapon?" -- carol 12:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It was also a copyright infringement. --MichaelMaggs 23:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment (orange).svg Comment I had uploaded two Flickr images of British banknotes. Since I notified both Flickr users of the criminal offence I think one of them has deleted their £ image from their photostream (I cannot see my comment anymore in my comment log, so I assume that's what happened). Arria Belli | parlami 13:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image:Antidorcas marsupialis 1.jpg[edit]

Sprinkbok

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Springbok (Antidorcas marsupialis) in Etosha, Namibia, created, uploaded and nominated by Lycaon 17:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Lycaon 17:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Reasons: 1. Body position: the animal seems to be walking away. 2. Camera angle: shooting from an up to down position makes the contour of the body (top) blend in with background. A larger aperture would have separated the body from the background. 3. Light direction: it feels as if the light is pushing the animal away and it creates disturbing shadows. 4. As in people, vision is drawn to the face, and in this case, it is difficult to see the face. 5. My memory reference for this type of animal is that they are agile and alert and dynamic, a sensation that I do not get here. --Tomascastelazo 20:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nominationLycaon 21:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image:Fenton13ltdragoons.jpg, not featured[edit]

Light Dragoons Crimea

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info uploaded by Old Moonraker - nominated by Old Moonraker --Old Moonraker 16:10, 1 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This early example of the war photograph is frequently reproduced, but at a resolution which does not permit the faces of the subjects to be seen clearly. In this high-resolution version the facial expressions can be seen and they offer a valuable new insight into the photographer's work and the characters of the soldiers, veterans of the Charge of the Light Brigade and a winter of service in a punishing climate. --Old Moonraker 16:10, 1 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment (orange).svg Comment bad source given. Lycaon 17:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment (orange).svg Comment Please explain "bad source" and I will try to correct it. --Old Moonraker 17:12, 1 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • ✓ Done External link now fixed—thanks for pointing this out. --Old Moonraker 17:22, 1 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • ✓ Done Must be a session time-out or something. Now linked through the {{LOC-image}} tag.--Old Moonraker 06:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Pictogram-voting question.svg Question Would you like me to try some cropping and cleanup? Durova 00:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • No, thanks. This is an historic photograph, like a "Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima" of its day, and IMO deserves to be seen in its original state. I submitted it in response to a comment here that specifically discussed the unimproved version.--Old Moonraker 06:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --MichaelMaggs 07:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Jon Harald Søby 12:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I don't see why this picture should be featured, quality and compisition are really bad and I don't see that much historical value (some random officiers of the Crimean War). While the age might be a mitigating reason for the bad quality that's not an excuse for the bad composition and the lack of "wow". -- Gorgo 18:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not only the quality of the photograph is bad, even the scan was not properly done: it's tilted. Lycaon 00:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • This is one aspect of the "historic" quality that could be repaired, although the original print itself is far from square. it's a rostrum photograph, rather than a scan, BTW. --Old Moonraker 06:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support As for the quality, yes it is abysmal. However, considering that the image illustrates veterans of the en: Charge of the Light Brigade and it is a photograph, I think it merits support due to historical value. --Thermos 05:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Here we go again... To keep on judging photographs based solely on the "wow" factor, which is totally subjective and to expect photographs to conform to the quality of the latest technology does a disservice to the discipline of photography itself and to the larger scope of Wikipedia. The technology of photography has evolved and while we may get better rendition of subjects, color, resolution, etc., etc., it does not necessarily mean that we end up with "better" photography. On the contrary, I think that we get more "bad" photography as a result of technology, judging from a wide perpective on photography appreciation. In this particular case, yes, compared to today´s standards the image, as a rendition of subjects and technical quality, is lacking if we compare to what is obtainable with today´s photography. But that is not the case. The point is that the Crimean War was probably the first war covered photographically, and there were political considerations while doing so (read about it). Technically speaking, it is almost a miracle to even have these images, as the photographic process was extremely difficult. Therefore, the value of this photograph, and the reason it should be featured, is because of its inmense historical value. This photograph (and the series of the Crimean war) should be looked upon as a window into the past. This is the only visual record that we have of that conflict. It is an honest record, not an idealized rendition given by paintings of previous wars. Please visit this site so you get an idea of what Roger fenton and the Crimean War was all about #REDIRECT[3] The fact that one ignores the historical value of a photograph is no reason to deprive the larger scope of Wikipedia of building a knowledge base, and featuring images is a vehicle consisntent with the encyclopedic effort. We must learn to look beyond the paper (or screen) where the image appears, the paper is nothing but a window. So the glass is dirty, so what? It is the landscape that lies beyond that matters. I can imagine knocking down the Mona Lisa beacuse the paint is cracking! --Tomascastelazo 23:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Mortar batteries in front of Picquet house Light Division, Crimean War.
After 20 minutes of retouching the sky only. At 300x magnification the streak in the center appears to be genuine artillery fire.
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Tough choice. With due respect for Tomascastelazo's eloquent opinion, the Library of Congress website hosts 264 Roger Fenton photographs of the Crimean War. I've uploaded one of them for comparison. Compositionally it's superior, and the team in the foreground is actively loading a cannon. At 300x magnification a particular streak in the sky appears to be genuine artillery fire. This is genuine battle photography, perhaps the earliest ever done. Whether you prefer the edited version or the original, this appears to be a superior shot. It isn't necessarily the best of Fenton's work; so far I've viewed 20% of that archive. Yet if we want to feature a Roger Fenton photo from this war I think it's important to select the best available. Durova 05:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • As the nominator I appreciate that you have provided reasoned comment to explain your "oppose" vote. May I just draw to your attention my first point about the facial expressions of the people portrayed? This is where I believe the image excels, and this is absent from the admittedly better-composed artillery picture. --Old Moonraker 13:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • I agree that's a good element. Fenton also shot a lot of portraits and small groups where the faces are easier to see and quite a few of those were of members of the divisions that took part in the charge of the light brigade. This nomination is part landscape, part people. I'd love to see some Fenton work get featured; we can do better than this particular example. Durova 20:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • This is only picture of Fenton's that I have seen at high resolution and I was so impressed by the faces that I made the nomination. All his pictures in Library of Congress are available at this resolution so if there's a better one that similarly shows faces in detail that should certainly be a featured image candidate if this one fails. --Old Moonraker 21:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Old Moonraker 07:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image:Firecracker exploding.jpg, not featured[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by ABF 16:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral as I am the author --__ ABF __ ϑ 16:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support bright and spectacular. - Anonymous DissidentTalk 16:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support 25% of the picture is burnt out - just kidding. I like it. Ben Aveling 06:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - A nice catch but that is not enough for FP - Alvesgaspar 10:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Ben Aveling (no kidding) and Alvesgaspar. Lycaon 00:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The center is all white. Try to combine this with a shot before the explosion (HDRI). --TM 12:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose In my opinion, this is just how this looks. An HDR of this might simply look unnatural. However, the image is also very grainy, the depth-of-field is too low, and the composition is off. It was a well-timed shot though. --IG-64 08:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 20:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image:Anolis sagrei climb.jpg, not featured[edit]

Macro shot of a brown anole (Anolis sagrei)

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Macro shot of a brown anole (Anolis sagrei). Created, uploaded, and nominated by Ianaré Sévi
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Ianare 09:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice use of depth of field. Durova 19:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Nice nature shot but not good enough to reach FP status. There is considerable noise in the background, the whole animal is not shown and the image could be crisper - Alvesgaspar 20:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support At full resolution it's not really crisp indeed, but in general - subject, light, colors... - it's FP worthy IMHO. -- MJJR 21:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Composition and lighting --Richard Bartz 22:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Never mind cowbells - what we need is more tail. Samsara 10:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as per above. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 14:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose dof-

Sorry, you should try Commons:Quality images candidates first! --Beyond silence 23:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral DOF is fine for a macro shot in my opinion. Lighting is a bit unfavorabel. Chmehl 16:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 20:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image:Latin cross22.JPG, not featured[edit]

Latin cross

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded, and nominated by HonzaXJ --HonzaXJ 15:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --HonzaXJ 15:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Nice foto in Gothic style. --Umnik 19:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Poor quality: noise and blotches in the sky. I don't like the angle either. - Alvesgaspar 20:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Pictogram-voting question.svg Question I think it is a good and interesting photo, but I do not understand at first sight what makes the photo exceptionally valuable. Could you perhaps enlighten me concerning this issue, HonzaXJ? -- Slaunger 21:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Composition - it is only a part of latin cross Przykuta 13:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose No exceptional composition and subject. --Tsui 22:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment (orange).svg Comment Might be more suitable for QI? Durova 03:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The stuff in the foreground is strange. What are the shadows on the right and bottom of the cross? What's the meaning of the gulls sitting there? --TM 11:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Strong. --Karelj 19:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very good. Impression of Apocalypse. What impress me: the black cross and the figure (head and shoulders) with cowl, stripe of black smoke and a thin white line (inversion trace of plane) as a hope. --AKA MBG 16:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 20:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image:MC Rotfeuerfisch.jpg, featured[edit]

Short description 

result: 21 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 20:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image:Narva jõgi 1999.jpg, not featured[edit]

Border river 

result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 20:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC) (Rule of the 5th day)Reply[reply]

Image:Hieracium 2008-1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Two wild Hawkweed flowers (Hieracium muororum). This is an improved version of a picture already nominated for FPC (here), which failed for lack of interest. I like the composition very much and believe it deserves a new oportunity. Created and nominated by Alvesgaspar --Alvesgaspar 12:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Alvesgaspar 12:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--B.navez 19:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Two flowers and...? --Karelj 20:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice composition, contrast and colours IMO. RedCoat 14:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- MJJR 20:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very beautiful, I like it a lot --Dtarazona 14:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This picture express nothing. --Daniel Baránek 19:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose sharpness low. --Beyond silence 21:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose cute composition but colours and light look dreary --Simonizer 22:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Basik07 19:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose On many leaves there is no fine structure (washed out) + sharpness is so so, background/temper is a bit 2 sober for my taste --Richard Bartz 12:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 6 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 14:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC) (Last vote doesnt count anymore)Reply[reply]

Image:POL COA Trzaska.svg, featured[edit]

Coat of Arms Trzaska of Polish noble families

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Coat of Arms Trzaska of Polish noble families. Created by Bastianow and WarX - uploaded by WarX - nominated by Przykuta 12:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Przykuta 12:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Dobrze wykonany herb. Skąd była ta rodzina (z jakiego rejonu)? Freedom to share 18:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • English Well-done coat of arms. Which region was the family from?
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Simonizer 19:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good graphic design, both in the original and the reproduction. A fuller description would be helpful. Durova 19:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment (orange).svg Comment on en.wiki there is different blasoning of this coat then on pl.wiki. This one is based on pl.wiki version. Difference is that in English both swords should point blades downwards. --WarX 21:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Szczepan talk 11:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support A whole lot of details, this one seems to have taken a fair bit of effort to make. Wpedzich 11:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Ala z talk 11:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol strong support vote.svg Strong support odder 12:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very well done. RedCoat 14:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nothing special, classical mismatch of 2D and 3D elements. Typical Polish sponsored support. Lycaon 18:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Agree with Lycaon - Alvesgaspar 09:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support albeit I'm not Polish ;-D Ayack 16:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Maire 21:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC) Well drawn.Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose no "vow"-factor for me. --Raul6 22:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Basik07 19:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Inconsistent styling. "Wow" factor has almost reduced to zero for CoA illustrations since many can be created largely by piecing together parts from all the other heraldry SVGs. Rocket000 17:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 12 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 14:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC) (Last vote doesnt count anymore)Reply[reply]

Image:Beheadingchina1.jpg[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Japanese executioner prepares to behead a condemned Chinese man kneeling before his own grave, Tientsin China. (probably during the Boxer Rebellion). A dramatic moment even after 107 years. What really makes this work for me is the fellow at right leaning to get a better view. Good historic photographs on non-Western subjects are rare at Commons. I hope those factors outweigh the soft focus. Created by Underwood & Underwood, 1901 - original Image:Beheadingchina.jpg uploaded by Madmax32 - cropped, cleaned up artifacts, adjusted histogram, sharpened, and nominated by Username --Durova 20:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Durova 20:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dialog-warning.svg
 Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: too small Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

Lycaon 22:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Withdrawn: [4]. ZooFari 02:41, 27 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image:Shrub Branch-Ice Storm-Dec 2007-St Jo MO.jpg, not featured[edit]

Ice formation on Shrub 

result: 6 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 20:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image:Douglas MacArthur lands Leyte1.jpg, featured[edit]

Short description 

result: 8 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 20:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image:Texas panorama.jpg[edit]

Texas Panorama

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by IG-64 - uploaded by IG-64 - nominated by IG-64 --IG-64 17:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --IG-64 17:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Lacking in wow, lighting conditions and sharpness. Lycaon 06:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Good stitching, but the focus is off in some parts of the picture and the lighting is harsh (especially on the right). The industrial building take away from the landscape. Try retaking it a little later in the afternoon. --Digon3 talk 15:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Pictogram voting delete.svg IG-64 17:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image:E MERCK PAINT LON.png, not featured[edit]

Heinrich Emanuel Merck

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Heinrich Emanuel Merck (around 1820); created by unknown, uploaded and nominated by LSDSL -- LSDSL 21:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Why the huge file format (png) for a simple BW drawing? Lycaon 00:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pencils Need Graphite? -- carol 12:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 0 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 20:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC) (Rule of the 5th day)Reply[reply]

Image:Werner-von-Siemens.png, not featured[edit]

Werner von Siemens

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Werner von Siemens; created by Giacomo Brogi (1822-1881), uploaded and nominated by LSDSL -- LSDSL 21:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Old, bad quality image. Lycaon 00:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The composition is not good. -Applebee 08:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment (orange).svg Comment Isn't some of the quality excused due to the age of the photo? --IG-64 08:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Pictogram voting comment (orange).svg Comment Some, but not all. The depth of field here is inadequate and the image has a lot of dust particles. Technically I've seen better portraits from this era and there's nothing spectacular about the setting to demand an exception. Durova 21:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 0 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 20:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC) (Rule of the 5th day)Reply[reply]

Image:Bald Eagle, Kodiak, Alaska.jpg[edit]

Bald Eagle on post in Kodiak, Alaska, USA

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Even though this is not an animal especially easy to photograph, I still feel that the composition is substandard. It would have been much better if the eagle could fill more of the frame. How far away were you from the bird? Freedom to share 07:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No idea, I just nom'd it, I was not the photographer and she doesn't have an account. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Pictogram voting delete.svg the nom of this initial image, but keep the retouched one nom'd. User:Rlevse 00:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image:Bald Eagle, Kodiak, Alaska.jpg[edit]

Bald Eagle on post in Kodiak, Alaska, USA

  • Perhaps you like this retouched version more? --Plenz 22:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I like it slightly more, but it doesn't fulfil size requirements (2 MPix minimum) 1200px*1600px = 1920000px, 80000 pixels short. Sorry, Freedom to share 22:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC) Size corrected --Freedom to share 15:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Can you include more of the background and get the size requirement up? — Rlevse • Talk • 02:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I hope I don't have to understand how a picture gets "better" by adding some "rubbish" :) but here it is. --Plenz 08:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like the way it stands out from the misty background. --MichaelMaggs 13:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This is even better and naturally I support it too. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, meets the general standards expected of featured media, is a great improvement on the original version, and overall does the project justice. I'm proud to slap my support on it, with the hope others will too. Anthøny 02:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I see a lot of noise in the background and on the dark parts of he bird. Estrilda 11:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose sharpness

Sorry, you should try Commons:Quality images candidates first! --Beyond silence 21:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, meets the general standards expected of featured media and is a great improvement on the original version. Evrik 22:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Basik07 11:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support — the cropped version is much improved; I like the DOF in this. ERcheck 15:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Composition is nice. Unfortune lacking of lighting and details. Heavy ammount of noise --Richard Bartz 12:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The photo is better than before. miranda 00:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image:Ranunculus acris niittyleinikki.jpg[edit]

Ranunculus acris

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Alinja - uploaded by Alinja - nominated by Alinja 12:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral A full plant for identification of species - showing different leaf types, flowers and buds in natural environment and light. Not many good pictures for identification are available, but is it otherwise good enough to be featured? --Alinja 12:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The depth of field is way to narrow, it would be much better if both flowers were in focus. Freedom to share 18:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sharpness... -- MJJR 20:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I agree that not many good pictures of full plants for species identification are currently available. Most pictures concentrate on the flowers. Therefore I really appreciate your work. However, there are a few things that can be improved in this picture. Besides from the sharpness issues mentioned above, I find the lighting unfavorable. The plant is in the shadow, but in the background bright light spots are distracting the attention from the flower. Chmehl 07:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dialog-warning.svg
 Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: low quality, bad lighting etc. Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

- Anonymous DissidentTalk 10:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image:Brandenburg Gate Quadriga at Night.jpg[edit]

Short description

Dialog-warning.svg
 Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: it is allready featured --Simonizer 08:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply] Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

Image:SunriseJanuary8.08.Buffalo.NY.jpg[edit]

Short description

Dialog-warning.svg
 Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: much 2 small, please read the guidelines first :-) Regards --Richard Bartz 12:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply] Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

Image:Simi_1.jpg[edit]

port Sími on Sími island, Dodekanese, Greece

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Sími port on Sími island, Dodekanese, Greece, Created a nominated by --Karelj 18:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Karelj 18:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This is rather a nice picture, but I'm afraid it is a bit small for FP, sorry. Estrilda 18:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Suggest submitting it for quality picture instead. Durova 20:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Quality Images has size limitations, as well. I suggest submitting it to English Wikipedia. They don't mind small size so much there. -- carol 01:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dialog-warning.svg
 Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: too small Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

--MichaelMaggs 21:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I think the size is fine in this case, but I don't like the composition myself, so I can't support. Dori - Talk 00:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image:Army.mil-2007-02-22-083216.jpg[edit]

An Iraqi and American soldier conducting a raid in Baghdad. The graffiti on the wall reads "God is great" in Arabic.

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

--MichaelMaggs 22:46, 13 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Because the radio antenna looks like it's sticking up the guy's nose, and the potentially interesting part of the picture is out of focus. Jackaranga 19:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image:Argynnis adippe 1 Richard Bartz.jpg, featured[edit]

Short description

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, I must say I liked the original better, but this is good enough too. --Aqwis 11:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Laitche 12:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC) Sorry Richard, but I can't support this one. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- Laitche 05:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No need to say sorry, just take your time and decide :-) --Richard Bartz 06:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The landscape version was great already. This one is better because it's more suitable for an encyclopaedic article.
    Pictogram-voting question.svg Question What flower is that? (Add this to the description.) Where was the photo taken? (Add coordinates.) --TM 13:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support as former version --B.navez 13:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support RedCoat 14:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Wisnia6522 16:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I also like this one, although the landscape version has such a nice bokeh on the right side... Chmehl 17:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Do you mean bokeh as in the Japanese ぼけ（bokeh）? I think the bokeh is just like this one. I have felt the landscape version like as Photoshop's Copy Stamp Tool then I opposed that one. -- Laitche 19:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 14 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 10:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image:Dark Small-branded Swift.jpg, featured[edit]

Pelopidas mathias 

result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 11:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC) (Last vote does not count anymore)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per Ram-Man (and I thought it was a moth). Durova 03:18, 16 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image:2007 see-kuh02 hg.jpg, not featured[edit]

Mirounga leonina (female)

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

--- Anonymous DissidentTalk 12:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image:2007 see-elefant hg edit.jpg, not featured[edit]

Mirounga leonina (female), slight color tweak by --Richard Bartz 21:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Hgrobe - Edit uploaded & nominated by --Richard Bartz 21:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Cute overload --Richard Bartz 21:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support very funny picture with good quality --Simonizer 16:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support — Rlevse • Talk • 19:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Adorable. Durova 20:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Good quality? Not on this side of the world ;-). Lycaon 01:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The edit is much better than the original version, but there are still reflections of the artificial flash light visible on the tongue. Also, the flash creates harsh shadows behind the blades of grass. Not featured picture quality IMHO. Chmehl 07:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Given the difficulties to approach these young seals, we could expect much better pictures. Honestly, I prefer this old one of mines even of low quality because it shows natural behaviour (yes seals fear water the first time !) and not just reaction to the photograph --B.navez 18:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice detail. --Karelj 14:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I agree with B.navez -- Gorgo 18:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment (orange).svg Comment I wouldn't do a dogged evaluation onto this :-) Surely its not really enc. but Commons is not only for enc pics. This is a very funny picture and has a big room for associativity e.g. one funny comment on ICQ was that maybe this seal could have a drug problem because of his nosedrills a.s.o. Relax and dont be stiff  :-) --Richard Bartz 20:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not a bad quality as Lycaon, but composition not good.

Sorry, you should try Commons:Quality images candidates first! --Beyond silence 03:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like it --Orlovic (talk) 13:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The foreground lighting is not balanced with the background. Looks like flash was used on this outdoor, daytime shot. -- Ram-Man 02:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, good sharpeness, interesting. --Aqwis 17:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support for composition. Dori - Talk 01:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 8 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 11:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image:Lichen-covered tree, Tresco.jpg, not featured[edit]

Lichen-covered tree, Tresco.jpg

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by MichaelMaggs. This shows grey, leafy Parmotrema perlatum on upper half of trunk; yellowy-green Flavoparmelia caperata on middle and lower half and running up the extreme right side; and the fruiticose Ramalina farinacea. --MichaelMaggs 17:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info The vast majority of our plant FPs are colourful flowers; there are very few green plants and no lichens at all. Let's strike out in a new direction. --MichaelMaggs 17:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --MichaelMaggs 17:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice subject, very interesting (and pretty). A little dark, but still good. --IG-64 18:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Subject well treated --B.navez 18:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too dark and flat, no WOW factor. --Karelj 14:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Digon3 talk 15:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I have no problem with lichens as FPs, but this is underexposed. -- Ram-Man 02:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Lighting, no wow. Dori - Talk 01:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 11:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image:Boulogne Basilique 001.jpg, not featured[edit]

Notre-Dame basilica at Boulogne-sur-Mer, France

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by MJJR - uploaded by MJJR - nominated by MJJR -- MJJR 21:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- MJJR 21:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Thermos 05:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice lighting. Freedom to share 19:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Raul6 22:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Lighting is nice but quality is not good enough -- Alvesgaspar 10:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose detail --Beyond silence 23:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As above. --Karelj 14:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment (orange).svg Comment For a small Canon Powershot the quality and colors are good. --Richard Bartz 21:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I agree that the quality is surprisingly good, likely because it was a Canon (which makes better P&S than others, IMO), but the composition is too centered and lacks sufficient wow as a result. -- Ram-Man 02:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 11:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image:Yeager supersonic flight 1947.ogg[edit]

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Chuck Yeager was the first man to break the sound barrier. A historic 1947 newsreel about his achievement. U.S. Government public domain; National Archives - uploaded by Brian0918 - nominated by Durova --Durova 00:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Durova 00:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dialog-warning.svg
 Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: not a still image (this is still FP and not Featured media, we don't have rules/guidelines to assess ogg files yet) Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

Lycaon 06:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image:Istambul and Bosporus big.jpg, not featured[edit]

Istanbul, Turkey: The Crossroads of Europe and Asia 

result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 08:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC) (Last vote doesnt count anymore)Reply[reply]

Image:Siluet.jpg, not featured[edit]

Hagia Sophia and Blue Mosque

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Sinoplu diyojen - uploaded by Vikimach - nominated by Dsmurat --Dsmurat 01:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Dsmurat 01:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose too noisy -- Lycaon 06:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Too noisy it may be only if you look at the image at maximum zoom - and who does (except for a critic)? The image shows the skyline of Istanbul's most prominent sights in a very beautiful composition. It is in use in several articles in Turkish Wikipedia. -- wg 22:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment (orange).svg Comment To bad FP is not just thumbnails ;-). Please read the guidelines before voting. Thnx. Lycaon 22:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose far too noisy and looks significantly upscaled - Peripitus 13:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Quality is really bad. -- Ram-Man 02:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 09:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC) (Last vote doesnt count anymore)Reply[reply]

Image:Jet engine numbered.svg, featured[edit]

Jet Engine

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded, and nominated by --Jeff Dahl 07:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Jeff Dahl 07:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Lycaon 08:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --WarX 17:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC) But please remove unnecessary margins, and maybe numbers should form circle (be contrinued, not starting in horizontal lines ;)Reply[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment (orange).svg Comment 1 is low-pressure compression and 2 is high-pressure compression, not intake and compression!--WarX 17:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • OK, I fixed the margins. I'm basing the drawing of the FAA handbook, so the labels should be correct; I think moving bracket will clarify what was intended. I don't quite understand what you are suggesting with the number labels, though. I'm happy to take suggestions. Jeff Dahl 18:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • I meant you start numbers in three lines - something like:
1   2   3    4

 ===IMAGE===

  5   6   7
 8      9
      • And I would like to see
1   2   3    4

 ===IMAGE===

   8     7   5
9          6
      • ;) --WarX 21:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • And now you can add numbers to low/high pressure compressors too! --WarX 21:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, done. Jeff Dahl 04:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply] 

result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 09:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image:Intercession of Charles Borromeo supported by the Virgin Mary - Detail Rottmayr Fresco - Karlskirche - Vienna.JPG, featured[edit]

Short description 

result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 09:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Palestinian women grinding coffee beans.jpg

Image:MaleGouldianFinch.JPG, not featured[edit]

A specimen of Gouldian Finch (Chloebia gouldiae)


Sorry, you should try Commons:Quality images candidates first! --Beyond silence 16:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply] 

result: 6 support, 8 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 09:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image:National Grand Theatre detail.jpg, featured[edit]

National Grand Theatre, Beijing 

result: 6 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral => featured.--Mywood 08:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image:Underwater mcmurdo sound.jpg, featured[edit]

Marine life and ocean floor in front of ice wall in McMurdo Sound

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Steve Clabuesch - uploaded by Fishdecoy on en:wp and by Arria Belli on Commons - nominated by Arria Belli. Arria Belli | parlami 19:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral A bit smaller (1,396 × 1,044 pixels) than the size guideline for FPs (which is, for the record, 1600 x 1200), but I think the rarity of such photos and the quality of the shot may be enough to have it pass. Over to you, Arria Belli | parlami 19:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose idem Florent Pécassou 21:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Wow. Couln't believe this is real on the first sight. --norro 12:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support does it for me Tbc 00:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Lerdsuwa 09:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Karelj 15:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--B.navez 19:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- MJJR 21:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Wow --libertad0 ॐ 13:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Wing-Chi 23:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - original. --- Anonymous DissidentTalk 05:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I've always been very strong on opposing low-resolution pictures and the quality isn't great, but it is one of those magical rare shots. -- Ram-Man 02:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too small (less than 1.5 Mpx) and extremely noisy. Looks like a candidate for VI but of course neither FP nor QI, who are you kidding? Lycaon 07:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Pictogram voting comment (orange).svg Comment I don't understand when you propose an image for FP that you don't do your utmost best to try to feature the best copy available. It shows no respect for the community assesing these pictures here. Lycaon 17:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • I had looked for a better resolution before proposing this photograph for FP. I did not find one then (perhaps I did not look hard enough, and for that I apologize if you feel insulted). But I have now, though I'm not sure the highest res image in the Antarctic Photo Library is better: image info page here and 2288x1712 image here. If someone could tinker with the image to make it clearer, that would be quite welcome. Happy editing, Arria Belli | parlami 03:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 9 support, 2 oppose, 2 neutral => featured.--Mywood 08:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image:Peyto Lake-Banff NP-Canada.jpg, featured[edit]

beautiful Peyto Lake in Banff NP

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded dand nominated by Tobi 87 --Tobi 87 21:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tobi 87 21:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info edited version, this is the first publication of this picture, so it is just similar to these pictures that you have already seen in books and on webpages, thanks for this reward ;)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Basik07 22:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Fantastic image but it would be even better with the EXIF data. Please supply those. Thanks for the geolocation :D Freedom to share 07:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -Applebee 08:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Simonizer 20:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- Sorry but it looks too kitschy for my taste -- Alvesgaspar 12:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Karelj 15:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Pictogram-voting question.svg Question Could you please tell me how I add EXIF data to panoramics? -- Tobi 87 16:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Thermos 06:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, too oversaturated for my taste. --MichaelMaggs 23:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Jon Harald Søby 14:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose colours look fake, agree with MichaelMaggs Tbc 16:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment (orange).svg Comment Although you think that the colours of this picture are oversaturated and consequently look fake, I can just answer that my photo reflects reality. I propose you to visit this wonderful place to experience its beauty by sunshine. I understand your scepticism when I compare my photo with the others of this lake which I find in Wiki Commons. All in all, I am lucky to have taken this picture because it is in my opinion brilliant and in no way kitschy, but shows how incredible nature can be! That's why I uploaded it! --Tobi 87 17:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Peyto Lake is a glacial lake and thus its water colour is so extraordinary! --Tobi 87 17:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Aqwis 17:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I haven't been to this particular lake, but I now of glacial lakes that have similar color! Chmehl 19:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I have been there. The color is real. --Wing-Chi 23:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Beyond silence 01:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Color looks fine. The resolution is on the low side for a detailed landscape. -- Ram-Man 02:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Vmenkov 04:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 14 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => featured.--Mywood 08:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image:Grant Glacier 1902a.jpg[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info A 1902 photograph of the Grant Glacier. Companion piece to Image:Grant Glacier 1998.jpg to illustrate glacial retreat. This is an attractive landscape on its own merits, and fairly good photography for its era. Particularly valuable as a historic/scientific document. Created by Morton Elrod (Glacier National Park Archives), original Image:Grant Glacier 1902.jpg uploaded by MONGO - image cleanup and nomination by Durova --Durova 23:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Durova 23:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Old, bad quality image. No wow, awful vignetting. Lycaon 00:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Lycaon. --Applebee 08:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Lycaon. By this time photography technology rendered better pictures. --Tomascastelazo 21:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Withdrawn: [5]. ZooFari 02:29, 27 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image:PalmercarpenterA.jpg , featured[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info 1942 photograph of a carpenter at work. Encyclopedic both as a document of carpentry during that era and as a historic example of early color photography. Supersaturation was popular in the United States during that era; a fine example of the esthetics of its place and time. Created by Palmer, Alfred T., photographer. (Farm Security Administration - Office of War Information Collection) - original Image:Palmercarpenter.jpg uploaded by 3am - artifact/scratch removal and nomination by Durova. --Durova 02:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Durova 02:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Wow, before reading the contents, I thought it is a good commercial picture. And 1942 phtographs!, just wow again. --Applebee 08:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Richard Bartz 16:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I've seen worse ;-), but the burnt out patches prevent me to support it. Lycaon 17:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Another version of this picture was nominated in April. --che 03:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Yes. Different projects have different standards, of course, but someone decided to renominate the original upload on en.Wikipedia and this edit received very positive responses. When it looked like this would pass I nominated it here also (and started digging through the Library of Congress files for other work by this photographer and uploading the best files to Commons). Durova 04:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Karelj 15:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support /Daniel78 21:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Urban 17:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --MichaelMaggs 21:12, 12 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 02:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Diligent 08:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Bergwolf 10:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral => featured.--Mywood 15:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image:Orange single Dahlia.jpg, not featured[edit]

"Single" bloom form of a Dahlia

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info The "Single" bloom form of the Dahlia flower, an highly variable flower with many cultivars. Created, uploaded and nominated by Ragesoss --Ragesoss 04:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ragesoss 04:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, but nothing special. --Applebee 08:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Special enough IMO, but needs some noise reduction first. Lycaon 17:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment (orange).svg Comment Agree, should be 1 click --Richard Bartz 17:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose ack Lycaon. I will support a re-uploaded version with noise reduction. It will be especially easy if you have the original RAW (CR2) file as Canon Digital Photo Professional supports noise reduction. Freedom to share 17:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment (orange).svg Comment I uploaded a reprocessed version, with noise reduction from the raw file, downsampled slightly, and recropped slightly. Unfortunately, the background is still somewhat noisy, because it was shot at 400 ISO.--Ragesoss 22:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Basik07 23:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As Lycaon. --Karelj 16:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose quality. -- Ram-Man 04:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Noise is not an issue anymore, DOF maybe a bit small. Chmehl 09:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. --Mywood 20:14, 19 January 2008 (UTC) (Last vote doesnt count anymore)Reply[reply]

Image:Vose and Sons piano soundboard.jpg, not featured[edit]

Piano soundboard

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info The soundboard and strings of an upright piano. Created, uploaded and nominated by Ragesoss --Ragesoss 04:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ragesoss 04:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice cropped image, but hard to figure out what it is. -Applebee 08:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Lookatthis 16:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Good image, but not enough for FP. --Karelj 16:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose composition sorry

Sorry, you should try Commons:Quality images candidates first! --Beyond silence 21:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply] 

result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. --Mywood 20:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image:Haytor December 2007 filtered.jpg, not featured[edit]

Haytor, Dartmoor 

result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. --Mywood 20:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image:Image-Heliconius ismenius 2 Richard Bartz.jpg, featured[edit]

Short description 

result: 22 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured.--Mywood 15:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image:AlfredPalmerwelder1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Welder making boilers for a ship, Combustion Engineering Co., Chattanooga, Tenn. Another Alfred Palmer color photograph of World War II production (June 1942); muted tones this time. Clear and sharp high resolution file with excellent textures for color photography - look at the wrinkles in that work shirt. Good composition, sparks flying. How much more could you ask of a sixty-six-year-old photograph? A pretty clean print to start with; Image:AlfredPalmerwelder.jpg didn't need extensive retouching. U.S. Government public domain - uploaded by Durova - scratch and dust removal, nomination by Durova. --Durova 21:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Durova 21:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --che 03:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too dark, almoast no details visible. --Karelj 16:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not bad, but also not good enough for a featured picture (the tubes / cables hitting the head spoil the composition). --Gepardenforellenfischer 17:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. --Mywood 20:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image:F-15 vertical deploy.jpg, not delisted[edit]

F-15 showing off

Another thing, different uploader. -- carol 10:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Making FP look like idiots (which might not be such a big task):

-- carol 02:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep It met criteria when nominated, still does. A working weblink source is not required, the image has an appropriate source (USAF magazine), caption and author. --Dual Freq 02:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nice. Perhaps a larger scan then and yet another uploader? -- carol 04:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 1 Delist, 8 Keep, 0 neutral => featured. --Mywood 20:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC) (Last vote doesnt count anymore)Reply[reply]

Image:Central African Republic - Boy in Birao.jpg, featured[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by hdptcar - uploaded by Estrilda - nominated by Estrilda -- Estrilda 00:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Estrilda 00:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Impressive portrait --che 03:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support dito --norro 08:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - I don't like it, the expression seems incongruent with the fact that the child is playing, which suggests it is not natural. Furthermore, the face is too dark. - Alvesgaspar 12:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As Alvesgaspar. --Karelj 16:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like it. Concerning that the village was burnt down, his expression is realistic. The petrol lamp as a very creative/demonstrative toy ? or maybe just a hap ? ;-) --Richard Bartz 21:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"It doesn't matter what you say, they laugh at everything." Huey, at the Garden Party, circa 2005 -- carol 00:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 12 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Mywood 10:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image:Philaethria hecale 2 Richard Bartz.jpg, featured[edit]

Short description

I am certain that this should geocoded. -- carol 01:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 28 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Mywood 10:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Dianthus hyssopifolius 1.jpg

Image:MC_GruenerLeguan.jpg, not featured[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram-voting question.svg Question Is it necessary for FP to show the whole animal? I am just asking because this is the second comment in this direction... Chmehl 08:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No its not --Simonizer 11:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC) See Image:Waterfrog head.jpg, Image:Goana lace monitor.jpg or your own Image:MC Timberwolf.jpg for example. I guess some user think, that if you dont show the whole animal its less useable for wikipedia. But we are here at commons wikimedia, so that doesnt really matter. --Simonizer 11:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's what I thought, thanks. Chmehl 11:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 8 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 08:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image:Buffalo Implode2.jpg, not featured[edit]

Original[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by DragonFire1024 - uploaded by DragonFire1024 - nominated by DragonFire1024 --DragonFire1024 07:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Was also featured on the front page of Wikinews for the news it made at the time. --DragonFire1024 07:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Pictogram-voting question.svg Question Would it be possible to crop the original? The focus of interest really takes up only about 15% of the frame. I like the idea of this shot, but with trees in the foreground concealing the dust cloud and a building in the background it's hard to see what's happening. Still, buildings don't get demolished every day. Maybe a cropped version would get the nod at QI? Durova 20:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support A moment not easy too catch...Vmenkov 04:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose poor quality and light. Lycaon 20:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cropped[edit]

Short description

Is this better? DragonFire1024 21:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I am supporting the cropped version of this photograph. I like the photo because it captured, basically, the moment of implosion of the building, and you can see what is happening to the building. Nzgabriel 22:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support could do with a bit more cropping left and right. Durova 04:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I thought so too, but to the right is where the fire department is hosing down the debris as it falls. I wanted to try and get as much of that stream in the image as possible without cutting too much off otherwise it would be like 'where/what is that?'. DragonFire1024 06:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well there are two to choose from. And the crop is actually not small. DragonFire1024 09:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Detail? You cannot get anymore detailed than this. This is perfect timing. DragonFire1024 05:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Detail is seeing the light bars in the hospital. Details is seeing the blasting, the debris, the tilting and the timing. DragonFire1024 05:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pictogram voting comment (orange).svg Comment - Perhaps Beyond silence means that the quality of the detail is not good enough. The photo looks a tad blurred overall, to me. --typhoonchaser 15:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If it was blurred, IMHO, then why so much detail as I stated above? DragonFire1024 19:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - it is interesting, of good quality and, captures a lot of action. SYmODE09 03:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Though I would prefer something cropped to a size in between the sizes of the two pictures :-) Vmenkov 04:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC) Already voted above. Please vote for one of the two and not both. --typhoonchaser 09:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC) this is a different picture, votes are not added. Lycaon 20:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Insufficient quality, imho. -- Bryan (talk to me) 13:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too small and details swamped by noise. Lycaon 20:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 09:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image:Helioconius sp Richard Bartz.jpg, featured[edit]

Heliconius comprise a colorful and widespread butterfly genus distributed throughout the tropical and subtropical regions of the New World. As shown Helioconius sp.

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created & nominated by --Richard Bartz 17:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Pictogram voting info.svg InfoThis time the focus is more on the body/head, a picture where you can see my improvement since this FP which i done in August. When does we have a chance to have a eye to eye with a butterfly ?  :-)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Interesting close up, nice colors and no use of flashlight which gives a great plasticity--Richard Bartz 17:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support a great series. What kicks me most is the atmosphere of those pics..most likely bcs of the colours. They somehow stand out from the crowd of macro shots. Congrats! --AngMoKio 17:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Now that's a special one! Seems that with every new picture you are getting closer and closer to the animals. :-)) Chmehl 17:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Aaaaahhh, I havn't seen this before. Great! Chmehl 18:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very good. --Karelj 18:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Incredibly nice butterfly pictures. --Digitaldreamer 18:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Wisnia6522 18:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Simonizer 18:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very nice. RedCoat 18:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Laitche 19:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- MJJR 19:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Although beautifully composed, the wings are cut off and the depth of field is a bit too shallow. As photography, wonderful. The encyclopedic value is suboptimal because this image has limited value for identification purposes. Durova 20:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Read through the FPC rules, find a reference to encyclopedic quality and maybe I will accept your point. :) This is Commons, not Wikipedia. A different world. Freedom to share 21:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Okay, I want the whole bug. No worries; I'm sure it'll pass anyway. ;) Durova 13:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support No question about it, this is of FP quality. By the way, we are not judging images here on encyclopedic value. That's a Wikipedia rules, and does not apply here--MichaelMaggs 21:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support There needs to be no election for POTY '08, for a winner has already been found. Freedom to share 21:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very nice. --Böhringer 22:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great! How much did you spend to have this pin-up posing for you? --LucaG 00:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 2 neutral => featured. Mywood 09:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image:Montagna Cortina d'Ampezzo.JPG, not featured[edit]

Montagna Cortina d'Ampezzo.JPG

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info
    English:
The Dolomites (a section of the Alps) near Cortina d'Ampezzo, a popular winter sport resort in the province of Belluno, Veneto, northern Italy.
Italiano: Una sezione delle Dolomiti a ridosso di Cortina d'Ampezzo

Created & nominated by --Laziale93 21:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Laziale93 21:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It's a mountain... I have established that fact. The problem is that there are huge amounts of mountain pics, right? What about this one makes it stand out to such an extent that it is worthy of an FP? Make the weather look dramatic, wake up early and do a sunrise pic, but in order to make this into an FP you would have to impress me and other reviewers, a task you have failed at. Freedom to share 22:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment (orange).svg Comment Please Freedom to share try to be a little more soft when you oppose. He is 14 y.o. and this one is not so bad as a first try. Can we suggest to try Quality Image first?. Here some advice for him:
    Ciao Laziale, non farti scoraggiare da questo tipo di commenti poco gentili e ben poco costruttivi. L'immagine non è affatto male ma devi tenere presente che qui si cerca di "eleggere" le migliori foto in assoluto tra le migliaia che vengono caricate ogni giorno. Prima di provare una candidatura come Feature Picture ti consiglio di provare a candidare le tue immagini come Quality Image dove viene giudicata soprattutto la qualità tecnica. Per le Feature Pictures, oltre alla qualità tecnica deve esistere quello che qui chiamano "WOW factor" che vuol dire che l'immagine deve lasciare a bocca aperta. Per questa tua foto in particolare devo dire che dal punto di vista tecnico è presente molto rumore digitale che la penalizza e manca un po' di contrasto. Ti consiglio anche di aggiungere sempre un commento in inglese alla tue foto per renderle più facilmente utilizzabile dai progetti internazionali. Se hai bisono di aiuto chiedi pure. Ciao LucaG 00:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok. grazie mille ;) --Laziale93 12:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • You are right. Sorry for shooting down the image so quickly and not making my arguments heard first. Look, Laziale93, I am not disputing that I like this mountain. This could be an excellent photo, but you need something to really make it stand out. Look at this image, for example. Image:Mexico-Popocatepetl.jpg. A normal volcano, it seemed, but what made it special was the lighting and the sunset. Without the light: a normal volcano that would probably not make it. This one I especially love. Image:Engelberg 01.JPG. A normal mountain, like yours? Yes, but it was the fog that helped make the WOW effect and create the picture. What I recommend is: buy yourself a tripod (and get in the habit of using it. It will allow you to expose for longer and help you with composition) if you don't already have one and experiment with many different lighting conditions as well. My first FPC was shot down (lost the nomination) too. But this didn't discourage me and I am still taking photos. So, if this one is not passed, don't worry. Try again, hopefully, if you can, the same mountain, at sunrise, sunset, fog or twilight (period between night and sunrise or sunset) and you will see that your results improve a lot. If you need any more help, ask LucaG, for he is probably the best landscape photographer we have here at the moment. (Luca, would you mind translating this if his English is not that good?) Freedom to share 09:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Hai ragione. Mi spiace di aver scartato la tua foto tanto in fretta senza prima spiegarne le ragioni. Guarda, Laziale93, che non dico che non mi piaccia questa montagna. Questa potrebbe essere un'eccellente fotografia ma ti serve qualcosa che la renda veramente notevole. Guarda questa immagine, per esempio: Image:Mexico-Popocatepetl.jpg. Sembrerebbe un normale vulcano ma quello che lo rende speciale è la luce particolare del tramonto. Senza questa luce sarebbe un comune vulcano senza niente di eccezionale. Guarda anche quest'altra fotografia che mi piace in particolar modo: Image:Engelberg 01.JPG. Una normale montagna come la tua? Certo, ma l'effetto della nebbia la rende eccezionale. Quello che ti consiglio io è: se non lo hai già, comprati un cavalletto (e abituati ad usarlo sempre, ti consentirà tempi di esposizione più lunghi e ti aiuterà nella composizione dell'immagine) e fai esperimenti con diverse esposizioni e con differenti condizioni di luce. Anche la prima foto che ho candidato io non fu accettata ma questo non mi ha scoraggiato e continuo a scattare fotografie. Quindi se questa tua foto non passa, non ti preoccupare, prova ancora, magari con la stessa montagna, all'alba, al tramonto, con la nebbia o al crepuscolo e ti accorgerai di come miglioreranno i tuoi risultati. (Freedom to share comment, transated to IT by LucaG 22:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC))Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--B.navez 04:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Incredible for 14 years old. I like the cloud shadow in the valley. Nice mountain shape. DragonFire1024 07:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Fine composition but poor photographic quality: little detail and artifacts -- Alvesgaspar 11:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose agree with Alvesgaspar Tbc 16:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose sharpness --Beyond silence 21:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 09:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image:SanFrancisco1851a.jpg, featured[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info An 1851 daguerrotype of Portsmouth Square, San Francisco. During the daguerrotype era portraiture predominated. Street scenes were unusual and this - from the height of the California gold rush - has particular historical value. Focus is good enough that most of the building signs are legible. I've kept the file on the large side for that reason. Removed the artifacts painstakingly with (I hope) minimal affect to actual data. Adjusted the histogram and denoised the sky. No other changes from Image:SanFrancisco1851.jpg. Created by unknown - uploaded by Durova - nominated by Durova. --Durova 02:12, 12 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Durova 02:12, 12 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Now that is a hell of a picture for 150 years ago. DragonFire1024 07:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support stunning --Jeses 20:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportIt looks like a new ski resort in summer. Seriously fascinating--B.navez 10:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment (orange).svg Comment to me it needs about 1deg tilt clockwise, otherwise consider this a support. Gnangarra 13:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great glimpse of Old San Francisco.--Sandahl 02:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. - Anonymous DissidentTalk 11:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image:Buffalo Sunrise May 24.07-2.jpg, not featured[edit]

Sunrise with a shooting star.

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by DragonFire1024 - uploaded by DragonFire1024 - nominated by DragonFire1024 --DragonFire1024 07:05, 12 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --DragonFire1024 07:05, 12 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The foreground (as in everything other than the sky) is way too dark, a pitfall I too often encountered. The easiest (but not especially cheap) way to solve is to use a graduated ND filter. This is a pitfall I too fell into on multiple occasions and your best chance maybe would be to overexpose the whole scene and try to salvage it in Photoshop. Freedom to share 09:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The focus is not the foreground/houses. Those are not the primary elements of the picture. To photoshop this would destroy the picture's natural setting. Should it really matter that much if you cannot see the tops of houses? DragonFire1024 23:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not a great picture. For a better similar colored shot, see: this. -- Ram-Man 05:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sunrise with a shooting star.

I modified the foreground. I admit, it does look better. DragonFire1024 00:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Are you kidding? I mean lets be realistic here. I simply cannot take a hammer ans straighten the chimney. DragonFire1024 17:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just for saying picture is tilted for we can see it from the chimneys. But it wouldn't change anything for me even if they were straight : fine scenery but no enough for FP in my POV. Sorry.--B.navez 18:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not a great picture. For a better similar colored shot, see: this. -- Ram-Man 05:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 22:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC) (Rule of the 5th day)Reply[reply]

Image:Tattered Israeli flag in Jerusalem by David Shankbone.jpg[edit]

Short description

I find it disturbing tht you would even criticize the fact that the tip of the pole is missing. Ridiculous. DragonFire1024 17:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I find disturbing your lack of knowledge of the basic guidelines --Orlovic (talk) 14:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dialog-warning.svg
 Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: Quality issues Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

--- Anonymous DissidentTalk 00:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image:Quadriga by eduardo89.jpg, not featured[edit]

Quadriga above Brandenburger Tor in Berlin, Germany 

result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 22:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC) (Rule of the 5th day)Reply[reply]

Image:Sunflower with bee.jpg, not featured[edit]

Bee on sunflower

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Louise Joly - uploaded by Gordon Joly (Gordo) - nominated by Gordon Joly (Gordo 21:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC))Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Gordo 21:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - I'm afraid the insect bar is far too high for this picture. Little detail and much noise. Alvesgaspar 21:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I'm sorry, but I'm with Alves here. It is very noisy and the bee is a little out of focus. Doodle-doo Ħ 22:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose There are 2 much London smog particles which causes a lot of noise ;-) --Richard Bartz 22:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 22:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC) (Rule of the 5th day)Reply[reply]

Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:The Soviet Union 1958 CPA 2116 stamp (Qi Baishi) cancelled.jpg

Image:Peacock 00788-b.jpg, not featured[edit]

White peacock

  • Pictogram voting info.svg InfoWhite peacock, Pavo cristatus albus created by Nevit - uploaded by Nevit - nominated by Nevit --Nevit 20:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Very low digital quality and a lot of coloured digital noise. It's a pity. Sting 01:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 0 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 22:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC) (Rule of the 5th day)Reply[reply]

Image:Milky Way galaxy.jpg, not featured[edit]

Short description 

result: 0 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 22:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC) (Rule of the 5th day)Reply[reply]

Image:MacBook Air 1.jpg[edit]

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

--MichaelMaggs 07:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image:Victoriabeckhamlv.jpg[edit]

Short description

  • cropped version of this photo

    cropped version of this photo

Dialog-warning.svg
 Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: too small following the guidelines, has a lot of digital noise and is unsharp - Sting 01:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply] Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
Can someone reduce the noise with Photoshop? I don't have photoshop. Also, I don't think this picture is too small. We are voting for the first photo only. miranda 01:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The picture size is only 1.65Mpx large which is insufficient for this kind of photo depicting a non-exceptional subject. Photoshop allows to make many things, still not miracles : this picture is unrecoverable. Sting 14:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose What's so special about the picture or the lady pictured? Vmenkov 04:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'll just Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination miranda 06:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No need to oppose if it's been withdrawn. And who says Victoria Beckham is non-exceptional? The photo's just low-quality and not very flattering. Rocket000 12:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image:Aedes albopictus on human skin.jpg[edit]

Mosquito on skin

Pictogram voting delete.svg Durova 19:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image:Osmanli-devleti-nisani-yeni.png[edit]

Coat of arms of Ottoman Empire

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

Lycaon 15:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Pictogram-voting question.svg Question I have contacted the creator of this image and he has created SVG version of this image with correct size and fixed colours. Should I create new nomination as file name and extension has changed? --Papuass 22:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I'm not sure. I say just make a new nomination to get more time. I support the SVG (I don't know if the colors are right or not, but there's some good vector work there.) Rocket000 10:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • OK, then I withdraw the nomination to let creator iron out problems mentioned. Pictogram voting delete.svg Papuass 16:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image:Cheval jade Inde Musée Guimet 2497B.jpg, not featured[edit]

Jade Knife Handle

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Vassil - uploaded by Vassil - nominated by Noumenon --Noumenon talk 03:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Noumenon talk 03:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral It's a nice picture that is very crisp, but I don't see the excitement, or the oohs and the ahhs. DragonFire1024 07:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Ooh ! not only a jewel, I feel the horse alive.--B.navez 08:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Quality doesn't convince me. Dori - Talk 00:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice photo. --Karelj 23:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Several edge artefacts at high contrast transition areas (sorry for your camera) which should be corrected first. Sting 15:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Bergwolf 10:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Good topic, but insufficient quality (artefacts). Lycaon 20:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Mywood 08:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image:Siegelfurnace1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Hanna furnaces of the Great Lakes Steel Corporation, Detroit, Mich. Coal tower atop coke ovens. November, 1942. Original Image:Siegelfurnace.jpg needed minimal restoration: small amounts of dust and fiber removed. No other alteration. Created by Arthur Siegel (U.S. Gov't public domain) - uploaded by Durova - nominated by Durova --Durova 12:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Durova 12:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great image of the inner core. DragonFire1024 01:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Allmost an abstraction--B.navez 10:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose detail --Beyond silence 21:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 08:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image:Leopard Lacewing Cethosia cyane 2 Richard Bartz .jpg, featured[edit]

Short description

As that one is not detailed as this one ? They all have different aspects. P.S I am wondering that you dont opposed for my nametag in the imagename as you do normaly ;-) --Richard Bartz 18:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh ! So now you think I'm taking it personal ?!
Btw, I liked the « as you do normaly » rofl
For this photo you're right : it might be more a question of sharpness, as half of the right wing is out of focus. Sting 23:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 result: 12 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Mywood 08:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image:Heliconius sp Richard Bartz.jpg, not featured[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created & nominated by --Richard Bartz 12:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice environment --Richard Bartz 12:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Aqwis 15:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support it seems to be a sort of paradise for butterflies somewhere in winter --B.navez 19:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The body of the insect is in the dark. Not Featured Picture quality, sorry. MrHarman 01:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment (orange).svg Comment Why do you include your name in the file name?? It seems to be a rarely used convention here in Wikipedia Commons. MrHarman 01:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I've seen it quite a few times, suppose it makes it easier to track your file.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 02:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • The reason is simple: If someone use it outside wikipedia/media the author tag in the description is lapsed, so my signature is the only tiny think, pointing to the author. --Richard Bartz 12:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support like the hairs on the leaf. Doesn't matter that insect body is dark. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 02:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Yes. --LucaG 21:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not as good as comparable pictures. -- Ram-Man 04:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As Ram-Man. --Karelj 23:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Due to lighting. Dori - Talk 00:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 08:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image:Great Fountain Geyser Sunset.jpg, featured[edit]

Great Fountain Geyser at Yellowstone National Park at sunset

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by Flicka
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Flicka 15:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Urban 17:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support A bit out of focus, but I like the sun behind the Geyser. Chmehl 19:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Returning to commons after some break with a pro! --Jeses 20:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral not very exciting. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 02:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support very nice lighting quality. --- Anonymous DissidentTalk 05:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I thought it was not allowed fishing this way --B.navez 10:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral The composition doesn't make it for me, next time try the rule of thirds to enhance composition. It's also somewhat noisy and the distribution of colours looks disproportionate—the trees are too dark whilst the steam is almost burnt out. I'm not sure the "wow" factor is there either, IMHO. RedCoat 15:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Do as you want but IMHO it's better changing nothing --B.navez 16:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • No, I won't do any changes. The picture is as near at the rule of thirds as possible without cropping important parts. And in fact I wanted the trees to be nearly black because IMHO the green trees would have disturbed the composition. And to make the steam look darker would be unrealistic. --Flicka 18:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Flicka is doing great pictures and this is no exception --Richard Bartz 22:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Excellent photo, great lighting. Freedom to share 07:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Bergwolf 10:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good capture. --Dori - Talk 16:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Luc Viatour 15:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 2 neutral => featured. Mywood 08:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image:Michal Malak at Tour de Ski.jpg, featured[edit]

Michal Malak at Tour de Ski

  • If anything I'd say it's been denoised too much. Look at the black areas, completely free of noise. Not sure where you're seeing this noise. --Dori - Talk 16:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportSnow seems true one--B.navez 09:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, less noise than in a certain picture that was featured on the main page a few days ago. --Aqwis 17:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good enough. There's hardly any noise; looks more like chromatic aberration to me, but nothing really. RedCoat 15:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I mostly oppose because of the distractions on the left; the people taking pictures etc.... makes the image less subject-focused. - Anonymous DissidentTalk 15:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Yes, that's true. A distracting background often ruins what is an otherwise good photo. The subject however seems to be in focus here and the DOF looks okay, so I don't think it should be too much of a problem. Just my two cents. :) RedCoat 16:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • Background is not distracting and doesn't ruin but enhance the subject. Otherwise he would be a kind of unmaterial icon. It's a ski contest, isn't it ? --B.navez 16:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good sports shot. Freedom to share 17:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Dori - Talk 00:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment (orange).svg Comment I'm waiting for cropped version :) Przykuta 14:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Mywood 08:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image:Hugo-Chavéz Vota.jpg, not featured[edit]

Hugo Chavéz, President of Venezuela, votes in the December 2, 2007 referendum.

I read it well. But propaganda can be indirect, that is the modern way of instrumentalisation of the media, no matter the kind of régime. And that is what makes all the value of this picture, all the scene arrangement with red and green shirts. That is why I support the picture. Technical features are enough for a professional press agency, is it enough for the luxurious standards of FP ? Some below think not.--B.navez 08:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 8 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 09:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image:NYC steam explosion 2007 people debris.jpg, not featured[edit]

New York City steam explosion, July 18, 2007. Photo taken in front of the New York City Public Library. 

result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 09:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image:Perth foreshore panorama.jpg, not featured[edit]

Panorama photograph of the Perth foreshore taken on a Saturday afternoon. 

result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 09:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image:Uljanik 2.jpg, not featured[edit]

Uljanik shipyard in Pula

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded by and nominated by --Orlovic (talk) 13:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Orlovic (talk) 13:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- Possible copyright violation, please show source of scan. Gnangarra 13:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Look: I searched a family photo album and found it. Please do not disrupt voting with unbased assumptions--Orlovic (talk) 14:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • I think people should speak out if they have a reason to doubt the copyright. /Daniel78 18:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I like it. Can you add some additional information like a date when it was taken maybe? --AngMoKio 16:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
see now, exact year is hard to confirm. --Orlovic (talk) 19:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I also like that kind of pictures, which are already 'historical'. According to the car models, it must be from the 60's or early 70's indeed. I doubt, however, if the over all quality is sufficient fot FP. -- MJJR 21:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Can you shoot this place nowadays? Sidik iz PTU 16:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
no way, sorry. Access to the cranes is restricted--Orlovic (talk) 14:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 2 neutral => not featured. Mywood 09:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image:Aletschgletscher-Eggishorn.jpg, featured[edit]

Aletschgletscher seen from Eggishorn (Switzerland) 

 result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral =>  featured. Mywood 09:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image:Alhambra wall detail.jpg, not featured[edit]

Short description 

result: 2 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 09:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image:Copenhagen Metro escalators.jpg, featured[edit]

Escalators in Copenhagen metro station

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Stig Nygaard - uploaded by Arria Belli - nominated by Arria Belli. Arria Belli | parlami 22:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Sharp, interesting lighting, good angle. The lighting in particular makes it intriguing (at least to me). Arria Belli | parlami 22:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support technically ok, composition quite is quite good. I have to agree with parlamiArria regarding the lighting. --che 23:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The parlami link in my signature just means "talk to me" in Italian. ^^ No worries, though; you can call me Arria. Arria Belli | parlami 01:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Sorry for that, I got confused :-) --che 17:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose edited version; I don't quite like how hand rails touch the border. --che 23:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - weakly. Is pretty boring from my personal view, but that's just my opinion. --- Anonymous DissidentTalk 09:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great composition! --Beyond silence 12:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --AngMoKio 18:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I like it, but noise reduction and perspective correction could make the image even better. Chmehl 20:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral -- Agree with Chemhl, I'll support when done. This is a superb composition. -- Alvesgaspar 21:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Very nice composition... and.. i think ive used that very escalator.. not sure though.. since they all look the same ;) 213.64.164.26 21:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC) Sorry that was me :/ Yzmo 21:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good composition. --MichaelMaggs 22:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support No any information, but looks pretty good. --Karelj 23:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment (orange).svg Comment Thanks to Lycaon for the modifications. Photo editing is beyond me. Arria Belli | parlami 10:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment (orange).svg Comment It's fantastic composition. But a BUTTS on the lower left, dark areas digital noise, they are All Right? --Fukutaro 16:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support top --Böhringer 21:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support great.--Jeses 16:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Awesome! miranda 00:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Bergwolf 10:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice snapshot. Almost all people just pass without noticing this place.--Tobi 87 15:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support RedCoat 23:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment (orange).svg Comment Cropped version will be better Przykuta 14:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Luc Viatour 15:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 16 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral =>  featured. Mywood 09:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image:SileCasier.jpg, not featured[edit]

Sile river in Casier

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

Lycaon 19:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pictogram voting info.svg InfoCategorized, deleted the noise and some more sharped.--Lissen 21:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image:Sparkly lips.jpg, not featured[edit]

Image shows female lips with a piercing 

result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 11:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image:Vertical clit hood piercing.jpg, not featured[edit]

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

Lycaon 12:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image:Agarplate redbloodcells edit.jpg, featured[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Public domain image from cancer.gov.[6] Red blood cells on an agar plate are used to diagnose infection. The visible colonies on both plates come from the growth of bacteria that has infected the red blood cells. The two plates have blood cells infected with different types of bacteria. The plate on the left shows a positive staphyloccus infection. The plate on the right shows a positive streptococcus infection and with the halo effect shows specifically a beta-hemolytic group A. These infections can occur in patients on chemotherapy. Image taken 10/1985 by Bill Branson. AV-8510-3737 - original version uploaded by Quintote edited by Fir0002 - nominated by Durova. --Durova 11:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Durova 11:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Like the contrast. Dori - Talk 18:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice Speagles 05:14, 19 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support RedCoat 23:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pictogram-voting question.svg Question I think, there is to much information in the picture. What you wanted to say via thisone?--Juan de Vojníkov 01:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    • The information came from a U.S. Government website. It's a set of petri dishes used to diagnose infections. I think the composition and colors are excellent. Durova 04:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral OK. Than let me be neutral in this case. The picture itself is good, but I think its bringing to much informaion.--Juan de Vojníkov 08:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Too much information?? We like information here! The more, the better. :) Rocket000 22:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Who "we"? I thought Wikimedia Commons is a repository shared by other Wikimedia projects. So the information is usually there in written form. Thats why I am also a neutral in here.--Juan de Vojníkov 08:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sometimes one image gets used at four or five different articles. Different parts of a long description could be useful to each article. Durova 10:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I support information. Let's have more of it! Samsara 23:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 5 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Mywood 17:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image:Senf-Variationen.jpg, featured[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Rainer Zenz - uploaded by Rainer Zenz - nominated by --Richard Bartz 12:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Variations of mustard
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very good --Richard Bartz 12:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Good work, but not FP IMO. There are spots of dirt throughout, and the lighting isn't very good for a "studio" shot. Dori - Talk 15:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very good good --Böhringer 21:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose What's interesting about this? DragonFire1024 05:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Rabensteiner 15:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Beyond silence 09:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Thermos 09:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --I like it very much, this serial is very well thought with a regular shooting but its technical quality is lacking a bit too much for supporting it : the harsh lightning burned the highlights which take a quiet large area in the two centre images. Using an umbrella and may be a secondary source should resolve this. Also, the scratches of the neutral background could have been post-processed. Sting 15:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your imaginations are exorbitant. We should assume that most of this pictures here are done by photography amateurs. Who without professional Photoshop skills + DSLR gear (and a umbrella flash --- laughting out very loud!) should ever fulfil the FP qualifications ? This isnt Tony Stone agency here, sorry ,-) --Richard Bartz 18:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • These are studio pictures which aren't very difficult to reproduce. I completed my vote with what imo could help better them, as advice if you want. I could also have voted without any further comment, if you prefer. You proposed the image so I hope you are ready to accept the opinion of each voter, even if it isn't the same as yours. The quality level required for featured articles goes up in the different WPs, so does it here regarding the number of candidates. Sting 20:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- MartinD 20:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Bergwolf 10:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Suricata 19:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support very good illustration, but I will look for better background ;) Przykuta 14:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not a good idea how to depict the subject you wanted to show. Its not aesthetic. There might be better way, how to depict it. Try to play with the subject.--Juan de Vojníkov 01:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I'm afraid the light is rather too harsh for a studio shot. --MichaelMaggs 22:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Useful image. Illustrative. Samsara 23:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I'm not comfortable with the lighting. Lycaon 13:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment (orange).svg Comment Votes added on day 10 or after are not counted, sorry. --Richard Bartz 15:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply] 
result: 10 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Mywood 17:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC) (Last oppose vote after voting period)Reply[reply]

Image:Bourganvilla flower.jpg, not featured[edit]

Short description

Not all flowers can be focused. But the main flower is perfect. Muhammad Mahdi Karim 05:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Harsh lighting and overexposure. Plus, at this aperture diffraction is really going to eat at your resolution a dull down the sharpness (assuming the EXIF info isn't fake, since f/9.4 is a very unusual aperture for a small point-and-shoot with a 1/2.5" sensor). -- Ram-Man 01:35, 19 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Juan de Vojníkov 01:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 4 oppose, 1 support (nominator), 0 neutral => not featured (rule of the fifth day). Lycaon 06:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image:Żelechów-fields.jpg, not featured[edit]

Fields near Żelechów, Poland.

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by sfu - uploaded by sfu - nominated by Sfu 13:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose While it certainly is a good quality image, it lacks the WOW factor required to elevate it to FP level. Freedom to share 21:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Anyway, its nice. Try next time to nominate something. I would say, the picture is trying to tell the story, but it is difficult for us to find a key how to read it. The problem is e.g. that the pure surface of the sky is to big to the fragmented Earth. Have one question for you: "What the tree tell us?" Maybe if you make kinda cut it will help:)--Juan de Vojníkov 00:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC) - Huh, cropping you call it in English.--Juan de Vojníkov 08:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 2 oppose, 0 support, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of the fifth day). Lycaon 06:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image:Reymomo.svg, not featured[edit]

Es considerado el rey de los Carnavales en numerosas festividades de América Latina, principalmente en Brasil y Colombia. Su aparición significa el comienzo de las fiestas de Carnaval. Cada carnaval tiene su propio Rey Momo, a quién se le suele dar la llave de la ciudad. Tradicionalmente, un hombre alto y gordo es elegido para interpretar dicho papel.3D Versión:Es considerado el rey de los Carnavales en numerosas festividades de América Latina, principalmente en Brasil y Colombia. Su aparición significa el comienzo de las fiestas de Carnaval. Cada carnaval tiene su propio Rey Momo, a quién se le suele dar la llave de la ciudad. Tradicionalmente, un hombre alto y gordo es elegido para interpretar dicho papel.

Thanks --libertad0 ॐ 20:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question: Can someone please translate the image description to en or de? I don't get it. --norro 00:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wait, why is this even here?? It's listed for removal. Rocket000 10:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply] 

result: 1 oppose, 1 support (nominator), 0 neutral => not featured (rule of the fifth day). Lycaon 06:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image:Pet Rock-2003.jpg[edit]

Pet Rock-2003.jpg

Joke? You might offend me and my adoptee.... -- carol 08:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Pictogram-voting question.svg Question Could you please send me the scan of some ID papers so I can see if it genuinely is a part of your family? Freedom to share 09:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The pet rock phenomena occurred before the much more thoroughly documented cabbage patch dolls. I think (or assume) that they learned some lessons from problems (like this one where you are in need of id papers) in between these adoptive feats. Things/life were/was not fun in the cold war, btw. We feared for our lives every waking minute and some of the sleeping ones as well. -- carol 10:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Of course both--B.navez 15:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose zoo shot, I like to see these things in the wild. --Dori - Talk 16:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info This will have to be nominated for deletion unless propper attribution to the original authorrs is added. Aafter all this is a derivative work. ;-) --Dschwen 17:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment (orange).svg Comment Nice job with adding the EXIF data. You have done a very thorough job. Freedom to share 17:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am not going to argue for the integrity of the image, but here is something that you might think about. Your assumption is that Alves has the real photograph and mine isn't even though the exif information says otherwise? Some additional background might be good to think about also. I have been -- to the best of my ability, understanding and knowledge, 100% honest and mostly respectful of FPC before this image; yet the 'nod' of honesty goes to Alves, even when the exif information says otherwise? Another thing to think about, is it good to have a new participant/observer take that slide from respect and honesty to 'whatever'? Unless I missed something important.
Also, editing exif information is not easy and potentially very dangerous. Do not try this at home or even in a light-industrial office space or less. It is safer to go play in the road. -- carol 04:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It's so cute! Calibas 20:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose You can't be serious! Don't you see that it's the backside? --Flicka 21:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nothing so special. --Karelj 23:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose ... ;-) Rocket000 10:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Conditional support I'll support as long as there is no chance of this passing (since it is a joke). --Digon3 talk 16:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment I would have withdrawn it if there had been any threat of getting enough positive votes. Truth be known, I received a off brand pet rock from my parents during the short lived fad. I also lost that one and appreciate that I found such an obviously loved rock here. Where did the paint come from, btw? -- carol 16:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I don't think it is paint. I think it is just part of the rock. However, if no one likes it I can probably desaturate or clone out those spots. --Digon3 talk 17:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I wouldn't change the color at all -- there are two white hairs on it though, perhaps they should go? I grew quite fond of this rock, so my opinion might be kind of unreliable. -- carol 20:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Fragmented, camera in the bad possition. It can be better.--Juan de Vojníkov 00:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Pictogram voting comment (orange).svg Comment -- I suspect you didn't even care reading the previous comments !-- Alvesgaspar 09:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • No, I should?--Juan de Vojníkov 13:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • I actually thought that this was the very best suggestion of the problems with this photograph. -- carol 10:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination Pictogram voting comment (orange).svg Comment I don't want to stand in the way of progress. -- carol 15:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image:Scoria Macro Digon3.jpg[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Digon3 --Digon3 talk 17:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment (orange).svg Comment I fixed the shadow, so I'll just see how this goes. --Digon3 talk 17:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment (orange).svg Comment The shade could be better. Natural stone and synthetic shade, this doesnt goes together. It might be better.--Juan de Vojníkov 00:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination
  • I'll wait until I can properly fix the shadow and the nomination below is done. --Digon3 talk 15:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image:Härlen3.jpg[edit]

Short description

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

Lycaon 12:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Pictogram-voting question.svg Question is there a bigger version available? As the photo was made with a 20D there should be one actually. I like the photo. --AngMoKio 19:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image:Central Pier 9.jpg, featured[edit]

Night Scene of Pier 9, Central Piers, Hongkong 

result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Mywood 22:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC) (Last Support vote after voting period)Reply[reply]

Image:Anserinae 07273.jpg, not featured[edit]

Short description 

result: 1 oppose, 0 support, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of the fifth day).--Mywood 22:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image:CMOC Treasures of Ancient China exhibit - bronze gui.jpg, not featured[edit]

Short description 

result: 1 support (nominator), 0 neutral => not featured (rule of the fifth day). --Mywood 22:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image:Patti Smith performing in Finland, 2007.jpg, featured[edit]

Patti Smith in concert 

result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. The Watusi 06:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image:Minard.png, featured[edit]

Minard chart

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Charles Minard, 1869 - uploaded by User:Renata3 - nominated by Jeff Dahl --Jeff Dahl 06:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Jeff Dahl 06:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support A classic of its genre. Durova 08:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - You mean, it has not been featured yet? Vmenkov 11:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Pictogram-voting question.svg Question What is this? --WarX 17:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • It's a graphic representation of Napoleon's disastrous invasion of Russia. He entered the country with nearly half a million men and left it with a mere ten thousand. This campaign was the turning point of Napoleon's career and had profound impact on the history of Europe. The graphic incorporates geographic landmarks, dates, temperature, and troop detachments as well as the dwindling ranks. It's so highly regarded that 140 years after publication it's still used in textbooks. Durova 20:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --A classic and a must in visual information communication (and this, almost one and half century ago). The reproduction is excellent but the filename is quiet weak. Sting 20:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --WarX 22:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Pictogram-voting question.svg Question Why not SVG ? --libertad0 ॐ 13:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I briefly considered this possibility, but would it really be that beneficial? Could you justify the effort? Jeff Dahl 18:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • This is a 19th century illustration, doesn't make any sense to convert it to svg! -- Alvesgaspar 19:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Converting would alter it too much for a historical illustration. I suppose it could be vectorized to look exactly the same, but that's a lot of work for very little added value. Rocket000 11:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- It is a famous and important illustration, and the reproduction is very good -- Alvesgaspar 19:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Dont like, but also dont understand.--Juan de Vojníkov 01:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Mywood 10:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image:Mont-Tremblant Quebec Canada.jpg, featured[edit]

A panoramic view of the Mont-Tremblant Quebec Canada 

result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Mywood 10:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image:Cilician Armenia-en.svg, featured[edit]

Map of the Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia during the 13th century

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created and uploaded by Sémhur - nominated by Sting --Sting 14:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --A clear and clean historical map with representation of the relief in the background and imo with a good choice for the colours. Sting 14:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Encore une très belle réalisation de l'atelier graphique. Bravo Sémhur! Ayack 16:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Beyond silence 21:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment (orange).svg Comment - good work, but why it is not used in any WM projects? Przykuta 13:59, 20 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have finished this map last sunday. The french version is already in used, the english version not yet. Sémhur 16:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support ok Sémhur, but on fr wiki use fr lang map on main page ;) Przykuta 23:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Great work. Shakki 18:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Its nearly perfect. Image itself its perfect, bacground informations looks good. I am only missing one thing. Could you offer source map, that we can translate it to other languages, such as cs? It would be nice and than I would say: "professional work was done".--Juan de Vojníkov 01:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The SVG files are easily translatable. At the bottom of the description of the map, you can read this template: "This SVG file uses embedded text that can be easily translated into your language. Learn more." If you click on the link, you will see methods to translate an SVG file. (Regardless, if you still have a problem to translate, tell me on my talk page and I will help you.) Sémhur 09:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Upst, I am stupid. Yes, so we can say its perfect:-)--Juan de Vojníkov 13:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeOppose--Uannis 15:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Could you give your reasons to this opposite vote, please ? Sémhur 16:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Mywood 10:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image:Double O Arch-Arches NP-Utah.jpg, not featured[edit]

Double O Arch in Arches National Park/Utah 

result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 10:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image:Romanesco Brassica oleracea Richard Bartz.jpg[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created , uploaded & nominated by --Richard Bartz 17:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Pictogram-voting question.svg Question Do you like space vegetables ? -- You should see this in 100% size ;-)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Romanesco broccoli or fractal broccoli is an edible flower of the species Brassica oleracea and a variant form of cauliflower.
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice details --Richard Bartz 17:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Dust spots throughout, and possibly a clone job gone bad at the top. They should be fixed as it doesn't take much effort to do so. Dori - Talk 18:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It lacks something but I can't quite put my finger on it. The lighting bothers me, perhaps not enough front lighting. The tips at the top are too white maybe. It's valuable, but it seems to lack some of that undefinable wow. Maybe others will disagree. -- Ram-Man 01:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is lacking in quality perhaps? -- carol 08:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Pictogram-voting question.svg Question Whats that? Is it a flower, fruit or stem? How big it is? Can you offers some article e.g. in English about this?--Juan de Vojníkov 01:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Well, now I know what is that, but I had to ask. I dont like it - its plain and it should be in the context. So even its nice I am oppose. It can be Callus or something like that.--Juan de Vojníkov 08:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image:Romanesco Brassica oleracea close Richard Bartz.jpg, not featured[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created , uploaded & nominated by --Richard Bartz 17:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment (orange).svg Comment A tad more impressive --Richard Bartz 17:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry Richard, I really like your work so don't think I'm after you or something. I think the lighting could be a lot better here to make it interesting enough for FP. Also don't like the composition that much. Dori - Talk 18:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support: Whoever said dust spots, clean your monitor. DragonFire1024 02:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Chmehl 07:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Bergwolf 10:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose No WOW factor, piece of vegetable is only piece of vegetable. --Karelj 20:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice piece of vegetable ;) nice details. Acarpentier 22:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Quality isn't that great and the resolution is too low. -- Ram-Man 01:37, 19 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Aqwis 13:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like it but the resolution is mediocre, whatever lens you used isn't meant to go up to f/32. Excellent illustration of Fibonacci numbers in nature. Calibas 20:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The details look rather noisy to me. Estrilda 08:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose There is something bad in the bottom part of the picture, and maybe becouse it is not so common it would need a scale.--Juan de Vojníkov 08:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 6 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 10:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image:HMS Belfast - Boiler diagram.svg, featured[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info A diagram of the HMS Belfast's boiler. Created by Shakki - uploaded by Shakki - nominated by Sémhur --Sémhur 19:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Sémhur 19:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Please consider adding (either in the image itself or in the description) some kind of scale of measurement. Perhaps the silhouette of a person standing next to it will work. Too many diagrams lack this important universal reference. Also consider giving the flame shooting out from #3 a little more emphasis. Otherwise, nice work! Jeff Dahl 20:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I have asked for the size to the uploader of the original photograph, but he take a trip currently. Sémhur 09:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I have added a process explanation. Is it clear enough now ? Sémhur 12:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • so ... superheated steam is going back to head, where it's directed to pipes. But if so, the head should be double-walled to not mix incoming heat steam and superheated one? --WarX 19:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • I think you are right : the header may be double-walled. But I'm not sure... Sémhur 18:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 12 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Mywood 10:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Paviljoentje, Hoogstraat 28, Brugge.jpg

Image:Grad_Kamen_obzidje.JPG[edit]

Grad Kamen

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

Lycaon 13:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image:Rooma 2006 044.jpg[edit]

Sculpture from the wall of Basilica di San Giovanni in Laterano in Rome depicting evangelist Matthew.

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

Lycaon 13:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image:Lac St André granier.jpg[edit]

Beautiful scenery of the French countryside

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

Lycaon 23:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image:Earth building interior.jpg, not featured[edit]

Short description 

result: 2 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 14:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image:Snail pit tulou.jpg, not featured[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created and uploaded by Gisling - nominated by Mywood --Mywood 08:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Pictogram voting info.svg InfoHakka tulou(earth buildings) at Tianluokeng (Snail Pit village) in southwestern Fujian provice, China.
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportSo surprising--B.navez 02:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Interesting Speagles 05:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Mywood 11:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Low quality, unsharp, flat. --Karelj 21:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, looks too flat and washed out to me. Wasn't this nominated last year? --MichaelMaggs 22:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per MichaelMaggs. I also remember having seen it (or something very similar) before, but I couldn't find traces :-(. Lycaon 13:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 14:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Cervus nippon 002.jpg

Image:Panorámica valle Benasque.jpg, not featured[edit]

Benasque valley 

result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Mywood 14:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image:El Espinar San Rafael.jpg, not featured[edit]

El Espinar San Rafael.jpg 

result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 14:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image:Waldenburg1945edit.jpg, featured[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info An example of wartime destruction during World War II. Soldiers file through a street past the abandoned hulls of destroyed buildings. Smoke fills the scene, although none of it comes from the chimneys of the ruined structures. The lines lead the viewer's eye along the street to the Lachnersturm, a town wall tower - the only building that has survived (the view is taken from the church tower). Small elements of normality make the rest appear all the more forlorn: a shop sign still hangs from a building's only remaining wall and two soldiers stare at a cat that wanders through the rubble. Created by 2d Lt. Jacob Harris (U.S. Government public domain) - uploaded by MickStephenson after several previous uses and edits - restored by several people - nominated by Durova --Durova 19:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support as conominator --Durova 19:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support as conominator --BrokenSphere 20:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment (orange).svg Comment The view is from the church tower looking south (opposite view), with the Lachnersturm in the distance, have a look at category photos. -- Klaus with K 20:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support If this image is not valuable, I don't know what is. I feel that it is exactly historical images that provide the greatest value as they can capture what my history teacher calls zeitgeist. Freedom to share 08:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - oh yes. - Anonymous DissidentTalk 13:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose too small, very mediocre quality. Lycaon 09:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great historic image. Agree with Freedom to share. RedCoat 12:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Pictogram-voting question.svg Question Could you try to make some versions cutting right stripes? I mean to move a tower of the church more to right.--Juan de Vojníkov 01:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • You mean to abide by the rule of thirds, I guess Obviously it wouldn't be hard to fake if the goal were purely artistic, but the only really honest way would be cropping. Think it's worth that? Durova 02:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Yeah, cropping would be perfect.--Juan de Vojníkov 08:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Don't crop. It is some historical image. Keep it for VI as is please. Lycaon 08:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral - well, if youll not go to crop it, than neutral. Its nice and historical value is great.--Juan de Vojníkov 08:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 5 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Mywood 14:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image:Wild Cat on Serifos.jpg, not featured[edit]

Feral cat

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by curran.kelleher - uploaded and nominated by Crotalus horridus 22:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. This photo, taken by a Flickr photographer in Serifos, Greece, emphasizes the wildness of feral cats in a way that most of the other feral cat photos on Commons don't. Resolution is very high, technical quality is good, and both the appearance of the cat and the background are striking. --Crotalus horridus 22:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I have to disagree with the uploader. The image has average sharpness at best, there are chromatic effects around the dark areas on the cats rear, something that looks like cloning(?) artefacts in the sky right behind the cat (could be natural though), apparently there where splotches on the lens (see e.g. just below the cat), and the backlighting seems a bit unfortunate to me. --JDrewes 00:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose suboptimal light and centered cat --che 01:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Ugly background, very bad light. --TM 08:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Ack other opposers. Freedom to share 16:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Dont mind the expression nor type of cat, but the picture has bad compossition, the cat doesnt fit to the environment, its taken against the sun light and it is not placed in golden section or something. --Juan de Vojníkov 07:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 1 support(nominator), 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured.(rule of the fifth day) Mywood 14:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image:Playing (nude).jpg[edit]

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

Lycaon 23:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image:TauTropfenGerbera1.JPG[edit]

Short description

*Symbol support vote.svg Support --84.190.192.182 21:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC) Please log in to vote. --MichaelMaggs 22:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC) Reply[reply]

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

Lycaon 23:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image:KinderdijkMolens01.jpg, not featured[edit]

Windmills in the Netherlands.

{{FPX|too small, 1600px * 1200px is below the 2Mpx limit}} --Freedom to share 07:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC) You can't use FPX if two people have already supported. --MichaelMaggs 07:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC) Reply[reply]

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose No 'strong mitigating reasons' for being smaller than the 2MPx limit. --MichaelMaggs 07:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result:  Edited version is already featured. => not featured. Lycaon 15:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image:Flower poster.jpg, featured[edit]

Short description Short description

Original (left), featured[edit]

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info I was always fascinated by the big flower posters in the walls of the flowers shops, with dozens of different species. I cannot make one as big as those but maybe this little one will transmit the same feeling of wonder. Created and nominated by Alvesgaspar --Alvesgaspar 00:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Alvesgaspar 00:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like it --B.navez 02:35, 19 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like it too --Speagles 04:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Thermos 06:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Works for me. Very nicely done and all high quality parts. Just one little bit of side critique: I don't like the font of the English names ;-). Lycaon 08:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great work! Chmehl 08:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Looks good. - Anonymous DissidentTalk 10:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Johney (talk) 12:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Not used, but very good for Wikibooks or Wikialbum Przykuta 12:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very nice! --AM 13:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment (orange).svg Comment Your stork's bill is not Erodium ciconium but the mediterranean stork's bill (E. malacoides). Lycaon 13:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Thank you, I trust in your judgement, mais mon coeur a balancé entre les deux... It's fixed now -- Alvesgaspar 17:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Beautiful poster! Fg2 21:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment (orange).svg Comment If the photos are available separately, I suggest editing the image page and adding links to them. Fg2 21:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support wau --Böhringer 23:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • oppose Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Would support if Stork's bill and Crown Daisy were replaced with images of better focus. --Dori - Talk 23:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Pictogram voting info.svg Info -- Those images were replaced with better versions -- Alvesgaspar 13:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Are you talking about the image on the right? The replaced Stork's bill is not much better as it's still out of focus and overexposed. It's also missing the caption and it's not aligned properly with the other images. --Dori - Talk 20:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Pictogram voting info.svg Info - Yes, the image at left (the one at right had a problem but it's fixed now). The picture is not overexpose, as you can verify in the histogram (which easily checked by anyone, btw) -- Alvesgaspar 21:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • It's improved, but not enough for me to support. Going with neutral. --Dori - Talk 22:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • But you were right about the overexposure. I think I have a problem with my editing software. Anyway, I have corrected the pink one ;-) -- Alvesgaspar 23:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
          • It wasn't just overexposure, I also didn't like the focus on it. And also, I don't think it's the software that's faulty, you weren't looking at the right histogram. You should look at the color ones too. --Dori - Talk 14:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Karelj 23:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Dtarazona 14:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Nice, but I dont like the strange font used for English names.--Juan de Vojníkov 00:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose beautiful flower pictures, but I don't like the idea of featuring a poster like that as I don't see how it can be used on wikipedia/wikicommons - the legend can only be read at full size, the selection of flowers is random - I really would prefer the pictures to the poster... --Anna reg 23:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • usability on wikipedia/wikicommons is irrelevant (per FP/commons scope: useful for any wikimedia project but also for printing). Lycaon 13:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 14 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Mywood 21:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Aternative (right), not featured[edit]

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info - Please consider this alternative, where the twelve flowers are of different families and there are only three inflorescences (contrarily to the original, where most of the flowers are from the Asteraceae family). I know that the quality of some pictures is not as good but the poster is more illustrative of the subject and thus more encyclopaedic -- Alvesgaspar 19:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Alvesgaspar 19:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 21:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image:Diptera1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info And now a poster of Diptera (two-winged insects or "true-flies"), an immense order of insects with more than 100,000 known species! These are much more difficult to photograph than flowers because they are smaller, with finer details (usually hairy) and less cooperative. The sixteen species here represented are a very small sample and reflect my own taste and available photos of good quality. Created and nominated by Alvesgaspar --Alvesgaspar 17:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Alvesgaspar 17:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Pictogram-voting question.svg Question Don't you think 16 individual high resolution pictures of the flies would be better? Muhammad Mahdi Karim 18:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Pictogram voting info.svg Info -- The purpose is to make a printable poster where all species are shown together. Everyone of these pictures has a high resolution version -- Alvesgaspar 18:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Pictogram voting comment (orange).svg Comment and Pictogram-voting question.svg Question and Symbol support vote.svg Support I dont mind supporting, but just a question, are all these other images featured already?
      • Pictogram voting info.svg Info -- Only one of them is FP. That was on purpose because I wanted to have a balanced set of pictures (and species and families) rather than a collection of the best -- Alvesgaspar 20:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment (orange).svg Comment Since the files are all available separately, it could be helpful to link to them in the image page. Fg2 21:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This should print as a very nice poster. Fg2 21:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Some of the images have too shallow DOF on main subject. --Dori - Talk 23:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As my vote for Wasps and Bees, plus for making the Diptera order a bit more complete i miss a example for Nematocera - (Mosquito) and Tabanidae- (Gadfly). I would prefer unobtrusive numbers with a more detailed caption on the bottom or as a description for articles --Richard Bartz 14:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Pictogram-voting question.svg Question This looks good. But if it is not a PEXESO like poster it should be in the frame. There is also a lot of background information missing. Could you offer the same image without legend, please? I would use it on v.--Juan de Vojníkov 00:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Pictogram-voting question.svg Question - What (lot of) background information is missing? -- Alvesgaspar 10:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Pictogram voting info.svg Info I mean, species should be listed in summary template and probably also source files. Can I do it instead of you?--Juan de Vojníkov 13:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support no Question. Noy 16:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Idea, quality and execution are good, but choice (or rather availability) of species is unfortunate. Lycaon 22:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 4 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Mywood 21:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image:USSArizonaSurvivor.jpg, featured[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info U.S. Navy USS Arizona (BB-39) survivor, retired Lt. Cmdr. Joseph Langdell pauses to collect his thoughts during an interview by a FOX News correspondent as he visits the USS ARIZONA Memorial Visitors Center. 1,177 of the ship's 1,400 sailors perished during the attack on Pearl Harbor. The uniform and the lei provide just enough visual information about the background, but the pursed lips and the eyes speak volumes. Created by Mass Communication Specialist 1st Class James E. Foehl - uploaded by Durova - nominated by Durova --Durova 20:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Durova 20:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Excellent portrait -- Alvesgaspar 09:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Thermos 19:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Gordo 18:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Good image, but not enough for FP. --Karelj 19:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very good portrait. Freedom to share 07:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Pudelek 10:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose poor DOF, awkward crop. Lycaon 13:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 6 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral =>  featured. Mywood 21:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image:Agnes Szavay Roland Garros 2007.jpg, not featured[edit]

Short description

Created by Ralf Reinecke - uploaded by Flominator - nominated by --Beyond silence 23:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support May isn't the best composition, but has very high detail.--Beyond silence 23:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Teme 15:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--B.navez 19:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I don't like the composition, the expression and the colors. Sorry. --delatorre 17:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per delatorre, but it does have good detail. Rocket000 11:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like this composition! What can do two small strips of white color material! Very nice and impresive. --Karelj 22:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Rabensteiner 12:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Quite valuable image (probably only picture of the subject on Commons), but that doesn't outweight unfortunate composition and timing. --che 01:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Che. Lycaon 13:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 4 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 21:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image:USS Arizona sinking 2a.jpg, not featured[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Companion nomination to Image:USSArizonaSurvivor.jpg: The USS Arizona afire and sinking during the attack on Pearl Harbor, December 7, 1941. Restored version of Image:USS Arizona sinking 2.jpg with scratches, fibers, stains, and other artifacts removed. Levels adjusted. Created by unknown (official U.S. Navy file - public domain) - uploaded by Durova - nominated by Durova. --Durova 00:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Durova 00:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral It's definitly an important historical event, I'm just not sure if this photo captures it best . It might, so I'm not opposing. Great restoration work. Rocket000 11:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • It was by far the best quality shot I could access online: a high resolution scan done on clean equipment from the Library of Congress. This provided a 12 meg source image at 1000 dpi rather than the small, heavily streaked, and often lossy material from other locations. After reviewing different source files from Wikipedia, Commons, the National Archives, and the Defense Virtual Information Center I decided this was the only one really worth restoring. I think policy is to replace existing FPs with better ones, so if a superior file ever becomes available we can make the adjustment. Durova 22:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Extremely poor quality, even taking age into account. Lycaon 07:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Mywood 21:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image:Bees and Wasps.jpg, not featured[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info The last poster of the series, with bees and wasps. These are among the most difficult insects to photograph due to being usually fast and restless. Created and nominated by Alvesgaspar --Alvesgaspar 00:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Alvesgaspar 00:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Fg2 08:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Its a great idea to make a poster with bees and wasps. I think this poster is lacking a bit of educational relevance and illustrative perfection and a whole order would be better, why not Hymenoptera of Portugal ?.
    I would decribe it as a Alvesgaspar - Supercompilation. Although i love a lot of your pictures i wouldn't do a print out of this and for online use it's not handy because it's overcrowded, so i would prefer the seperated pictures. How should someone, who is not a insect freak understand this poster and could extract useful, educational informations ? As a example: Kids in School. To show what i mean you should see this. You see this poster has a title and a nice layout which describes things very well. All i want to say is that this poster isn't elaborated very well but it could when applying a good/better concept. P.S Printing. Auplopus carbonarius and some other parts spread all around would be look unfortune if printed because it has 100% white in the overexposed parts. Maybe do 5-15% gray over it as you should do for the typo, too. It's a technical thing for printing. --Richard Bartz 10:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Johney (talk) 15:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Mainly due to vespula germanica being out of focus. --Dori - Talk 16:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support From my point of view is this very good idea. --Karelj 23:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment (orange).svg Comment If it is just a poster and not a PEXESO, it should be in the frame. Anoter problem comes with legend.--Juan de Vojníkov 00:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC) And there should be more background information e.g. in summary template.--Juan de Vojníkov 00:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC) Huh, I see its in the frame, so I was wrong.--Juan de Vojníkov 08:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose some of the images are jast bad. Noy 16:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nobody will do that again in a hurry. ;-) --Richard Bartz 00:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 21:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image:大三巴.jpg, not featured[edit]

Ruins of St. Paul's in Macau which is a UNESCO World Heritage Site now.

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Ruins of St. Paul's in Macau which is a UNESCO World Heritage Site Historic Centre of Macau now. I used a ultra-wide angle lens to show the momentum of the monument.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Iidxplus - uploaded by Iidxplus - nominated by Iidxplus --Iidxplus 04:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Iidxplus 04:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment Serious perspective distortion. Is this deliberate? Durova 06:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Yes. It is difficult to take a picture of the whole building without anything blocking it unless using a ultra wide lens. Iidxplus 08:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Due to the inherent importance of the site, it may be worth looking for a historic photograph that was taken before surrounding construction boxed in the view so much. If you find something that's well composed and focused, and a good quality file large enough for FP consideration, then drop me a line. I'll see whether I can restore it. Best wishes, Durova 05:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose perspective (it's not balanced, not just just the distortion) and overexposure on the sky. --Dori - Talk 16:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As Dori. --Karelj 23:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Dont like. Maybe to much light, you may try different angles, not enought background information.--Juan de Vojníkov 00:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportBeatiful image.--Uannis 15:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 21:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image:Le Stade Olympique de Montréal Nuit Arriere-Gauche.jpg, not featured[edit]

Olympic Stadium of Montreal 

result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 21:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image:Bombus Bumblebee (Bestoevning).jpg, delisted[edit]

Short description 

result: 2 Delist, 2 Keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. Simonizer 09:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re-opening delist nomination:

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist Clearly the current image is not the one promoted to featured picture, in fact the original upload is not even available in the image history. At the very least the image should be reverted to the earliest version available, or the actual promoted version undeleted. This version looks terrible, at preview or full size compare to the earlier (smaller) versions. An alternative is to nominate this version for promotion. --Tony Wills 12:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist per nom (obviously). Lycaon 12:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist per myself. -- Ram-Man 16:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist per nom. The deleted image had a border and a watermark. Besides that, it's identical to the other smaller versions. Rocket000 10:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist Noy 13:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist given the lack of transparency about what happened to this picture after it was promoted. --MichaelMaggs 16:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 6 Delist, 0 Keep, 0 neutral => delisted. --Mywood 21:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image:Pena Palace back.JPG, not featured[edit]

An image of the Pena Palace, Sintra, Portugal

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Husond - uploaded by Husond - nominated by Lar --++Lar: t/c 03:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Husond has just uploaded a very remarkable series of images from this palace and the gardens, hoping to cadge some en:wp folk into doing a better article on the palace but I was taken by how beautiful this image was and the striking composition of the sky, the clock tower, and the horizon (even though the horizon is a bit tilted) Other images in his recent uploads may also be worthy candidates. ++Lar: t/c 03:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment (orange).svg Comment What an amazing place, I wish I could see it myself. Unfortunately for the images, in my opinion, they're not FP quality. The camera itself doesn't do a good job (lots of noise and oversharpening), but there are also lighting and composition issues. In the current image, there needs to be denoising and a rotation counter clockwise. I would also crop the right part so that edge of the building doesn't show. But this would result in even more of the turrets being cut off. If someone could clone in the cut off pieces it might have a chance though. --Dori - Talk 06:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I'm not a FP regular, I just look at stuff and go wow, and am not competent to counter what sounds like valid technical issues. Maybe I could nom a few for QI, what do you think Dori? Because they ARE very cool images. ++Lar: t/c 14:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Yes, QI is a good start. I don't want to discourage you from FPC, but the standard has gone up a lot where even low end DSLRs (that's what I use) are having a tough time getting the sharpness and crispness that a lot of people expect. Point and shoot cameras will produce FP only by getting a really good composition, lighting, and maybe a magical moment for wow. If the picture is good enough for QI, in the opinion of the reviewer, they might tell you to go for FPC as well. --Dori - Talk 19:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good composition. --Karelj 22:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This is actually one of my favorites in the batch. It should be slightly rotated counterclockwise to correct tilt though. Húsönd 23:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Not bad. Author known how to hold camera.--Juan de Vojníkov 00:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose bad crop, tilted. Lycaon 01:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Lyacon. Cacophony 07:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Idem -- Alvesgaspar 08:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Lyacon --AngMoKio 19:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose detail, tilted. --Beyond silence 09:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It does have a tilt. :-\ Samsara 23:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 4 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 11:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image:Prohibidoespecular.jpg, not featured[edit]

"Prohibido especular" (You must not speculate) Green Zone, ecologist protest. Canovelles, Barcelona, Spain

Pictogram voting comment (orange).svg Comment "Prohibido especular" (You must not speculate) Green Zone, ecologist protest. Canovelles, Barcelona, Spain

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - weakly. Bit of noise, but I like it. - Anonymous DissidentTalk 08:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Weak Symbol support vote.svg Support per Anonymous Dissident. I wish this was used in a en.WP article. It looks like it'd be interesting to read. Rocket000 11:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Mediocre photograph of a troublesome subject. --Donarreiskoffer 13:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I dont´t see any one reason for voting this image. --Karelj 22:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Void, fragmented, unknown composition:( --Juan de Vojníkov 00:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 11:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image:Rust Mite, Aceria anthocoptes.jpg, featured[edit]

Short description

Oh! I found some related in Eriophyidae, maybe could be a good idea put some information in the file summary.
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It's a pity that the antennae is cut off and the image is upscaled. --Richard Bartz 15:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Luc Viatour 15:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Digon3 talk 16:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment (orange).svg Comment - According to the scale in the image the mite is about 0.08mm. 1400 times that means 11cm, which is much less than the size of the critter in full size. Was the original picture upsampled? -- Alvesgaspar 21:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Excellent question. I wasn't the original uploader. All I can say is that I found the same pic on a government website (minus the scale) and it appeared to have been the same resolution. Possibly upsampled at the source. Durova 23:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Karelj 21:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The picture could be perfect, but if the scale could be wrong and it is missing deeper information how it was processed, espatially how the colors were done (because, they probably not original) its value is falling down.--Juan de Vojníkov 08:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • That is a scanning electron microscop view, a process only giving BW views then colorized. It is not optical photography. No value is lost and scale seems credible.--B.navez 02:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Thx for your information. I repeat myself "it is missing deeper information how the colors were done and the scale could be wrong". You are right, electrons doesnt have colours.--Juan de Vojníkov 22:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--B.navez 14:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Keta 17:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Samsara 23:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support My boundless accolade for this excellent image! --Johann Jaritz 09:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Grrrr! I want a RSEM ! RSEM ! RSEM ! :-)) --Richard Bartz 20:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Wouldn't you prefer SEM ;-)? Costs under €50 000 :-)). Lycaon 11:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • This would be a very luxurious toy. Is there a jackpot in the lottery this week ? :-)) --Richard Bartz 20:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Bergwolf 20:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 13 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Mywood 11:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image:Optical.greysquares.arp.jpg, not featured[edit]

Optical.greysquares.arp.jpg

Pictogram voting info.svg Info Squares A and B are exactly the same shade of gray. english wikipadia's FA. amazing. Noy 13:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Did I did it right? Noy 14:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
becouse I'm new here :-). Noy 16:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Itws simple- try to cut A and B at printer. Noy 08:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You should be able to do that on the computer in almost the same way that you would with a printed version. And it seems to me that when I have seen these optical illusions online, an animation which compares the colors is very helpful for representing the information. -- carol 16:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I support the png version instead. /Daniel78 00:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Graphics should be in a vector not raster/pixel format -> svg -- Gorgo 15:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 0 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Mywood 11:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image:Grey square optical illusion.PNG[edit]

Grey square optical illusion.PNG

O.K, convention is convention. Noy 16:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Convention is SVG, not PNG. :-) Freedom to share 18:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • O.K.- you are the responsible from now on :-) Noy 18:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Well, could sameone help ma pleas? Noy 14:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Symbol support vote.svg Support Noy 18:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Its unbelievable, but it works. I printed the image on my printer, cut both sguares and layed them over and really, the satiety of the gray is exactly the same. --Karelj 19:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Johney (talk) 11:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Yes this is the best illusion I know of. It's kind of hard to believe even when you see it proved :) /Daniel78 00:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Graphics should be in a vector not raster/pixel format -> svg -- Gorgo 15:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply] 
result: 4 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 11:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image:Double-O-Arch Arches National Park 2.jpg, featured[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by Flicka --Flicka 17:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info I don't want to open a competition to this picture that is actually also nominated for FP. But I think I simply had more luck with the weather conditions. Unfortunately the picture has no "wow" as a geyser at sunset, but it passed QI and maybe it's good enough ;-) . --Flicka 17:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Excellent image--Lissen 19:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Richard Bartz 19:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- MJJR 20:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I admit, you are right. Excellent picture! --Tobi 87 20:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Tobi, vielen Dank für deine Pro-Stimme. Wenn ich deine Bilder sehe, hatten wir beide wohl teilweise die gleiche Reiseroute. Du hast es ganz nach oben auf Angels Landing geschafft, ich bin am Scout Overlook hängengeblieben. Aber am Double-O-Arch war das Wetter wohl auf meiner Seite ;-) . --Flicka 21:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support As the same image before. --Karelj 21:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Not bad. --Juan de Vojníkov 00:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support You could probably get a whole gallery of FPs just by shooting Utah. Gorgeous place. Durova 00:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice. GeeAlice 12:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Excellente image. Monster1000 13:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Urban 16:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info I added the coordinates of camera position. --Tobi 87 16:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --MichaelMaggs 21:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support RedCoat 17:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support waw! Noy 17:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Böhringer 22:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great location, gorgeous view, stunning colors, excellent photo! A special place for "The Teachings of Don Juan". Carlos Castaneda would be delighted. --Johann Jaritz 09:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support As above. Freedom to share 21:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Bergwolf 20:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Very Beatiful image! Канопус Киля 16:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Mywood 11:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image:Evstafiev-bosnia-sarajevo-shattered-mirror.jpg, delisted[edit]

Shattered mirror.

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info It's a cool shot, but of little value and low quality. (Original nomination)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist --Rocket000 10:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist Though value is not really an issue here, I agree with the 'low quality' assessment. Lycaon 08:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is when you're talking about "mitigating reasons", which I believe this lacks. Rocket000 22:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 7 Delist, 1 Keep, 0 neutral => delisted. --Mywood 11:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/Log/January_2008&oldid=156658296"