Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/October 2007

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.


[edit]

Venus fly trap 

result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 19:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Thor's Hammer formation in Bryce Canyon National Park

  •  Info Before the shot I aimed a little higher to have half sky and half hoodoos, metering pattern with the bright sky and the shadow part both on sensor I set the exposure, then I recomposed. The whole works on my tripod to extend DOF with f/11. --LucaG 06:31, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 16 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 19:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:London 360 from St Paul's Cathedral - Sept 2007.jpg, featured

[edit]

Short description

  • Here is my guess : light comes from one side, therefore on a 360° pano it lightens the buildings on a half of it and casts shadows on the other half, hence the difference you talk about. Actually, I was even wondering how Diliff managed to handle the difference of contrast so well. Benh 21:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 19 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Simonizer 19:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Short description

Edit to remove other flower
Edit to remove other flower without disturbing skies so much.
Well done :) Can you please add a retouched picture template on this edit, and i will support that version, too --Richard Bartz 13:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 6 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 19:49, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]
  •  Comment In spite of two facts (1, that I got really bored reading all of the guidelines about FP and images in general; and 2, I could only see two of the four gray circles drawn in the test SVG), if the edited version is going to be used, I have what I think is a better editing of it. The version displayed here has swirls of blue where the unwanted flower parts used to be. There seems to be nothing in the guidelines about how to manage an opinion and image upload of this nature. I am actually worried about undue retribution if I happen to touch the wrong contributors images. What to do? carol 14:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think removing is needed. --Beyond silence 16:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 0 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 19:49, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

The newlywed and the brother in law

I don't think it's a problem the righ figure out of focus, he isn't on same plan, he is in second plan (excuse me for bad english :-) --Dongio 10:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 9 support, 8 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 19:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Waterfall in Rio de Janeiro 

result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 20:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]
result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 20:04, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Head Quarter of the Brazil Army 

result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 20:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

The Washington Memorial 

result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 20:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Short description 

result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 20:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Pannonian Knapweed

lol. --Beyond silence 11:54, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, seriously. Composition is quite centred and trivial, background is cluttered and a bit disturbing, lighting is harsh and even a bit overexposing and this leads me to a lack of wow. (I didn't mention the noise, did I?). Lycaon 12:01, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 20:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Close up of snail taken in the hills of Torna Pune Maharashtra 

result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 20:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Papilio machaon caterpillar.jpg, delisted

[edit]

Short description 

result: 0 keep, 6 Delist, 0 neutral => delisted. Simonizer 20:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Hoverfly03 crop.jpg, delisted

[edit]

Short description

  •  Info Created and uploaded by User:Fir0002
  •  Info Wonderful colors, cute composition in thumbnail. The DOF and detail on the flower with the missing id is not great, the unidentified insect is not very detailed, too and slight blurred .. overall, the contrast/light/details looks very harsh for me, compared with the display quality of the insect on this older FP picture.
result: 0 keep, 6 Delist, 0 neutral => delisted. Simonizer 20:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:XN Sympetrum sanguineum w prey 658.jpg, delisted

[edit]

Short description 

result: 0 keep, 6 Delist, 0 neutral => delisted. Simonizer 20:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Chicago Downtown Panorama.jpg, delisted

[edit]

Short description 

result: 0 keep, 6 Delist, 0 neutral => delisted. Simonizer 20:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:A Study in bronze I by Frederick Monsen.jpg

[edit]

Tiled roof in Dubrovnik (Croatia)

Why so improtant the sky is? Weird colour? --Beyond silence 09:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like the color as it doesn't look realistic. A polarizer would probably bring out the deeper blue without reducing brightness too much (although in this case that might actually help with the high contrast issue as well). Dori - Talk 13:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 --Beyond silence 14:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply] 

result: Withdrawn => not featured. Simonizer 19:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Tiled roof in Dubrovnik (Croatia)

Don't you think contrast is high at noon sun? --Beyond silence 10:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is (I'm not saying it's unrealistic), but it's unfortunate. I think it would have come out better early in the morning or sometime in the afternoon. Dori - Talk 13:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 19:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Vue en montant à Vallonpierre 

result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 2 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 20:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit,featured

[edit]

downsampled version

I am not very good at editing. I can manage things like levels, shadows/highlights, etc. but when it comes to CA, fringing or sharpness enhancement, I often am too heavy on the filters and make artifacts. Berrucomons 07:21, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Simonizer 20:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

1Panorama of Mont Blanc 2edited version

  • I know... I tried to crop more, but I want to see the beginning of the mountain just above this rock. I think the beginning of the mountain is more important than this rock. Maybe I can clone this out ? Sanchezn 13:38, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I use a canon EOS 400D with a 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM lens (here 17mm, 100ISO, 1/400 and f/8). The panorama is a HDR (3 different expositions) of 3 pictures stitched with hugin. Sanchezn 14:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 20:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 20:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Pigeon

  • Thanks. This time the question had to do with detail at that distance rather than the subject flying away. Where I am sometimes you have to be careful not to step on them. Dori | Talk 21:41, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 9 support, 6 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 20:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Bruges (Belgium): detail of a tomb at the Steenbrugge Cemetery

  • Eu inquiri sobre o artista :-)) Lycaon 23:11, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good questions! The statue is part of the monumental tomb of the sculptor Hendrik Pickery (Bruges, 1828-1894) and later on also of his son Gustaaf Pickery (Bruges, 1862-1921) who was a sculptor too. One might expect that the son could be the artist who made these nice sculptures on his fathers tomb. Strange enough, I can not find any evidence about that... Here is still some investigation to do for an art historian! -- MJJR 18:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 20:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hand made in Lipovci, Slovenia 

result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured --Simonizer 21:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Young night heron (Nycticorax nycticorax) taken at Lake Merritt in Oakland, California

I used the 70-300 IS USM for this picture, was about 5 ft (1.5m) away and used autofocus. This was at a bird sanctuary in Lake Merritt where people normally feed the birds so these are pretty much tame. I actually had to back up to get the shot. Calibas 03:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 20 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured --Simonizer 21:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Short description

The Monet collection has one of many impressions (the technical term) of the original print, as do The British Museum, Louvre, Met and many other collections. The other picture is a different print, a copy from 100 years later. Johnbod 12:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The British Museum and Metropolitan Museum of Art versions appear to be prints from the Monet woodblock. --Tony Wills 02:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Impressions of the same woodcut. The actual printing woodblocks (one per colour) vanished long ago. Johnbod 12:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support I'm tempted to make my own prints from this. Calibas 03:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong  Oppose The less-bright image is a C19 original, the brighter one a C20 reproduction, made from scratch using the same techniques, but different. We would not dream of making a copy of a Rembrandt by a painter a century later a featured picture, and we should not make this one. I think most people commenting above are not aware they are supporting what might harshly be called a fake. Btw, someone has incorrectedly added the narrative from the copy, explaining it IS a copy, to the file for the original - see the history. Also the licensing must be regarded as dubious. The original uploader, who I think knows what he is talking about, says it was made ca. 1930, by unknown craftsmen. The designer, Hokusai, certainly died a long time ago, but as their copy is created from scratch, I would imagine there is a copyright in the re-cutting too. Johnbod 12:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Reproduction or not the colors are so much better than the original. I'll renew my support if we can confirm this isn't copyrighted. Calibas 00:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose For not the first time, I am very bemused that people are willing to vote images as being 'amongst the most valuable on commons (or wikipedia for that matter)' on the basis of some idea of perfection, rather on the actual value of the image. Surely a copy of the original is of more value than a reproduction (just as well you guys don not deal in antiques :-) --Tony Wills 12:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Look how badly the sky is done on the fake one compared with the original. Nice picture bur original obviously holds more value. - Moravice 20:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Though I'm not an antique dealer ;-), I agree with Tony on this one. Lycaon 23:01, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose an image of the original with its flaws is better than an image of a copy(fake), what ever the reason we shouldnt be promoting fakes as our best work. Gnangarra 07:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 5 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured --Simonizer 21:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Short description 

result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured --Simonizer 21:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Canada provinces evolution 

result: 10 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 19:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Short description 

result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 19:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Short description 

result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (Rule of the 5th day) --Simonizer 21:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Short description 

result: withdrawn => not featured --Simonizer 21:21, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Tsunami by hokusai 19th century.jpg, delisted

[edit]

Short description 

result: 8 Delist, 3 Keep, 0 neutral => delisted. Simonizer 20:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Phalaenopsis (aka).jpg, delisted

[edit]

Short description 

result: 5 Delist, 0 Keep, 0 neutral => delisted. Simonizer 20:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Vitruvian.jpg, delisted

[edit]

Vitruvian Man 

result: 6 Delist, 0 Keep, 0 neutral => delisted. Simonizer 20:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Albert Harris - Coconut shy B.jpg, delisted

[edit]

Short description 

result: 5 Delist, 2 Keep, 0 neutral => delisted. Simonizer 20:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Phelsuma laticauda during a fight 

result: 5 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Thierry Caro 15:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Short description

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: overexposed and is not of high enough technical 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.

--MichaelMaggs 17:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Barn wind turbines 

result: 6 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral => featured --Simonizer 21:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit

[edit]

Barn wind turbines 

result: 5 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (other version has more support) Simonizer 09:22, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Battle of Waterloo 

result: 7 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 09:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Battle of Waterloo 

result: 0 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 20:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Short description

Yeah its the best so far --Richard Bartz 13:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment The Antelope Canyon cat specified on the image page does not exist. I suggest adding the image to the existing Antelope Canyon gallery page instead and remove the catlink. This gallery has 15 other photos of the same subject, and personally I think that this recent FP of Antelope Canyon has more wow to it concerning colours and light, although it may not have the same technical quality as Lucas FPC. -- Slaunger 20:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --LucaG 22:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 22 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Simonizer 09:25, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

female skeleton

  • Thank you for your reply to my lengthy comments and questions. In any case I suggest you add the colour legend explanation to the image page description as it helps understanding what is going on. I also understand that the mixed-language terminology is due to mixed sources. Considering that FP is for the-best-of-the-best (and the illustration in itself is of very high technical quality IMO), it would be really nice if an anatomy-proficient person could help correct/double-check the terms for consistency. -- Slaunger 22:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 15 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 09:28, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

back of a female skeleton

* Why are the costal cartilages the only cartilages labeled? It seems a little inconsistent if other cartilages that are prominently seen - like the acetabular cartilage for eg., are not labeled. However, naming all of them will make the picture too busy.
* Labels for groups of vertebrae span the whole length of the corresponding group. However, for the ribs, the label spans only 3 of them. I know it is intuitive that the other ribs are also, well, ribs... but it is still a nitpick.
All in all, an exceptional illustration. Hats off, Lady! Shushruth 16:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 16 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 09:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Palace of Luxembourg, Paris, France

  • No unfortunately (it's there on the below pic too :)), but I thought it wasn't that annoying. Nicolas is working on it right now to clone it out... I'm pretty much against this kind of manipulations though. Benh 20:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand your concern about the cloning. I have some reservations as well, but in this case it is perhaps OK since it is a fairly small object that needs to be cloned away in a sky region. Just remember to add the retouched template. Maybe you could nominate it as another edit to get some second opinions? -- Slaunger 20:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 09:32, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Palace of Luxembourg, Paris, France

  •  Question I looked again carefully, and really don't see any kind of halo or whatever. Could you be more precise or eventually spot me the litigous area (coordinates or any other mean) ? If there really is something wrong, I'd like to fix, FP or not. Thanks. Benh 17:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I don't see any trace of a halo either. Concerning the question about the crane, I suggest you give a support vote to the original version, if you prefer the original. In that manner you can influence which version is the preferred one. -- Slaunger 20:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 10 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Simonizer 09:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Short description

I also agree with you :) A cropped upper part of a head is nothing unusual...a often used composition element. Normally I don't like centered main objects but here it really fits. It somehow represents to me "Look! This is how it is here." --AngMoKio 20:46, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The ball is cropped too. Tbc 14:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
reason? --AngMoKio 15:02, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're entitled to your opinion (and I opposed this picture as well), but Commons is not Wikipedia's slave. It stands on its own merits. Dori - Talk 01:51, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very true, Dori. If a picture is suitable for wikipedia article shouldn't be a reason here. Harris Morgan: Please read General Rules before voting: "This is not simply a repository for Wikipedia images, so images should not be judged here on their suitability for that project.". Furthermore if you check the usage of this picture you will see that it is used in wikipedias. --AngMoKio 08:14, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 7 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 11:45, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Short description

The DOF is imo part of the composition. The face is out of focus and puts the hand even more into the foreground. The line from hand to face is from lower left to the upper right corner. The line of the tree in the background and the line of the white table cross behind the main object (the hand). Face and hands are both off-center (roughly on the 1/3 points). For me the picture is really amazing, although I doubt that the photographer thought of all those things while making the photo. --AngMoKio 11:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
reason? --AngMoKio 15:02, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don´t like it. --Dezidor 12:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 8 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 11:48, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

The Flying Carpet, by Viktor Vasnetsov. 

result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 11:51, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Antelope Canyon Mittags.jpg, not delisted

[edit]

Short description

* Keep --Benhello! 12:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] 

5 delist, 6 keep --> not delisted --Benhello! 06:58, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ant on mosshill02.jpg, delisted

[edit]

Short description 

6 delist, 1 keep --> delisted --Benhello! 07:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

The lower platforms seen from the top of the Aiguille du Midi. 

result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. --Benchat 09:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Short description 


result: 9 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. --Benchat 09:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Magic of Lanterns

No need to be snarky, Falcone. I know what ISO 1600 means. It's a great shot, but based on what I've seen here, I don't think people will vote for it because of the posterization. JaGa 15:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn’t meant to be snarky or sarcastic in any way. I’m only judging this photography against basic constraint of photography. If people would never do so, it would mean that we could never appreciate pictures taken in that kind of environment, which would be regrettable. Falcone 16:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC) (warning: sockpuppet). Doodle-doo Ħ 22:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
May some postprocessing can help on it. --Beyond silence 13:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, it would affect the quality of the photography. I agree with Mayaboy, due to the nature of this picture the grain is totally normal. Falcone 14:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC) (warning: sockpuppet). Doodle-doo Ħ 22:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is ridiculous, there are no sockpuppet, read my talk.
result: 5 support, 6 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. --Benchat 08:59, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Senegal Wattled Plover, Masai Mara National Reserve

The bird was originally underexposed, the detail has been lost. Calibas 04:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. --Benchat 08:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Short description

. My other problem was that the weather conditions changed rapidly from the sun to the rain and I kept changing the camera settings all the time. As a matter of fact, when we were flying over the crater, I forgot to change the settings and overexposed the image. There were so much smoke in the crater that I probably could not shot a dicent image anyway. Still it is something to remember and here it is.--Mbz1 14:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
result: 25 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. --Benchat 09:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]
are you sure that it is tilted? --AngMoKio 10:54, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, about 0.6 degrees ccw by my measurement. Dori - Talk 12:35, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. --Benchat 05:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Noix arrivées à maturité, prête à être mangée

Can't you write a short English description? Thanks --Beyond silence 11:17, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 6 support, 8 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. --Benchat 05:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Short description

result: withdrawn => not featured. --Benchat 06:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Short description

  •  InfoThe kids in Zanzibar store. You could see their mother at back ground. Created, uploaded and nominated by Mbz1 --Mbz1 14:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Mbz1 14:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Some parts are overexposed and other underexposed. Tilt. Not impressive subject nor composition. --Javier ME 18:16, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The tilt could be fixed. The subject of the image are kids and in my opinion they are very impressive as all kids are.In my opinion they (the kids) are exposed properly, but of course I share your concerns about over all quality of the image. The goal of nominating the image was to introduce some real life scenes of remote countries to FP collection. I do not think we have enough of these. Please notice, the image was not down scaled. It is how it was taken. I did not have enough memory cards on me and there was no place to buy one, so I did not use the highest resolution.--Mbz1 20:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I think the doorframe on the left is a bit distracting. /Daniel78 21:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  You are right, Daniel78. Thank you.
result: withdrawn => not featured. --Benchat 05:56, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Short description

pff  --Beyond silence 12:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] 

result: withdrawn => not featured. --Benchat 06:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Short description

I understand you, may a better word is DOF. --Beyond silence 14:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Focus and DoF are related concepts, as DoF is a way to "measure" the amount of area in sharp focus. At this point there is no reason for confusion, as many reviewers interchange these concepts. -- Ram-Man 23:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid you did not understand what I meant, when I said:"Let's better not to talk about the value of the image". The thing is that, if a person, who has no idea about the subject of the image,sees it for the very first time and even have not read the explanation, starts to discuss the image's value, this person looks laughable and ludicrous. For your info the subject of the image is studied by scientists around the world and people, who understand call the image remarkable and a very good example. Please notice I love, when I get votes on my images (opposes or supports). So, please do keep your opposes coming, but try not to be laughable and ludicrous .--Mbz1 01:27, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: withdrawn => not featured. --Benchat 06:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Short description 

result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 18:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Short description

 QuestionCan you write an English description? --Beyond silence 19:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment I've tried to improve the Spanish description, and to provide an English one. --Javier ME 18:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 18:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Short description 

result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 18:46, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

White duck, Canada

 Acarpentier 02:13, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you not mean as your other alias? Lycaon 13:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is Falcone a sockpuppet? Wouldn't voting for your own image be in huge violation of the rules? Doodle-doo Ħ 21:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I reserve my judgement until the current investigation into this matter has come to a conclusion. Lycaon 21:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I dont know how you can come to a conclusion because there are my coworkers he he he. My talk here. Acarpentier 23:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If Falcone wrote it himself, why did he put "as Falcone"? Calibas 01:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. See here for the details. Doodle-doo Ħ 11:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What can I say: you are wrong, mixing thing, taking conclusion but I think you are missing judgement skills... anyway my image doesn’t worth being featured, that’s for sure. I’m withdrawing it. ;) Acarpentier 03:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment Sockpuppetry is not good reason why to vote against. --Dezidor 12:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it is a great reason.--Mbz1 12:58, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But overexposure is, which is why I said both. :) --Digon3 talk 15:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: withdrawn => not featured  --Benhello! 12:16, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose nothing special and like Doodle-doo
[edit]

Short description 

result: Withdrawn => not featured. Simonizer 18:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

A corgi 

result: 1 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 18:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Edit1 

result: 0 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 18:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Short description 

result: withdrawn => not featured --Simonizer 21:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

result: withdrawn => not featured --Simonizer 21:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

I would like to point out (not for the first time ;-) that there is no "size requirement", just a guideline :-) --Tony Wills 10:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support This I like. Dori - Talk 03:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Size can (occasionally) be mitigated, this kind of unsharpness not. Unusual circumstances of taking a picture are very rarely enough to pass a picture of insufficient quality. "It is not because I had to climb the shaky crown of a tree to make a picture of a crow that the picture has more value than if I had taken it with a proper telephoto lens from the solidity of the ground." Lycaon 04:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is very strange you selected the example with a crow and with shaky crown and with the solidity of the ground. It sounded almost as you were going to support the image, which could not have been taken from solidity of the ground even with a proper telephoto lens :) In my opinion we should remeber that the nominated image is not of a common crow, but of a fish that I saw only this one single time after snorkeling for many hours in few oceans and seas. Besides I had no other choice as to swimm in rather shaky ocean, while the fish was swimming too (btw turning from side to side, as you could see from the other version of the image). I'd like to repeat one more time a quote from the selection criteria: A bad picture of a very difficult subject is a better picture than a good picture of an ordinary subject.. Besides I really believe that the nominated image is good enough in a thumnail and in full resolution too, which is 1632 × 1224 and is even a little bit bigger than the size requirements. One more thing with a crow example. It says:It is not because I had to climb the shaky crown of a tree to make a picture of a crow that the picture has more value than if I had taken it with a proper telephoto lens from the solidity of the ground". In my oinion the value of the image and image quality are two different properties of the image. The image could be of a great resolution and quality and have no value(I mean encyclopedic value) whatsoever. --Mbz1 04:42, 1 October 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
    • 'Unusual circumstances' (Lycaon) seems a strange phrase to use, the usual circumstances for taking pictures of fish is under water where they live, the only alternatives would seem to be pulling them out of the water or putting them in an aquarium. There does not seem to be a 'telephoto' lens type alternative. So the consideration is the difficulty of obtaining better shots in this environment - this is not a matter of choosing a better time or place or lighting conditions. The number of featured pictures taken in the sea appears to be two or three, I think one implication is that it is not as easy to photograph fish in-situ as it is to photograph a building, flower or insect. --Tony Wills 10:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Dezidor 11:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral Interesting fish, but is it a FP...? --Leafnode 06:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well in my opinion it is. It is rare to see a fish swimming on his side as this one does. This fact by itself is already add a value to the image. Besides the position of the fish allowed me to take a picture, which shows colors and the fish itself.--Mbz1 13:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Again, an unusual subject, but this isn't enough to me. I'm very sorry, but I can't support a picture of this quality at this resolution. This wouldn't be of much use if printed at a reasonable size. When a 10 mpix picture has this quality at real size, it can be saved by being scaled down, but here I feel the resolution was just to meet the guideline recommandations. Benh 21:49, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your assumption about meeting guidlines are wrong. I do not do it with my images. I always upload the highest resolution. How you came up with 10 mega pixels number? It is a very wrong speculation.By the way I printed the image at my home printer 8*10 and it came out just fine. I do not mind, when my images are getting opposed. I do mind, when an opposser has no idea what he's talking about.--Mbz1 00:00, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Low quality, it could have been realy better with different settings Acarpentier 03:13, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, I see you are familiar not only with sockpuppet, but also with underwater photography.--Mbz1 17:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think you have problem with me. Anyway my vote here is on the work. You are mixing things together, I'm not. If you don’t want comments don't post. Please read the Guidelines for nominators.

Acarpentier 23:18, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Once again you did not understand what I meant. The thing is that, if a person, discusses the changig of the settings for a point and shot underwater camera (which was used to take a picture), this person looks laughable and ludicrous simply because this peson has no idea, if the camera used allows the change of the settings. Well, for your information, it (the camera) does not allow to change the settings. Please notice I love, when I get votes on my images (opposes or supports). So, please do keep your opposes coming.--Mbz1 01:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2007 (UTC)

  • Next time I'll make sure to ask the fish to swimm in a better composition,but to tell you the truth I do not see anything wrong with this composition either.--Mbz1 18:16, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What I dislike in the composition is the view from the top; In my opinion, a view from the side is really better. Don't try to talk to the fish, but be more patient, a good composition could append with a bit of chance. (please, use :*, ::*... instead of **) Sanchezn 23:28, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for explaing what you do not like about the composition. In my opinion your opinion would have been right in general situation, when a fish swimms on his belly, like they usually do. Here however I got a different situation. The wish was swimming on his side. In my opinion, if I took a picture from the side I would have got only a line of a fish instead of the whole body, as you could see at this image:, when the fish turned around. That's why in my opinion, a view from the top in this particular situation worked much better in order to show as much of the fish as possible.--Mbz1 01:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose IMO the photo has too many technical problems; I find the crop is too tight, it is not sharp which combined with a low resolution makes it hard to discern important details. For me, this kills wow. -- Slaunger 22:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  
result: withdrawn => not featured. --Benchat 06:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Monaco bus nr1 

result: 1 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) --Benchat 06:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Wheelchair racing at 2007 Parapan American Games, Rio de Janeiro

  •  Info Wheelchair racing at 2007 Parapan American Games, Rio de Janeiro, created by Marcello Casal Jr / Agência Brasil - uploaded by Redux - nominated by Javier ME --Javier ME 20:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support The subject is interesting, the whole image is dinamic and the main figure is acceptable for an action picture.

-- Javier ME 20:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC) Edit 2 is more dinamic. --Javier ME 21:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cropping the standing man off or keeping him? --Javier ME 22:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure. It would be nice to get rid of that figure too but maybe the crop would be too extreme - Alvesgaspar 07:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: withdrawn => not featured. --Pumpmeup 08:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

300px|Wheelchair racing at 2007 Parapan American Games, Rio de Janeiro

OK, I withdraw nomination of Edit 1. --Javier ME 21:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit 2

[edit]

Wheelchair racing at 2007 Parapan American Games, Rio de Janeiro 

result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. --Pumpmeup 08:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Short description

Why would there be one ? Remi Mathis 15:04, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Il y a un loi bizarre en France que les bâtiments sont en copyright (je ne sais pas le mot en français, désolé), mais je ne sais pas s'il applique ici. Ce n'est pas vraiment un bâtiment, mais... Doodle-doo Ħ 15:35, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because France doesn't have Freedom of Panorama. see Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Louvre 2007 02 24 c.jpg (and unfold the discussion at the bottom) for a discussion on this topic. En gros, les bâtiments en France sont soumis à droit d'auteur. ça n'est qu'après 70 ans après la mort de l'architecte que son image tombe dans le domaine publique. C'est pour ça qu'on ne peut photographier la pyramide du Louvre seule puis la diffuser. Dans le cas de la cour Napoléon du Musée du Louvre, on peut car une jurisprudence de la place des Terreau à Lyon (voir lien donné vers la page de la cour de Cassation) indique que lorsqu'on prend un endroit dans lequel se fond une oeuvre soumis à droit d'auteur, on peut en diffuser l'image. Cette roue n'a pas un caractère architectural ou artistique particulier, si bien qu'il ne devrait pas y avoir de problème de ce côté là. Benh 18:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Good quality - but only if this isn't a copyvio. Anyone know for sure?  Neutral I was wrong - noisy/overexposed. Also, potential copyvio... I will resupport if these problems are addressed. Doodle-doo Ħ 15:40, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As far as I know there is no copvio over here. This apply to subjects which are remarquable in an architectural point of view or in a artistic one. Here this a very common wheel... Benh 19:03, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Hmm... the sky is still quite noisy and some bright parts are overexposed. Could anyone fix this? Doodle-doo Ħ 21:30, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done in English, French and Italian. Remi Mathis 19:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Info Thank you. I add a appropriate Russian description too. -- Sergey kudryavtsev 05:56, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 3 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. (Consensus not reached) --Benchat 07:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Short description 

 result: 22 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. --Benchat 06:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Short description 

result: 4 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. --Benchat 07:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Inside of Chýnov cave 

 result: 13 support, 4 oppose, 2 neutral => featured. --Benchat 07:09, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Washington Monument 

result: 4 support, 8 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. --Benchat 06:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Washington Monument 

result: 0 support, 1 oppose, 2 neutral => not featured. --Benchat 06:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Région de Vence, France

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: severely overexposed 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.

--Benchat 05:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] 

result: FPX => not featured. --Pumpmeup 09:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Short description 

result: 15 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral => promoted on 18 October 2007 by benjamint444 -- Bryan (talk to me) 19:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Amalfi Coast sunset

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: very unsharp and noisy, and overexposed in parts 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.

--Benchat 06:06, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] 

result: FPX => not featured. --Pumpmeup 06:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Dares Salaam beach

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: very noisy and tilted. 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 13:43, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] 

result: FPX => not featured. --Pumpmeup 09:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Short description

I don't think, but there isn't meaningful to continue.  --Beyond silence 10:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] 

result: withdrawn => not featured. --Benchat 06:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

The monolith of Peña de Bernal, in Querétaro, Mexico. 

result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) --Benchat 06:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Iceberg with hole near Sanderson Hope, Greenland.

  •  Info Uploaded, created, and nominated by --Slaunger 07:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Info I've seen several icebergs with a hole, but never one where the connecting arc looks so fragile as on this iceberg, which was spotted near Sanderson Hope on a boat trip between Kangersuatsiaq and Upernavik in Greenland. I am aware the photo has technical flaws and I wish there was some sort of scale on the photo. I estimate the peak of the iceberg extended about 35 m above sea level. Actually I have a whole series of photos of this iceberg from the time before it had the hole and until it broke in two, which I will upload shortly. That process took about a month. -- Slaunger 07:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral --Slaunger 07:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- Pudelek 11:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support--Mbz1 12:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support--69.51.160.104 15:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Looks tilted, low sharpness. --Beyond silence 19:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Comment The tilt is now corrected, I had just noticed myself. Concerning sharpness, you are right it is not the best in some areas of the photo (one of the technical flaws I mentioned), and it cannot be fixed. However I did manage to remove some of the noise in the sky as well (another technical flaw). -- Slaunger 20:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Karelj 20:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Leafnode 05:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- Sergey kudryavtsev 13:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose - Sorry Slaunger but photographic quality is not good enough. The picture has little detail, as if some extreme denoising tool were used, and the subject is not sharp. Also, the white balance seems off and the crop is too tight on the iceberg. Alvesgaspar 17:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Info I certainly understand that viewpoint, and I agree to a great extend about the technical flaws you mention. I would like to mention though that I have not used any extreme denoising tool. I have applied a selective Gaussian blur with a pixel radius of three but I set the contrast threshold to a very low value such that I could not see any change in the detail level of the iceberg itself. This helped slightly on the noisy sky but not much. The main problem is that the right part of the iceberg is not sharp from the beginning. Actually, I have been surprised that there have not been more opposing votes until now due to these technical flaws. I guess what triggered my nomination was the nomination by mbz1 of a quite similar object below, and I thought lets have some hole-in-iceberg fun at FPC! Concerning white balance you may be right. I am not very knowledgable about this. How do you spot it and how does one correct it?-- Slaunger 19:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for your explanations. As for the white balance, that is a tricky business to spot. What we identify as "white" with our eyes may vary with the "temperature" of the light, which is related to the wavelenght spectrum irradiated by the light source. Light from daylight, sunset, tungsten bulbs, fluorescent lamps, flash, etc. all have diferent "whites" (temperatures), and are registered diferently by our cameras. The question is our brain tend to adjust automatically to those differences and put a tag of "white" in everything supposed to be white by its experience. Any standard image editing application has ways to adjust the white balance, normally through the "temperature". In your picture it may well be the case that the colours are accurately depicted, the problem is we (I ?) are used to see icebergs less coloured Alvesgaspar 09:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • And thank you for explaining me about the colour balance. I guess it is the bluish hue you have noticed? This colour actually represents quite well how many icebergs appears to the eye in most daylight conditions - at least with my eyes and my twisted brain ;-) -- Slaunger 09:48, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Unfortunately, I do agree with Alvesgaspar. This time, originality of the subject isn't mitigating enough to me. Benh 17:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Poor technical quality, sorry. -- Ram-Man 23:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 I have reconsidered my nomination. On close inspection I find the technical quality is so low, that it would have been embarassing for me if it were featured. Thank you for the comments! -- Slaunger 07:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] 

result: withdrawn => not featured --Benhello! 12:08, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Close-up Deilephila porcellus

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 the subject is cut off 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.

--Pumpmeup 08:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

A dead brown rat

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: meets none of the FP criteria 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.

--Pumpmeup 08:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

 Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: tilted, overexposed, no wow factor 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.

--Benchat 05:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] 

result: FPX => not featured. --Pumpmeup 09:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

 Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: tilted, noisy and overexposed 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.

--Pumpmeup 08:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

 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 parts, tilted image and no wow factor 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.

--Benchat 05:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Short description

... uuups that was not my vote, it was our highly respected Alvesgaspar's vote :) --Richard Bartz 21:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC) Thank you for pointing that out, Alves, ehmm, I mean, Richard. -- Slaunger 05:46, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 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 unsharp when in full size. 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.

--Benhello! 11:37, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

bourdon de face

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: Unsharp, no wow factor and at a poor angle 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.

--Benchat 06:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Short description

  •  Oppose Lighting a bit too harsh, centered composition not the greatest. Dori - Talk 02:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, your right, I feel like I'm putting to much stuff up at the moment and they would probably do better if they were spread out a bit. I wasn't entirely happy with the composition but the quality seemed so good.  benjamint
result: withdrawn => not featured. --Pumpmeup 07:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

A dead brown rat with blood

 Comment You got something against dead rats? I dont think your reason is valid! Muhammad Mahdi Karim 18:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have nothing against dead rats, i'm quite sure a FP could be made about the subject, but this isn't one. The composition is not interesting, other elements in the picture are distracting, the light is not good, etc. Sorry. Husky (talk to me) 23:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment He he he, I agree on that one. You could also have moved it on a comfortable position, making a little romantic scenario or even make it wear a “I love New York” t-shirt or some other cool clothing... ;) Acarpentier 23:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose - I do have something against a FP depicting dead rats, unless the image tells some kind of story, or shows something relevant, not present in a living one. Death creatures are not interesting per se - Alvesgaspar 23:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose tail is cropped --che 00:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose per all of above --Pumpmeup 07:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Thank you Richard Bartz for your comments. It is with users like you who offer constructive criticisms that the world develops. Next time, I will keep in mind what you have said. For everyone else, thank you for voting. As per the comments of Richard, I withdraw my nomination.
result: withdrawn => not featured. ----MichaelMaggs 21:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Short description

  •  Info Sunset Inferior Mirage. Please take a look how this sunset looked: created, uploaded and nominated by Mbz1 --Mbz1 15:01, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  CommentHave you ever seen a mirage of the setting Sun or the Moon or a mirage of torrential objects? I see them often and they are beautiful to see. For example, the sunset Sun in San Francisco is never round. It takes all amazing shapes and no two sunsets are the same. Today I'd like to offer to your attention the sequence of the most common inferior mirage. Sunset inferior mirage is common around the world, but not where I live. I see them only 2-3 times per year. The nominated sequence was taken in Hawaii, where I saw inferior mirage of the setting sun every clear sunset. Please notice that in order to see any mirage there should be something in the atmosphere between an observer and a mirage. That's why you cannot except the images to be as clear as of a normal sunsets. Still I believe the nominated image is very encyclopedic. Thank you.
  •  Support --Mbz1 15:01, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • {{resolution is lower than 2 million pixels}}
    • The photos are impressionning, but the quality is not here... 6 pictures of poor quality don't makes one of quality!!! Sanchezn 21:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • cannot agree less. The pictures represent the shapes the sun takes during inferior mirage sunset. Putting 6 images in one image is the only way to show the different shapes in the same image. I'd like to remind you the one of criterias for selection: A bad picture of a very difficult subject is a better picture than a good picture of an ordinary subject. The nominated image is a very good quality image. It is as good as it gets with mirages.Well, I assume that Sanchezn saw and photographed many mirages himself and knows what he's talking about complainong about the quality of the image.
        • I'm sorry, I won't heart you. When I say 6 pics of poor quality don't make one of quality, I would rather used "resolution" instead of "quality". You're true, I don't know how it's difficult to photographs the sun; I never tried because I haven't the appropriated lens. I see on other photos of the same subject taken by you that you use a 300mm lens, maybe it's not a sufficient focal length for this type of picture. Sanchezn 22:11, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • There's nothing to be sorry about. In my opinion the resolution of the image was enough to show the shapes of the sun, but, if community disagree, it is fine with me. I could have posted a higher resolution image. As a matter of fact I did upload it already, but then I decided what for? Probably the bigger zoom would have done a better job, but I have only a bad mirror lense with 500mm. I'm not sure I'd like to get a better lens just to make an image FP. After all quite a few of my sunset mirage images, taking with 300mm lens, were published at NASA sites.Btw looks like it did automatic update of the nominated image because the new image I uploaded had the same name. So now we do have a higher resolution image.--Mbz1 23:01, 30 September 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
  •  Comment I think this would be much better as an animated GIF of the sequence. Doodle-doo Ħ 21:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I agree, this would be much better as an animated GIF. --Digon3 talk 02:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support The original image was 3Mpixel, the new version is 7.5Mpixel, the {{FPX}} is factually incorrect. I know it has been withdrawn, but I vote in support of it anyway. :-) --Tony Wills 07:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose For the reasons I explained on top. I have nothing to do with 3 or 7.5 Mpixel, there is 6 pictures, each occups 20% of the surface => 6 pics < 1.6 Mpixel, and visibly the new version is only a scaled and smoothed version (I prefer the previous version). Sanchezn 18:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is not 'six pictures' it is one composite image (do you care how small the components that are glued together to make a panorama are?). We are evaluating a single image illustrating a natural phenomena, not component parts. If you wish to complain about large blank areas etc that's another matter, but the image in question indeed meets arbitrary size demands. --Tony Wills 20:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please take a look at this image or maybe you would like to calculate how megapixels a fly takes on this image . What I'm trying to say is that in my opinion we cannot apply megapixels requirements to the subject of the image.In my opinion it is wrong.--Mbz1 19:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you for you comments, everybody. Please notice that even, if I'm to do the animation the resolution of it will be lower than 2 megapixels, or the quality will be lost.I'm afraid it is how it goes with taking pictures of sunset sun. I cannot use any filter and I'm not sure I'd like to spoil my sensor and demage my eyes with a bigger zoom. Let's say I nominated this image . It is inferior mirage sunset scenery. Still the sun is relatively small. --Mbz1 19:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
        • I see that having different opinion than your is forbiden. For the moon, I'm sorry but I think the quality doesn't come from the photographs but from the composition. Behind shooting, he does a great job to put them all together, there is a big value added. On your picture the composition is bad, the photographs are not aligned (on QIC, some people oppose just because a tilt of less than 2°)... For the fly there is no problems, there would be if he put 6 pictures together to make a bigger one. Sorry again for having an opinion different of your. Sanchezn 20:49, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sure you could have a different opinion(s). Nothing is forbiden at Wikipedia. One could talk about the subject that he has never seen not only in real life, but not even in pictures. One could change opinion in every comment from resolution to quality to composition and so on. Am I allowed to have my own opinion too? Thank you. So, in my opinion FP have lived for many years without displaying sunset mirage and it will live for many more years without it just fine. On the other hand my sunset mirage pictures are all over the NET, at least one was published in a magazine, so the people, who are interested in mirages would be able to find them.I really cannot care less, if the image is to pass, or it is not, yet in my opinion the image should not have been FPX. It was my last comment for the nomination. Thank you, everybody --Mbz1 22:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]

 Support For an encyclopedia images like these can be priceless. I hate making the argument that utility is more important than beauty but, as I already mentioned, these images are for encyclopedias. Calibas 03:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose Six very similar pictures, why? Maybe greater time distance between snaps could help...? --Karelj 20:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • !!?? It's a time sequence showing very clearly the progression of the phenomena. --Tony Wills 22:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you for your question, Karelj. I believe it was my fault. I see mirages relatively often and sometimes it is hard to look at the image with the eyes of a person, who sees a mirage for the first time. I should have explained better what is inferior mirage and where to look for changes. Inferior mirage of the setting sun looks more or less the same in different sunsets. The initial part of an inferior mirage sunset, which is shown in the nominated image is the most interesting part in my opinion. After 2 Suns (a lower one and an upper one) get together nothing much happens. Sometimes in the very end of inferior mirage sunset, you could see a very rare and very beautiful green flash . Mock mirage sunsets are different. No 2 sunsets are the same and no 2 shapes of the same sunset are the same as you could see from this Mock Mirage Sunset Sequence--Mbz1 22:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
  •  Oppose Bad quality. Sure is valuable for the encyclopedia, but not featured. Acarpentier 03:10, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  
result: withdrawn => not featured. --Pumpmeup 08:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]
Fürstenzug in Dresden
 Info Hugin was my first try, but the result was shit and very nonlinear. So I use the tile character of the image for stiching. In the colors stiching I can't see a problem, because I use manual settings of the camera. --Kolossos 20:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 7 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. --Pumpmeup 07:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

I rebuild the image with more care, because the comments above. --Kolossos 20:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fürstenzug in Dresden - more careful
  •  Oppose There are still stitching errors on the top of the picture (3 really visible and 1 acceptable). The horizontal lines on the top of picture are wavy, while the same lines on the bottom are not, I suppose it's a problem of stitching. Colors are more pale than previous version. The picture could be very impressionnant. Sanchezn 21:22, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Colors not worse?--Beyond silence 12:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
this image is no candidate
  •  Support If you think off how small the street is and how high the Fürstenzug is lying (see picture on the right) then you know which hard work this was. — Manecke 09:54, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem is the picture has been stitched with The Gimp. The Gimp is not good for stitching and we see the result. Stitched with Hugin the result could only be better, not only for the stitching errors but also for vignetage correction. If kolossos give us the original pictures, we can show. Sanchezn 12:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it's false. While there is only one plan, stitching errors cannot exists (if you use an appropriated software). The work become harder when there are more plans, sometimes you succeed aligning correctly the background, but the foreground contains stitching errors. Sanchezn 19:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that one user who supported the first nomination did not !vote in the second, and this vote would have made up a two thirds majority. I will assume that the same image with less errors would be supported by this user as well. --Pumpmeup 07:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment However if another user can create a better image and upload it, please do --Pumpmeup 07:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC);[reply]

Well that in defies the whole reason of voting doesn't it? "Oh yes please feature this mediocre version, but if you have a good one, then please upload...".You must be kidding !!! Lycaon 15:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, why do you have the authority to disregard the guidelines (which are there for a reason)? You should request a change to them if you don't feel that they are sufficient. In this case, the image really should NOT be featured because of the rules! Doodle-doo Ħ 23:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Question I don't understand this discussion. Why does a vote of 8/3/0 not meet the rules for featuring? (By the way, though, Pumpmeup, here on Commons we decide by way of a strict vote, not a vague 'consensus' as on Wikipedia. The act of closing is purely administrative, and the closer has no discretion to disregard the rules.) --MichaelMaggs 08:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 8 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. --Pumpmeup 07:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Phytagorean theorem Phytagorean theorem

[edit]
result: 7 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. --Pumpmeup 08:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]
result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. --Pumpmeup 06:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Short description

Perfectly sharp? You are joking, look around! --Beyond silence 16:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, what isn't sharp in this image)? Please detail or stop the FUD. --Nattfodd 00:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 12 support, 7 oppose, 2 neutral => not featured -- Cecil 13:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

A Campylorhynchus brunneicapillus (Cactus Wren) 

result: 2 support, 5 oppose => not featured. Cecil 13:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
not counting the last vote, since it was not in time. -- Cecil 13:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Centurion (Roman army) historical reenactment

P.S. : This is kind of process on a photograph made by newbie's who think that because they own a digital camera they turn photographers. Come on Luc, you're used to make much better work than this one, why did you destroy the quality on this one ?
Ben, je pense, oui. Luc fait d'habitude d'excellentes photos, mais ici il a poussé le renforcement vraiment trop loin, à la manière d'un mauvais amateur qui croit qu'avec cela il augmentera très facilement la netteté sans prendre en compte les effets secondaires de ce filtre, très visibles ici. L'avis sur une Featured Picture Candidate doit prendre tous les aspects en compte pour être juste. Ici, techniquement, c'est mauvais. Sting 02:59, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 11 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Cecil 13:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

The aircraft carrier USS Franklin afire after a Japanese air attack on March 19, 1945.

  •  Info Photographed by PHC Albert Bullock from a cruiser alongside, US Navy, public domain - uploaded by Dna-Dennis
  •  Support --Dna-Dennis (comment by nom: I'm not joking, I've seen thousands of WW2 pics, and this is IMO a masterpiece) 17:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{FPX|too small (740 × 500) --Beyond silence 19:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC))}}[reply]

 QuestionIsn't it only resized? --Beyond silence 08:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 13 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Cecil 14:10, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

A tithonia rotundifolia flower 

result: 5 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Cecil 14:38, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Short description 

result: 15 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Cecil 14:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]
[edit]

Loch Fada and The Storr on Skye 

result: 6 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured (version with better vote below). Cecil 14:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Cecil 14:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Short description 

result: 4 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Cecil 15:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Short description

  •  Info created, uploaded and nominated by Benh
  •  Info I think this picture does a good job in showing some stained glasses of the Cathedral, which has the largest surface of them in France. This is a stitched-with-Hugin panoramic picture which was hard to obtain because of the numerous parallax errors between the sources photos (unfortunately, I don't own appropriate equipment for panoramic photography). While I know some people don't like it this way, I chose not to have all vertical lines so to better show how small the viewer is and believe this is a more natural result. Because of the projection used (rectilinear) areas on the borders are streched, hence the lost of sharpness.
  •  Support -- Benh 17:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- Diligent 19:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral The stitch has very high quality. I've looked carefully at it for some minutes without noticing any stitching errors, so I think you have done a good job there despite the parallax problems you mention. (I am sure though that Lycaon could spot some if he passed by this with his falcon eyes) .I don't mind that verticals aren't parallel but the projection gives some quite extreme effects near the image border where objects have aspects ratios which are quite unnatural. You have chosen a difficult subject concerning dynamic range because there are very dark area as compared to the sun passing through the stained glass. This has resulted in some over-exposed areas like the cross. This is probably a place where HDR could be a relevant technique, although I think it would be painstaking work to make an HDR pano of this! Adding the pros and cons together I come to a neutral result. -- Slaunger 20:00, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's still not an oppose ;) Actually, there were a few stitching errors, but I cloned them away with Gimp (and although I told you I was sceptical about manipulating too much a picture). The new version of Enblend does a very good job in seamlessly stitch pictures which has parallax errors now. It choose the area very carefully (wonder how they achieve this). I can understand distorsion will bother some, but keep in mind this is a very wide angle view, and this is a situation where they are unavoidable. Look at this picture and this one (only on en.wiki) (they inspired me a lot for this picture), the second one has already strong distorsions at the bottom corner, and the first one, if perspective corrected would probably show similar strong distortion. On my pano, they are probably stronger though (because of bad anchor point chosen I guess). For the HDR thing, I have this pano you probably remember about :) but this was a 2 pictures pano and here we have 6. It would have been a huge overload of work to me, and probably my small laptop would have had a lot of pain in computing it :) Benh 21:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thank you for the explanation. I gotta try the new enblend as I've given up on some panos with objects close to the camera which are giving me a hard time due to parallax errors. I may give it another try with an updated Hugin package. -- Slaunger 21:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral for now - The extreme distortion becomes the subject in this picture, instead of the "vitraux". Nothing wrong with that but I'm not sure I like this particular solution. The important element which should have the honour to be represented "straight" is the altar, and it is not. Let the consensus speak. Alvesgaspar 21:01, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As an atheist, there isn't any religious consideration when I compose a picture ;) But had I chosen to represent the altar straight, the right part would have suffered from even stronger distorsion than here. I tried several projections before coming to the conclusion that this one was the best compromise. Keeping the vertical lines so would have generated very very strong distorsions on the ceiling, and using an equirectangular projection really isn't pleasing to my eyes and spoils the volume perception of the interior. I'm not trying to influence your judgement, but ask you to think about how a similar wide angle POV could be achieved without so much distorsions (if someone knows please help !!) Benh 21:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Support Changed my vote. --Aqwis 19:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 10 support, 7 oppose, 2 neutral => not featured. Cecil 15:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Jigokudani hotspring in Nagano Japan 001.jpg, delisted

[edit]

Short description 

result: 9 Delist, 0 Keep, 0 neutral => delisted. Simonizer 15:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Bismarck tower Glauchau - night view (aka).jpg, featured

[edit]

This image shows the Bismarck tower in Glauchau (Germany) about 45 minutes after sunset

Aka mentioned on german WP that he has uploaded a new version where he improved the sky section. -- Cecil 21:18, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 14 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 15:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Norwegian sculptor Knut Steen

Seems like all are users on Commons, some are fairly big contributors, and some are even sysops. I don't see any problems. Jeblad 23:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Not because I'm Norwegian, but because I know this person and this picture reflects his personality perfectly. Alvesgaspar: it's natural that the votes come from Norwegians when the portraited person is from Norway, because I don't think people from other countries have heard much about him. We know him better than anyone else. Haakon K 00:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
@Haakon K: it's maybe natural that the votes come from Norwegians, but I strongly suspect the reason is more that Jeblad posted the news on your forum, the tinget. After all it took just 65 minutes for the first seven votes and some of the users haven't been here in month. So it was rather obvious that the Vikings are on their way. Still, I like the picture, especially since portraits are something I consider as rather difficult to make. Worst case is my passport where I look like a criminal.  Support -- Cecil 07:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We all have mug shots in our passports, don't we? --Kjetil r 08:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You can only vote in votations that you know about --Haakon K 00:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral I really like the expression, but I'm not supporting due to the overexposed sections that can be easily overcome on such an image (just going -0.05 gets rid of it without darkening the image, and it's not that difficult to do) if you have the raw file. While you're at it, the levels can also be adjusted a tad. You've already got a great shot, why not put in a tiny more effort? Dori - Talk 03:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support. Kjetil 08:09, 3 October 2007 (UTC) Only one vote, please - Alvesgaspar 11:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thats User:Kjetil, not to be confused with user:Kjetil r... ;) Finn Rindahl 11:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose I would have raised an eyebrow or three if a lot of newbies/ not very active users turned up to give their opinions on one specific article at Featured Article review at no:wiki, but please: even if these "votes" may seem biased or not very qualified, I'm happy that a) this very good portrait was nominated and I sincerely hope that everyone review the picture based on its own merits and not based on prior votes, and b) that lot's of Norwegian users has discovered the FP section at Commons. They may not do more on these subpages than I normally do, which is looking at very good pictures and wondering what the technical discussions among the "professional FP-reviewers" really is about, but it's still one of the better places in the wikimedia world to hang out. Regards, Finn Rindahl 13:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 21 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Simonizer 15:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

The Vinland Map

 Comment I agree some of the legends are not easy to read, but a big part of that is due to the fading of the document and the type of handwriting; making it even higher res may not make it any easier to read. Compare for example Image:USA declaration independence.jpg, which, although very big, is so badly faded in many places as to be illegible under standard lighting conditions. Scholars fluent in Latin and viewing the map under UV light can read it more easily. Jeff Dahl 17:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment Indeed, the image is slightly cropped, but other featured historical maps have similar cropping, such as on Image:World Map 1689.JPG, especially the left edge about 2/3 the way up. The map is closely guarded and not available for anyone to just take a picture of. I think it is a quality image that, because of its history/content, has a special quality to be featured. Jeff Dahl 20:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Value" is undefined and as such not the "main" goal. For the type of "value" you refer to, try to get it featured on en:FP. Technical demands are well defined and as such not arbitrary. Lycaon 09:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 7 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Simonizer 15:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Short description

Helpful suggestions moved to here
result: 21 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 15:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Neuschwanstein Castle Photochrom

 Comment A stunning photochrom of a very famous German landmark. Not only a clear and beautiful example of a photochrom image from the turn of the century, but also a valuable record of how this castle looked shortly after completion. In addition, this is currently the only image on Commons that gives a head-on view of the castle. Also nominated on en wikipedia.-Sarfa 05:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 13 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral =>  featured. Simonizer 19:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

A trapped mouse

Oh, ok. I just thought the wow factor was important in this one. It was pretty impressive for me anyways.--Canislupusarctos 03:22, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 0 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Cecil 07:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Masked owl head4443.jpg

[edit]

Short description

 

Image:Masked owl mask4441.jpg

[edit]

Short description

 I withdraw my nomination

Don't you want upload a new fixed version? --Beyond silence 08:21, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Short description

  • But what is it about Africa that has forced the photographer to downsample the image?
result: 2 support, 8 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 15:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

(Section) 

result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 15:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]
[edit]

NGC 3603 nebula with open star clusters 

result: 4 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 15:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With Noise Reduction

[edit]

NGC 3603 nebula with open star clusters 

 result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured.
[edit]

Short description 

result: 10 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Cecil 13:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

result: 3 support, 6 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Cecil 13:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Royal coat of arms of the United Kingdom

The colours are fixed; it is the coat of arms of the United Kingdom. I do not understand the second part of the comment: what is the not authentic thing? I drew it with Inkscape. Here is a FP of a similar CoA, also drawn with Inkscape.Chabacano 06:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The link below I think would have been a better version. I can see how long this must have taken if you worked with original outlines, but I just don't believe it to have that historical COA feel - but hey just my opinion and this is way off from my area of expertise. Changed to neutral as I agree that was probably a bit harsh --Benchat 06:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are right with the lion, The source I used is the only one in which it appears slanting :P. I have changed it. About the mantle, I haven't seen any requirements, but now that you mention it, I have noticed that "inward"-"outward" thing. I have added a piece of gold as in this one to enforce the "gold is outwards" habit.Chabacano 04:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The lion is much better now and I like the change to the mantling. I can easily support this version. Valentinian T / C 09:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just a suggestion: the Scottish lion might benefit from a thin black outline like the one on the English lions, but this is a minor point. Btw, it is nice to see the difference between heraldic lions and heraldic leopards correctly applied. :) Valentinian T / C 09:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 2 neutral => featured. Cecil 13:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

das Februarpatent von 1861

Here's a link to the English page: en:February patent, I tried adding a link on the German page but it doesn't all anonymous IPs. Calibas 04:29, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 --Böhringer 14:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] 

result: Withdrawn => not featured. --Simonizer 15:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Utsira Lighthouse 

result: 0 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) --Simonizer 15:45, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Short description 

result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) --Simonizer 15:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

A Barbary Macaque infant in Gibraltar 

result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) --Simonizer 15:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

The famous Kapellbrücke in Lucerne

So i will do that now. ;-)

 I dont have the RAW File of this image anymore, so I can only edit the jpg-File and that would not be good for the overall quality. So I withdraw this nomination. I will be in Lucerne again at the first weekend of November and I will take a new picture of the bridge then --Simonizer 09:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] 

result: withdrawn => not featured. --Simonizer 15:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Short description

 Alvesgaspar 14:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] 

Withdrawn => not featured. -- Cecil 13:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Red-veined darter

 Alvesgaspar 12:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] 

Withdrawn => Not featured. -- Cecil 13:30, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Short description

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 at all. Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

Is this a joke? Lycaon 17:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Recently shot Greenland dog in Upernavik, Greenland

  •  Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Slaunger --Slaunger 18:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Info See the image page for the full story. -- Slaunger 18:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral --Slaunger 18:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I don't like the composition, it's also not sharp enough, but I'm also disturbed by the sudden upsurge of dead animals nominated for FP and QI. Dori - Talk 19:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Comment I accept your arguments about the composition and sharpness, but concerning dead animals, have you actually seen the image page description. It is the story of the photo, which bring a lot of value. A story, that was missing IMO in the previous nominations. I understand if you are disturbed, but have you asked yourself why you are disturbed after reading on the image page what this is really about? -- Slaunger 22:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I did read the description before voting. If it had the shooter in the frame along with the garbage, then yes it would be illustrating something. As it is, it's just illustrating a dead dog. Dori - Talk 00:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I agree it would have been better if the shooter had been there. I just wanted to make sure youe had understood what the photo is about, which you have demonstrated, thank you. -- Slaunger 06:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Plastic bag disturbing, and not very sharp. Acarpentier 21:25, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Comment I'm OK with your concern about the sharpness, it is not super, because I do not have a super camera. If I may comment on the plastic bag, that actually has a point in the composition. The desd dog is considered waste in the state which it is presented in (please read the image page). And the black plastic bag is waste too, which is waiting to be garbage collected in the exact same manner as the dog is. I may not have been succesfull in demonstrating this as a compositional element in the photo, but it was a scenario that I had never seen the like before, and I think it is very unique on Commons. -- Slaunger 22:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose The content of this image causes a strong "anti-wow" effect with me. And I am not a vegetarian... - JDrewes 21:59, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Comment I accept that viewpoint. According to the guidelines about value beautiful does no always mean exceptional, and I'd say it is vice versa. that exceptional isn't always beautiful. This photo is certainly not beautiful, but it brings out strong reactions to everyone I show it to, unlike hoverfly on flower pic # 50 (no offense Alves). And when I ask why it is almost always due to a set of cultural (often urban) values which are completely different from the ones prevailing on the location of the photo. And I find it interesting to ask, which set of cultural value are best and why? -- Slaunger 22:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Question I'm not sure if "anti-wow" is a good reason. Is it? Anyway I agree with Slaunger on that one... Acarpentier 23:23, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment - I'm also affected by the crudity of this image though I agree that is not a valid reason for opposing. Mutatis mutandis being shocking is not enough reason to be valuable. The "message" or "story" behind this kind of pictures should be obvious and non-trivial. In the present case looking at the picture is not enough to understand what is behind the ugliness. Alvesgaspar 23:39, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Comment Relieving to see some qualified feedback. I see your point that such a photo should be self-explanatory telling its story by itself without having to read the caption, so to say. Good point. -- Slaunger 21:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Sorry, I can't support this. Shocking doesn't equal art, and I don't see anything more compelling than its shock value. If the picture told a story or had an interesting composition I could support. --JaGa 04:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I must stress the point that there is in fact a difference between "shocking" and "disturbing" --Pumpmeup 04:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support As the previous ones, this is not only a picture of a dead animal, but of an animal killed by humans. With this dead dog, the photographer shows us the behaviour of our own species. As FP candidates are not a postcards exhibition, and as the picture is technically good enough, I support it. Vassil 20:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I could invoke technical reasons, but have to admit I mainly oppose because I'm shocked... For now, maybe this kind of subjects should be taken in a way not as straight as it is here... Time for us to get used to. Benh 20:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I find the words used by reviewers to characterize the photo so far interesting. They have included shocking, ugly, disturbing and crude. I would like to say that it was my own inital response and emotions at the scene. Since then I have thought a lot about it, and actually I think it is not so simple. First of all, it was my impression that the dog was not traumatized in any way before it was shot. The shooter walked up to it and shot it. It appeared to me that it died immediately without suffering. From the dogs point of view I think this is at least as good as taking it to a vet and giving it a terminal injection. To my mind it also died fairly healthy and fell-fed. It did not have to live for five extra years being over-weight, half blind, and half deaf as many domestic dogs do in my usual environment. The unusual thing about it is that it is done in full public. But these dogs are not pet dogs on the location of the photo. They are working animals, and quite frankly I do not see the big diffence between this and slaughtering pigs, cows and other livestock for human consumption. These animals are killed in an almost similar manner, the difference is we don't see it normally. -- Slaunger 21:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 As Alvesgaspar has pointed out the story should be self-explanatory, and it is not. -- Slaunger 21:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] 

Withdrawn => not featured. -- Cecil 13:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Praia da Amoreira - III.jpg, not featured

[edit]

Beach of Amoreira, Aljezur - Portugal

Sacavem1 14:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Support unsigned supports are not valid. Lycaon 15:40, 15 October 2007 (UTC) What a dramatic rock for fishing! Great colours and a very pleasant composition. Excellent DOF.[reply]

  •  Oppose. Excellent DOF? You must have looked at a different picture. This one here is totally unsharp and noisy, especially the rock, not to speak of the fisherman. There is nothing special in the composition, it's rather simple, boring. -- Cecil 11:50, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: noisy, unsharp and tilted. 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 16:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]
 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 20:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Photo of a radar in Brugge, Belgium

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

Lycaon 20:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

 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 and has a water mark - Alvesgaspar 12:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[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:Esbjerg Statues 2 amk.jpg, not featured.

[edit]

 I withdraw my nomination --AngMoKio 18:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC) :([reply] 

Withdrawn => not featured. --MichaelMaggs 05:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

 I withdraw my nomination --AngMoKio 18:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC) :([reply] 

Withdrawn => not featured. --MichaelMaggs 05:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Castle Geyser at Yellowstone National Park

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: unsharp 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.
Thank you for your comment. Unfortunately I don't know what you mean. --Flicka 11:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Save it with a smaller resolution, I think. --Beyond silence 12:27, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New version

  •  Oppose I don't think it enough good too, sorry.--Beyond silence 19:16, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Sorry, but this version is not sharp enough, either. A real pity, as at 30% view this image is amazing. Freedom to share 19:23, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support I like it. --Dezidor 23:01, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Sorry, can't be saved. Lycaon 23:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Even this looks upscaled :( --che 00:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I absolutely agree that the picture is not as sharp as I (and you) would like it to be. But can someone tell me what's my problem? The picture ist taken with f22, so at least one part of the picture should be in the right focus. It's taken with 1/60s, and I'm quite sure that I can take such pictures without trembling and shaking. The resolution of the Canon 400D is quite high, and the lens, though not original Canon or a high-end product, wasn't cheap and had good results in several tests. I've made a noise reduction, but that doesn't seem to be the biggest problem, if I compare the pictures above and the original picture. So can somebody tell me what to do? Does the lens need a check? Or what is the problem? I also have a Canon L lens, the 24-105 mm, and these pictures also look very soft. So maybe it's the camera? I'd be really thankful for your answers. --Flicka 16:21, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment This seems more like a focus problem than a problem with your lens or camera - the foreground appears perfectly sharp, after all. It is a bit odd though, since f/22 gives you a high degree of depth of field. Unless you somehow managed to focus at something even closer than the foreground, which would lead to the foreground becoming sharp but not the geysir. By the way, why did you feel the need to apply noise reduction on an image taken at ISO 200, a setting with very low noise on all digital SLRs? --Aqwis 18:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment After looking at the original version i can see that the foreground isn't as sharp as i thought. However, it's still possible that you somehow managed to focus at the closest distance possible - this could make the image unsharp especially when using close-focus lenses, even at f/22. --Aqwis 18:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that might be the reason. I will check it. Oh, and I decided to do a noise reduction because there were some dark parts of the picture that had to be lightened and then showed some noise. --Flicka 20:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn => not featured. -- Cecil 17:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

It would be interesting to see --Richard Bartz 17:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
May I know why? Muhammad Mahdi Karim 18:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image added by Muhammad Mahdi Karim 18:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] 

result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 15:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Rogers Center and CN Tower.jpg

[edit]

Rogers Center and CN Tower

  •  Info I havent seen a really good shot of these two together yet

created by MarcusObal - uploaded by MarcusObal - nominated by MarcusObal --MarcusObal 02:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Question May I ask what stitch error you are speaking of? If you are referring to the black line in the upper right corner, that is actually the wire supporting the mesh behind home plate. 

result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 15:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Rogers Center and CN Tower-bsfix.jpg

[edit]

Rogers Center and CN Tower

  •  Info Yellow line fixed - I'm ready for cheering! ;)

uploaded, nominated by Beyond silence

I don't see that error. --Beyond silence 22:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe you need glasses :-) look on the roof on the left of the picture (white with vertical stripes)... I've done a new stitching and it will be in wiki in 10 minutes... Sanchezn 23:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 4 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 15:38, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Rogers Center and CN Tower

  •  Info Stitched using Hugin. The orange vertical line is back (it's not an error!)

original by MarcusObal stitched, uploaded and nominated by Nicolas Sanchez

  •  Info Cable cloned out by JaGa 16:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support--Sanchezn 12:42, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Support Excellent stitching! I was trying to stitch them up myself with PTGui but the images were giving me fits. Sanchezn, could you give some hints how you aligned those three images so well? For instance did you correct for perspective tilt, or lens distortion, or anything like that BEFORE stitching? I noticed in your first version, the people in the foreground look skewed, and the left field fence looks tilted forward. In your latest version, it's really just perfect. How on earth did you fix that? JaGa 08:57, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose --(weak oppose)  Support No need to keep the wire at the top right : it brings nothing to the picture, is distracting and makes now a curve. (cable has been cloned out) It could be also good to mention in the description page what the orange line is, as even at 200% it's not possible to determine it's use. Sting 17:22, 6 October 2007 (UTC) P.S. : the stitching is very well made this time ![reply]
Yes, of course. Sting 22:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support I applaud the stitching work Sanchezn! And thank you for preserving the original photographs too. I feel that the yellow line (foul pole) should be left in the picture as it is physically at the field and a part of the game of baseball. It is a part of the picture, not a mistake and removing it would be misrepresentation. For asthetic purposes, the cable in the top right corner could be removed simply beacuse it's purpose is not clear, but I dont see that as necessary. Thank you for fixing the problems, I'm still new to the world of photoshop. --[User:MarcusObal|MarcusObal]]MarcusObal 19:34, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support I don't mind the cable that much, but it could of course be removed. /Daniel78 22:19, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment It has come up before on the English wiki FP site that pics of MLB games are ineligible since they are not "free". According to the discussions there, the back of MLB game tickets basically requires you to get MLB permission to publish pics. I have no idea if this is true or if it is relevant on the commons, but I thought I might bring it up, just in case. --66.112.105.200 04:44, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Yay! This picture is finally nicely stitched :-) But a version without the orange pole would be nice, purely for aesthetic reasons as I'm sure that educational contexts this picture would be used in are not using the picture to describe the function of the pole --Benhello! 06:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support ...as before, I think it is a good picture. --Thermos 14:22, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Don't like the composition. Lycaon 04:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support uncommon composition, good quality --Jklamo 01:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  CommentIn response to the anonymous user above, I took a look at the ticket holder agreement for the Toronto Blue Jays, and it includes the following line:

"The Holder will not transmit or aid in transmitting any description, account, picture or reproduction of the game." Perhaps it would be best if this was not a featured picture for that reason. Thank you very much for the support and corrections everyone! -MarcusObal 05:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] 

result: 7 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 15:30, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Bouncing ball - strobe.jpg

[edit]

Original version

[edit]
I'd be more than happy to email the RAW file to anyone who can improve the editing. I know there some real experts out there; any volunteers please?--MichaelMaggs 09:06, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Slavery ? Send it to me :) --Richard Bartz 12:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Richard, thanks very much. Email sent. --MichaelMaggs 17:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

* Support - Husky (talk to me) 22:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] 

result: 5 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured, cause other version has more support Simonizer 15:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]


This extremely professional re-edit from my original RAW file has been done by Richard Bartz, and I'd urge everyone to vote for this instead of my own very imperfect Photoshop efforts. Thanks very much to Richard for the work he's put in. --MichaelMaggs 16:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Several people have suggested the image would look nicer without the first ball. I don't feel strongly either way, but getting rid of it would save the queries about whether it is in the right place (it is). On the the hand I really don't want to have to re-start the voting all over again. Would deleting it be a small enough edit to avoid having to ask everyone to re-vote? --MichaelMaggs 19:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The first ball is not necessary. Actuality this ball gives a wrong impression of the physical laws. Wladyslaw 07:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably "please cut the first ball out of the picture". Would you be able to do that, Richard, and re-post? You're the only one who can make that edit without having to do a lossy re-save of the jpg version. --MichaelMaggs 09:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 08:13, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Short description 

result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 2 neutral => featured. Simonizer 15:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Short description 

result: 6 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Simonizer 15:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]
  •  Comment I think a coin image could be featured based on that is a good coin-image; just as birds are featured for being a good image of a certain bird, but then again I might be biased as this is my own image :) /Daniel78 20:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 15:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]
 Comment Unfortunately there is no clear information about it on Sveriges Riksbanks web page. I have tried to contact them to get an answer but have not received a reply yet. /Daniel78 21:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 10 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 15:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

result: 19 support, 9 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 15:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

original nomination on which this voting started (which was later overwritten)
Short description

* Support -- That's pretty good. Husky (talk to me) 17:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yeah sure. And I don't criticize your work .It very well done. that's why i used it. And you could just give yourself the credit too. It's open! But I have to agree with below that it has artifacts. I tried to remove some. Maybe you can help with that if you have a less compressed version (I'm sure you don't want to work 3h more, so I don't expect much) ;-) --Arad 01:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:43, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Short description

  • lol. Well true. Greets to you too (In a few weeks, weather here is going to be horrible). I had a question: How did you find this version of the same picture? Did you create it or found it? And I'm also waiting for the darker version. Thanks --Arad 03:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Better crop but the top one has better colors/contrast. Calibas
result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Saturn's moon Iapetus

This a standard NASA file name, which I used to aid others when uploading NASA images. For example, I searched for 'PIA08384' prior to uploading it, to makes sure it wasn't already here. --startaq 07:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 07:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Cloister view (through window) of a famous monastery in Madrid (Spain)

The bottom window is old, but the one over it is not without pane. That's the dirty window I have referred to. Take a closer look and you will see all the sprinkles. -- Cecil 18:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are right it's not very clean! but I support it.--Doalex 20:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FPX|unsharp, no clear subject --Pumpmeup 08:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC) You cannot use FPX if there are already two supporters, --MichaelMaggs 05:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There weren't when I put the FPX template on --Pumpmeup 06:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
you are too much fast.--Doalex 10:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 08:08, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Short description

  • How I can convert googlemaps coordinates into the template properly ? I had it once but deleted the link, any help? Or better, can you do it for, please? It was at Alpenzoo at 47.282039, 11.398079. --Richard Bartz 19:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The bearded volture is very colorful. If you look at the exif data you will see that the picture was taken at 9.15 in the morning, where you have a very special and nice light. For this picture i woke up at 5.00 in the morning and did a 150km drive to get it. There was a comment of a other user which said it looks unnatural, i agree with that because when did you was in the mountains above 1000m and was watching/photographing birds at sunrise? . For me this picture is very special and its the first time i disagree on a vote because its not colorcorrected. --Richard Bartz 08:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] 
result: 14 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Simonizer 08:11, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Short description 

result: 19 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 08:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Abbazia di Sant'Antimo - 01.jpg, not featured

[edit]

The Abbey of Sant'Antimo (Montalcino, Italy)

and now?--Dongio 22:14, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
reason?
  • Dicevo, è ancora pendente? l'ho già ruotata rispetto all'originale, e se ora tracci una riga verticale sul lato del campanile, vedrai che non è più pendente... oppure deve pendere verso sinistra per effetto della prospettiva? --Dongio 06:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, the building is leaning to the back. Rotation won't help - it's perespective disortion. --Leafnode 07:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • ma se è una distorsione della prospettiva, cosa si può fare? vuol dire che la fotografia è fatta male? ...ma la prospettiva esiste... --Dongio 14:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've checked full image on photoshop using guidelines - now it looks OK, I've changed my vote. About your question: perspective errors are made mainly because of bad photographer's position. When you make photo from place close to the base of building, it's natural that you point your camera upward. This is how 'frog perspective' is made. While it may be OK to use it as artistic measure, this is not very good way to depict buildings --Leafnode 08:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Thumbnail doesn't seem up to date. I think tilt is corrected but would prefer it with warmer colours. Is it worth editing it again ? Benh 21:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 08:17, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Panoramica dal Lagazuoi Tofana di Rozes -2.jpg, not featured

[edit]

Wiew of monut Tofana from the top of mount Lagazuoi, Cortina d'Ampezzo, Italy. 

result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 08:25, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

8 year old girl

That's not a kind or useful comment. --MichaelMaggs 08:21, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment This is an extremely good portrait: even better than the FP image in many ways, including the lighting and the expression. If it were not for the hair this one could also be featured. We are very short of FP portraits, and we could do with more like this. How about it Joaquim? Though I appreciate it will now be difficult to re-take a photo of your daughter as a 8 year old ;) --MichaelMaggs 08:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose j.w.

Mαяcιи n ® 10:03, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When opposing, please give your reasons. I'm interested to hear why you opposed this picture, but no others, shortly after its author opposed your map, above. --MichaelMaggs 11:54, 14 October 2007 (UTC)--MichaelMaggs 11:32, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When opposing, please give your reasons as a courtesy to the author. Lycaon 09:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 1 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 08:56, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hypsometric map of South America. Language: Polish

Mαяcιи n ® 19:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Support --

Mαяcιи n ® 19:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose Sloppy details from vector source (e.g. river lines end up beyond the land). Lycaon 20:33, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose - It is a nice map but not detailed enough or perfect enough to be featured. What is the map projection? And where is the graphical scale applicable (not everywhere, for this large area) ? - Alvesgaspar 23:17, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral –Why propose the PNG version when the SVG one already exists ? Fix the bugs on the SVG version and propose that one instead here because it's the one which will be used through the WPs. This PNG version hasn't a lot of value for the others WPs as it will be difficult to translate. Imo a FPC map / graphic has to be easily usable trough the other WPs to be featured here. I think also the State borders with the capitals would improve the map. Sting 13:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 09:04, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 09:03, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Montreal Canal de Lachine 1.jpg

[edit]

Montreal, Canal de Lachine

  •  Info created by Acarpentier - uploaded by Acarpentier - nominated by Acarpentier --Acarpentier 19:35, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Acarpentier 19:35, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Too dark, and composition wise not that good (too much water, left wondering what's at the top). I'll leave the wow complaint to others. Dori - Talk 19:52, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I love the colours, and it's sharp and detailed, but I wonder what this picture actually shows ? Benh 21:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry I dont know how to call this in english, but thanks for compliment. ;) Acarpentier 23:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      •  Info the name is gates lock.--Doalex 11:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Tu peux m'expliquer en français ? ;) En fait, je me demande à quoi sert la machine qu'on voit à droite. Benh 19:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        •  Info Bien sûr! C’est la vue du mur d’une écluse. Ce que l’on voit a droite est le moteur du volet droit, il y en a un autre identique de l’autre coté. Cette photo est prise au moment où les portes s’ouvrent et laisse le bassin s’équilibrer avec le niveau de l’eau. Acarpentier 23:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • D'accord ! Euh par contre je ne trouve pas la photo assez illustrative malgré ton explication (j'espère ne pas avoir l'air bête, ça va tout le monde ne lit pas le français ;) ). Est-ce bien l'autre porte qu'on voit à gauche au fond ? Il ne serait pas possible de prendre un peu plus (ou tout) de contexte autour ?? Benh 20:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • He he. Ça va, je ne prends pas ça personnel et au contraire de la plupart des gens d'ici, tu as des commentaires constructifs... le fait est que j’en ai pris où l’on voit tout le mur mais elle ne sont techniquement pas aussi bonne que celle-ci... ;) Acarpentier 01:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • C'est sûr qu'on peut être déçu, mais je crois qu'il ne faut pas le prendre trop trop sérieusement :) Il y a beaucoup de subjectivité mine de rien. Merci du compliment en tout cas. Peut-être que ça vaudrait la peine de retourner là bas, je trouve les couleurs vraiment jolies. Benh 10:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose - Yes, it is sharp and detailed but the subject and composition are not interesting or beautiful enough for FP. Au contraire, il me parait que vous prennez ce genre de commentaires comme personnels. Mon experience me dit que la chose la plus importante qu'on peut gagner ici c'est ce qu'on apprend avec les commentaires (même, ou surtout, les négatives) - Alvesgaspar 07:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Et bien je partage votre opinion au sujet des commentaires, mais seulement ceux qui sont constructifs. Et au sujet de la façon dont je les prends ces commentaires, vous avez droit à votre opinion même si vous vous tromper et a vrai dire, cela n’a guère d’importance. Cependant, merci pour vos commentaires au sujet de l’image, ceux-ci ont de l’importance et me sont utiles. ;)  ;) Acarpentier 13:57, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Definitly not for FP ;) Acarpentier 17:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]
result: 1 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 09:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Supposed to be white as it is. Muhammad Mahdi Karim 16:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 09:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Buche de bois avec des plombs.jpg

[edit]

Firewood with some gun pillet's

Ok, thanks. But weak than too.--Beyond silence 06:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, they are way less interesting than colourings pencils. Isn’t right Richard? Keep the instructive comments guys, thumbs up ;) Acarpentier 01:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Definitly not for FP ;) Acarpentier 17:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Short description

Delete?--Beyond silence 19:14, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment if you want to withdraw a nomination you should use {{withdraw|~~~~}}. Lycaon 20:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Dear Gnangarra. A oppose vote (or some) doesn't mean that the picture is ugly or not valueful. This is a very beautiful picture but it seems it has some technical weakenings. To send a deletion request is a wrong and emotional signal in my eyes. Here you have the great chance to learn and improve your photographer skills and everybody is helping you as good as they can. Imagine a poll where nobody takes a note of your picture ... that would be very frustrating and in that case I would send a deletion request to delete myself :) So please delete that request and surprise our nice community with another beautiful picture by your great gallery. Best regards --Richard Bartz 15:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose --Lestat 08:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When opposing, please give your reasons as a courtesy to the author. Lycaon 09:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 3 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. --Pumpmeup 04:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Alpine Ibex

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 13:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] 

result: FPX => not featured. --Pumpmeup 03:53, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Episyrphus balteatus 

result: 6 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. --Simonizer 07:28, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

  • Actually most of the overexposure is on the yellow stripes. And even for white parts, you can't really get absolute white when dealing with an imperfect camera and imperfect lighting conditions. Dori - Talk 15:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • But isn't this kind of overexpure acceptable ? because I guess lighting was intense and "specular light" (don't know how to call the reflections) couldn't be avoided without underexposing the others parts. Benh 21:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not on this kind of subject (easily reproduceable, could have shot it in shade, used a diffuser, could have done HDR, etc.), but obviously I'm the only one that thinks so. But my oppose is also due to the DOF. Dori - Talk 03:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 11 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. --Pumpmeup 04:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

damselfly 

result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. --Pumpmeup 03:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Short description 

result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured --Nattfodd 08:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Animation showing the construction of a Penrose Triangle in reality

 I withdraw my nomination Can do better Ixnay 17:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] 

result: withdrawn => not featured -- Lycaon 09:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Short description

  • D.o.n.e :) --22:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
result: 12 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured -- Lycaon 09:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Short description 

result: 17 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured -- Lycaon 09:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Glacier of Argentiere

  • Yes, sorry, I have some trouble when saving jpegs with Gimp, it seems not to write EXIF by default. This picture was taken on a tripod, with a Canon EF-S 17-55mm at 24 mm, f/8 (they say it's where the lense has it's best resolution), 1/250 sec and iso 100. Benh 21:17, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now that you've raised that point, I find it a little strange too. I wasn't shocked at first. I guess you are talking about the rocks which are the closest to us, on the bottom part. Most of my landscape pictures have white balance on a warm side (personal tastes) and that may explain the green rocks. I also use Canon's landscape picture style which emphasize blues and greens. But I don't believe my edits turned a gray rock into an almost green one. Unfortunately, I don't remember the original colours of the rocks. I made a reedit from the original RAW file with settings as neutral as possible, and they are already "greener" than other rocks. But if you talk about the whole picture, well I agree I chose to have it a bit warm. Too warm ? Let's see what other people think... I may make a reedit if it's worth it. Benh 13:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured -- Lycaon 09:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Bush Stone-curlew

All of my bird photos are of wild birds unless otherwise noted. In general, providing precise geocode info for breeding birds is inappropriate (these ones will be there again this year).--Glen Fergus 06:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the information. Geocodes are indeed not adviced for rare and/or protected species, but please indicate on the image page that the image was taken in the wild. Lycaon 15:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 8 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured -- Lycaon 09:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

original, overwritten nomination

Yes, a common jew is average without any happening or composition.--Beyond silence 08:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Should we say troll or ne'er do well ignorant school dropout? The Jews weren't very common after 6 million of them got slaughtered, and very few documents of life inside camps or ghettos survived the holocaust. --Pumpmeup 18:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For me, Warsaw Ghetto is not only a question of religion. My grandaunt Aurelia which was a orthodox romanian woman died in 1942 at Warsaw Ghetto. I think there are more drastic pictures available to show the naked misery of Warsaw Ghetto. --Richard Bartz 01:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 15:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Version - not featured

[edit]

Short description

  • I am no expert in photo enchantment, that is why I asked Graphics Lab for help, which they kindly provided. But if anybody else would like to have a try at restoration of this photo please go ahead. --Jarekt 01:49, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. --Digon3 talk 13:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Chloé.jpg

[edit]


 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 19:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] 

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => Not featured --Richard Bartz 18:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Passer melanurus.jpg

[edit]

Short description 

Result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 2 neutral, Image withdrawn by nominator => Not featured --Richard Bartz 18:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Lwów - Widok z wieży ratuszowej 01.jpg, not delisted

[edit]

Short description 

result: 14 keep, 4 delist => Not delisted. -- Slaunger 22:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Bayeux-crypte1.JPG,second delist nomination, delisted

[edit]

Short description 

result: 7 Delist, 0 Keep -->delisted --Mr. Mario (talk) 03:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:PotsdamSanssouciChineseHouse.jpg, delisted

[edit]

Short description 

result: 1 keep, 6 delist => delisted. -- Slaunger 22:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Agasthiyamalai range and Tirunelveli rainshadow.jpg, delisted

[edit]

Short description 

result: 0 keep, 5 delist => delisted -- Slaunger 22:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:European-parliament-strasbourg.jpg, delisted

[edit]
result: 0 keep, 5 delist => delisted -- Slaunger 22:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Featured picture candidates/removal/Image:Caspar David Friedrich - Der Wanderer über dem Nebelmeer.jpg

Image:Sunset hdr.jpg, delisted

[edit]

Short description 

result: 0 keep, 5 delist => delisted -- Slaunger 22:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Damselfly September 2007 Osaka Japan.jpg not delisted

[edit]

Short description 

result: 8 keep, 2 delist 0> not delisted. -- Slaunger 22:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Windsurf legend Robby Naish riding waves on the island of Sylt, Germany 

result: 15 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral => featured -- Lycaon 09:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Windsurf legend Robby Naish riding waves on the island of Sylt, Germany (edit 1)

  •  Comment added an edit which has gone through PS noise reduction and sharpening; original is very noise heavy --Aqwis 11:07, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I can't see much improvement, there are lots of JPEG compression artifacts now. --тнояsтеn ⇔ 12:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Look closely at his face in this versus the original, see the difference? Also, look closely just about anywhere on the picture, see those tiny little boxes? That's from jpeg compression. Something in your editing process is damaging your pictures. I hate to admit it now, but when I first started taking pictures I used MS Paint to do most of the editing. Took a while to realize how much it screwed up the end result. Calibas 19:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is odd, because i didn't use Paint, i used Photoshop, and saved at JPEG quality twelve. Aka the max setting, which i don't think should create any JPEG artifacts. --Aqwis 20:24, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes things like too much contrast, a change in color balance, or over editing makes them stand out. Calibas 21:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 0 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured -- Cecil 03:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Diagonals showing centre of image
Bounding box, and length lines
  •  Neutral for now. This is a amazing shot but it could be more perfect. The pencils are not all focused (why such a small F number?) and there are some highlights. I wonder if a lighter background would result better. But I like the idea very much and hope that Michael improve the picture a bit... Alvesgaspar 20:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral Same as Alvesgaspar. Acarpentier 21:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral I could copy Alvesgaspar's comment and paste it verbatim here (except for the background which is nice to me) I like the idea and even though it's a bit picky, I'd preder the mentionned issues being fixed (shouldn't be difficult for still subjects). Benh 22:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The lens was focussed very carefully on the plane defined by the pencil tips; ie just above the background but below the level of the pencil sides. --MichaelMaggs 13:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
it still doesn't look very crisp, which is kind of a shame given the (I guess) conditions under which this picture was taken, and given the camera used. Actually, this doesn't matter that much (it doesn't kill what the picture is great for), and I'll probably support, but that was just because I believe it can be fixed easily. Benh 20:33, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you look at my edit, you'll see that a cropping of about 18px from the right and 9px from the top would bring it more in center. As this is so minor, I'll just go neutral. Dori - Talk 18:06, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry - cropping at the top and right by the pixel amounts you suggest produces an image-centre which is very obviously some way from the centre of the circle. The image is better left as it is. I'll just have to live with your neutral vote. --MichaelMaggs 20:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it can be fixed easily ans doesn't take that much time, why shouldn't we ask ? it's not like author needs to go out and wait (potentially 3 days it seems) until subjects are in place ;) Benh 20:38, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 12 support, 1 oppose, 3 neutral => featured -- Lycaon 09:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Rosa canina

  •  Oppose Agree with other opposers ; flower leds my eye to the left, and there's nothing but the border to see... Pity because very nice otherwise. Benh 20:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support I made an attemps of reedit at home, similar to that one, and ended up in thinking that it was too centered which is why I didn't uploaded it. However, I think it's much better ; very bioutiful colours ! Benh 20:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

noise and posterization

glowing edges

not sure what this is

These are all crops from the picture viewed at 100%. I've seen many pictures get stomped for much less. Also, though, what about the rest of the picture? The leaves have ugly brown spots, the flower casts a distracting shadow over some of the leaves, one of the petals has bite-mark looking indentations on it, the center looks too bright, and the focus isn't that great. FP has high standards, and that's great, but this picture isn't getting the usual level of scrutiny. --JaGa 06:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] 

result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured --Laitche 06:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Colepsis longidens, also known as ogrefishes Colepsis longidens, also known as ogrefishes

Original (left)

[edit]

::* Comment It contains scientific information. Please specific. I'ma Marine Biologist Specialist. Lyacon, you can check the terminology here. thanks --libertad0 ॐ 15:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment that's a common translation slip. In spanish we say "olfatorio", not "olfactorio". -- Drini 13:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, granted, but that doesn't make it less wrong ;-). Lycaon 20:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 5 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured --Laitche 06:18, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative (right)

[edit]
result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured --Laitche 06:16, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

[edit]

The images contain lots of mistakes.

  1. What is indicated as the vertebral column is actually a bony fortified sideline.
  2. The Weberian apparatus is not visible on the drawing.
  3. The palatoquadrate is misspelled and wrongly represented. Here it looks as if it is hollow.
  4. The mandibulare (mandibular arch) is incompletely indicated: the part underneath also belongs to it.
  5. The orbitale (orbital) is missing.
  6. The operculare is not indicated.
  7. Neither is the pectoral girdle.
  8. The so called median fin is a dorsal fin.
  9. Anal fins are not indicated.
  10. The caudal fin is twice indicated.
  11. ...

Generally, the parts indicated are mostly not discernible on the image as it is too stylized, the sources for the image are not given and the accompanying text is incoherent and inconsistent. Back to the drawing board I guess... Lycaon 19:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thaks lycaon, but my english tecnical is low. I undestand but I can´t to make that changes in the image text. --libertad0 ॐ 13:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because there are much more problems with the drawing than just the labelling. It looks nice and it is well drawn, but it has little value because of all the biological related errors. Lycaon 13:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Short description 

result: 0 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured --Laitche 17:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

short description 

result: 10 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured --Laitche 17:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Bombus terrestris Bombus terrestris Bombus terrestris

[edit]
  •  Info Bumblebees are fascinating social insects belonging to the same family as honeybees (Apidae). They form annual colonies with only matted queens surviving the winter, to start a new one. This worker, a Bombus terrestris, is probably enjoying the last weeks of its life. No surprise that there are only two bumblebee FP in Commons (this one and this one), for it is very difficult to get a sharp picture of this hairy and restless creature. I took dozens of them... Created and nominated by Alvesgaspar 12:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Alvesgaspar 12:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Question Bely Bely nice :) before supporting, because I will probably, I just wonder if you don't have something which shows more of the head. The angle of view kind of frustrate me (I want to see more) Benh 19:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Answer - Yes I have, but the pictures are not good enough (please check my Wasps and bees gallery). The problem is the head is completely black (see here and here. Only with controlled conditions (an inert insect and artificial lighting) it would be possible to get some detail there. An even worse case is Xylocopa violacea (here), I have several photos of that creature and nome of them will probably pass the QIC barrier... Alvesgaspar 20:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured --Laitche 14:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]
result: 2 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured --Laitche 14:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]
  •  Info - The second and last alternative, with the head a little more visible - Alvesgaspar 08:39, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support - Alvesgaspar 08:39, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support I prefer this one because it very clearly illustrates how these bees "cheat" to get nectar from flowers. Calibas 19:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support This is my favorite one, I like how the bee holds the 'thing' :) Benh 20:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support (but only just!) I very much like the colours, the composition and the burglar story behind it, but the structure of the hairs (and that is visible on most of your otherwise very good insect pictures) is bugging me. There is a certain shimmer/artificial pattern on them. Is it due to oversharpening or is it the lens? I don't know. Anyway scrapes through to FP for me. Lycaon 15:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Info - It is due to poor lighting. To be able to shoot with a small aperture and a relatively large shuter speed (both things are necessary) I have to count on direct sunlight and the camera flash, which makes the picture overcontrasted and causes reflexes in the hair. The solution (with living and nervous creatures) is a more sophisticated light source, like serious entomologist photographers use. With more letargic insects (by cold or ... death) everything is a lot easier - Alvesgaspar 16:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Oh, and BTW, to the other supporters: it is a bumblebee, NOT a bee ( says the biologist :)). Lycaon 15:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 6 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured --Laitche 14:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Original version

[edit]

Old version

  •  Comment - I don't understand the animation. The Mandelbrot set is the inside of the bug-like figure, where the complex equation converges, and it is normally painted black. It is the outside of the figure which is normally represented in various colours, depending on the number of iterations needed for the equation to diverge. Alvesgaspar 20:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are referring to so called "escape algorithm" used to produce still images, where color is assigned to number of iterations it took for the equation to diverge to infinity, and black color is used for regions that never diverge. Here I am plotting a much simpler quantity: the actual values of the equation at the first 20 iterations. The deep blue region "squeezing" in the boundaries of the fractal is the diverged region. The colors inside the fractal show how the equation changes at each iteration. I guess you can thing about this plot as the other half of the story from what you usually see. See code for more details. --Jarekt 03:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
done see below--Jarekt 12:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured --Laitche 15:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Mandelbrot Creation Animation (800x600).gif

[edit]

New version

[edit]

Short description

  •  Oppose - Sorry Jarekt, but the story told by the animation is not very interesting. From the 6th to the 20th frames, the image seems to oscillate between two patterns only. Yes, there are differences in the detail but those are too subtle to be noticed at first sight. I really would like to support this animation and I believe there should be some way to make it a little more dramatic - Alvesgaspar 20:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Agree wist Alvesgaspar --Karelj 21:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Sorry, but I'm not following what you mean by "the value of the equation". If it means that you instantiate the variable(s?), then it's not an equation anymore... I'm not trying to be pedantic, I just want to be sure I understand how this works. Also, if the coordinates represent the real and imaginary value of z, then how does c vary? If there are different values on different images, it should be made clear. I will consider changing this to a support if a clear and simple explanation of what is going on is added to the image description. --Nattfodd 22:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's much better and I think I more or less understand what is now going on, but the explanation still seems to be far from "clear" to someone with no mathematical background. It could probably use a rewrite, for instance putting the explanation of the other method to the end (or completely removing it), making more clear what varies in the different images from the beginning of the explanation, etc. For instance, I think it would be much better to speak of the sequence "z_{n+1} = z_n^2 + c" and then add a label saying z_1, z_2, ... on each frame. What you then mean by "the first 20 iterations of the equation" would become much easier to understand, and you could add that it (sometimes) converges towards a fixpoint which is the solution to the equation. --Nattfodd 10:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Personally, I think the story told by this animation is interesting - it shows that the iterations oscillate between different "classes". The way that the number of dark regions around the edge, just inside the main fractal boundary, increases from frame to frame is also interesting. Just look at how there is a dark spot in the left hand bulge every two frames, spots in the upper and lower lobes every three frames, sports in the next heirachy of lobes every four frames, and then next every fifth and so on. I consider this hidden (you don't see this in a standard, black-inside Brot) pattern that we are being shown to be more interesting than the iterations going wild and doing all sorts of crazy stuff.
As for the description, here's a minor rewrite that doesn't make any different points but presents the points already there a little more clearly (in my opinion). I think that I have got the meaning of the graphic right, but if I haven't, I apologise.

An animated diagram showing iterations of the equation used to generate the Mandelbrot set, a fractal first studied by Benoît Mandelbrot. The animation shows the values of Z for first 20 iterations of the equation

where c is a complex variable.

Mandelbrot set graphics are usually generated using the so-called "escape algorithm", where color is assigned according to the number of iterations it took for the equation to diverge past a pre-set limit, and black color is used for regions that never diverge. This, however, is a plot of a much simpler quantity: the actual values of the equation at the first 20 iterations. Every pixel in the image corresponds to a different value of a complex constant c ranging from -2.2 to 1 on the real axis (horizontal) and from -1.2i to 1.2i on the imaginary axis (vertical). Z is initialized to 0. At each iteration, the next value of Z is calculated using the equation above.

This graphic was generated with 13 lines of code in the R language (see below for the code). For each point, the magnitude of Z is calculated, than scaled using an exponential function to emphasise fine detail, and finally mapped to color palette (jetColors). Dark red is a very low number, dark blue is a very high number. The deep blue region "squeezing" in the boundaries of the fractal is the region where Z value diverges to very large numbers (which will eventually go to infinity, given enough iterations). The colors inside the fractal shows the absolute Z value at each value of c at each iteration. --Inductiveload 22:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for rewrite, I like it much better than my version. I added it to the graphics description. The only minor differences are in the last 2 sentences. Diverging to infinity (as far as computer accuracy is concerned) happens very fast for some points. Last paragraph talks sometimes about absolute value and sometimes about magnitude of complex numbers, but they are two names of the same quantity. Thanks again--Jarekt 13:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At one point in the description is calls c a complex constant, shouldn't this be complex variable? Calibas 03:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so. It's not varying in the equation itself, we just happen to study several equations which all have a different value for c, but it doesn't itself vary inside the study. --Nattfodd 07:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 4 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured --Laitche 15:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Short description 

result: 1 support, 3 oppose => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) --Nattfodd 21:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Castle Geyser

  • I'm not sure if I get your question right, but I don't have a tilt/shift lens if that's what you mean. Otherwise maybe someone could explain it to me (in German?) --Flicka 16:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Or do you a mean a perspective correction cause of the wide angle? Yes, I made a correction on Photoshop, but I don't know how to call the tool in English (in German its "Perspektivisch Verzerren"). But as far as I know, "tilt" has something to do with a changed DOF and not with a perspective correction. --Flicka 19:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think there is a tilt. I thought there was when I was editing then I found out that it's only the hills that look like tilted. Look at the people on the right side, they are perfectly vertical and the forest on the left is horizontal. --Arad 22:02, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • So this is what you mean with "tilt"... Okay, to be honest, the picture has had a tilt before, but I made a correction, and the people where the only object in the picture that were suppposed to be vertical so I took them for orientation. But maybe they were all drunk, so I can't be sure that the picture is correct now. ;-) In fact there was no time to take a tripod. --Flicka 18:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 9 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Cecil 03:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Castle Geyser

  •  Info created by Flicka - uploaded by Calibas - nominated by Calibas --Calibas 03:58, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I managed to squeeze a little more sharpness out of it. Calibas 03:58, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Again one of those forced nominations, where quality is such that the picture is beyond fixing (unless you rescale it to 600x800 and that's only half of where you are now!!). These pictures will still look great in wikipedia articles, but for an FP, much more (technical) quality is required. I oppose for lack of details (combination of noise and oversharpening) and the small size (the ever shrinking image: 2592 × 3888 -> 1800 × 2700 -> 1333 × 2000 -> 1155 × 1733). Lycaon 05:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Both pics are great. The composition and color are gorgeous, I don't see problems with noise or oversharpening, and they both still exceed 2 megapixels. --JaGa 07:04, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Cecil 03:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Great Egret (Ardea Alba) 

result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Cecil 03:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Short description

Epitoke means the reproductive form. They come swarming to the surface synchronized by the phases of the moon.
  •  Neutral  Support quality is great. Things i am not sure abt are: 1) Is gif the right filetype for such animations? 2) A explanation in the summary telling what this animal is doing there would be helpful. Is it constantly moving this way or is it sth special that it is doing? --AngMoKio 16:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you never give reasons when you oppose? --MichaelMaggs 21:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Cecil 03:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Peablue (Lampides boeticus) Peablue (Lampides boeticus)

[edit]
  • That's a compliment. Thank you. --Laitche 21:11, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you want to sneak up on butterflies you gotta move slowly and watch where your shadow goes. They normally spot your shadow before they see you. If you don't mind looking ridiculous you can use the praying mantis' trick and sway back and forth while you move closer, I've gotten close enough to touch them with my hand this way. Calibas 03:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Cecil 03:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]
result: 3 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Cecil 03:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not featured because the other version got more support and this one not enough votes anyway. -- Cecil 03:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Morcom Rose Garden 

result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Cecil 03:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Short description 

result: 17 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Cecil 03:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

The Navy Ceremonial Guard

Done. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie 14:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Cecil 03:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Short description

  •  Info Summit of Mt Fatima (highest on the photo), slightly above 6000m, and Mt Chachani (to the left, seems a bit lower), 6075m high, the highest of the three volcanoes above Arequipa, Peru, in october 2007. The path to reach the summit can be seen, going almost to the top of Mt Fatima first. Despite the altitude, the mountain is almost entirely free of snow at this time of year, mainly due to the dry climate of the area.
  •  Info created, uploaded and nominated by Nattfodd --Nattfodd 18:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Nattfodd 18:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose The changes in colour seem to harsh. Either the lighting was so strong and/or the image is underexposed. Pardon my ignorance, I do not know much about the area, but this I do not believe is up to FP quality. Was the sun very bright? (as in: did you have to wear sunglasses) Freedom to share 19:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, I had to (and my eyes were still sore all day long). Altitude + not being too far away from the ozone hole (according to the guide) makes for a really harsh light. I assume that by "change in colour" you mean changes of luminosity. The bright red and yellow colors are common in all this desert area (probably due to high levels of iron, but I'm no geologist). --Nattfodd 19:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral Good shot! May if overexposed snow fixed can be FP (some weak sharpening can be good too). --Beyond silence 20:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see any overexposition of snow. After a careful check, it turned out no more than a couple of isolated pixels were pure white. And the general brightness comes, well, from harsh sun on white snow. --Nattfodd 16:14, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  SupportGreat picture with much detail Muhammad Mahdi Karim 15:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose (Mais je peux changer d'avis ;)). Because of the strange artifacts on the bottom right area : it looks like an oil painting. Where does that come from ? I also find the dark shadow a bit disturbing. Otherwise, I like the colours a lot, they remind me the LucaG touch a little :) Benh 09:40, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, which artifacts are you talking about? I would believe this is simply what rocks would look like when slightly out of focus (despite f/20, focus was on infinity and those rocks were a few meters away from me). Sharpening was very light on this one, so I don't think it's responsible for this. --Nattfodd 10:39, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • when I look closely at the lower part area, I see small uniform surfaces, a bit like an impressionist paint (Don't know how to describe better). It's more obvious on the ice. Am I seeing things ?? Benh 10:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral although an absolutely f***ing brilliant shot, technical quality is lacking. --Pumpmeup 03:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Jon Harald Søby 10:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Nice picture... congrats! —the preceding unsigned comment was added by Tomascastelazo (talk • contribs)
  •  Oppose Harsh light. Lycaon 18:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Among the many things photography does is to transport people to places where otherwise one would not go or is extremely difficult to do so. Technically speaking, one can find lots of fault in this and many photographs around here (but that is not my opinion in this one). It is easy to wait for "perfect" conditions in easy to get places, but that is not the case in this one. The merit of this photograph resides in the fact that it is a well composed, well exposed photograph with knowledge/encyclopedic value of a place that is not "around the corner". And BTW, good thing about including a human figure to convey scale and proportion...--Tomascastelazo 19:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Karelj 17:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Harsh lighting, too much contrast. Dori - Talk 01:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 2 neutral => not featured. Cecil 03:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Not only the snow need correction? --Beyond silence 07:54, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Cecil 03:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Brown Pelican 

result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Cecil 03:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Pyrrhocoris apterus

What can be special in the nature for you? --Beyond silence 08:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 9 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Cecil 03:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Markham-suburbs id.jpg

[edit]

Stand of a bouquiniste, in Paris

  •  Info created, uploaded and nominated by -- Benh 10:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Info This is a stand of a bouquiniste. In french, it means a second-hand book reseller. In Paris, this kind of stand is mainly found on banks of the Seine river, in the very heart of Paris. Though they originally sold books (and are still required to sell mostly old books), they are a place of choice for finding souvenirs. To me, they are a landmark of Paris. Benh 10:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Wonder how this kind of picture will be received -- Benh 10:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Nice clean shot, well composed and interesting subject. Just wondering if there might be some copyright issues with the covers of all the books (I don't think so, but French law is so fucked up, especially for those image right issues, that we'd better be cautious). --Nattfodd 10:45, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Info As far as I know, it should be OK for two reasons at least : 1. right of quotation (droit de citation) which gives people the right to show part of a copyrighted stuff for information purpose. 2. each book is taken in a larger context, and are therefore not the main subject of the image. Benh 10:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 2 neutral => featured. Cecil 04:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hoverfly (Eristalinus taeniops) Hoverfly (Eristalinus taeniops) Hoverfly (Eristalinus taeniops)

[edit]
result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Cecil 04:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

 I don't want to spam anybody, I apologize. Sorry not to withdraw the original, but the nomination is not mine - Alvesgaspar 11:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] 

result: Withdrawn => not featured. Cecil 04:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

 I don't want to spam anybody, I apologize. Sorry not to withdraw the original, but the nomination is not mine - Alvesgaspar 12:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] 

result: Withdrawn => not featured. Cecil 04:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Window of a monastery church in Germany

Did you take a photo on them? It's not really hard, only need set the expose to dark to make the window not overexposed. --Beyond silence 07:49, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Info Ok, thanks for all the assistance. I think you are right, it is the perspectivity. I couldn't stand in the needed height. But I liked the clear colors and tried my best. To tell the truth I like my version with the broader black frame better. Perhaps I'll get a second chance to take a better one. --JuliusR 20:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think not the height is the problem. May you stand a bit right from the window. --Beyond silence 07:47, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Great image and colours SRauz 21:35, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support tilt, schmilt. It invokes a reaction from the viewer --Pumpmeup 03:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Thumbnail doesn't do it justice, I didn't think I would support until opening it at full res ! Benh 10:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Winiar✉ 16:26, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Very good image… Photographic technique is good enough to the point where it can convey the beauty of the subject itself, which is, after all, the important thing. The real object of critique here, for me, is not whether the image is a pixel off or tilted a degree or so, too much dark around, etc., but the object itself, its value, and the recognition of the people who created it, not necessarily the skill of the photographer, which in this case is good enough. The photograph in this instance, is just a medium, a window between the viewer and the landscape. Any experienced photographer knows that the best conditions for a great picture are almost never there, so one must shoot to get the best possible under existing conditions. Shooting inside churches is shooting in a down to up direction most of the time, and convengence or tilt down is almost always there. Congratulations!--Tomascastelazo 16:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support - Tomascastelazo dixit - Alvesgaspar 16:50, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support per Tomascastelazo --Aqwis 12:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support without a lifting ramp you cant do it better --Simonizer 11:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I have to thank all of you. It is a great community we are a part of. I'm quite fascinated by the comment of Tomascastelazo. You made me think about the way I judge pictures. That's great. A good motivation to go out and create more little pieces of art with my camera. --JuliusR 12:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 13 support, 1 oppose, 2 neutral => featured. Cecil 04:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Caucasus Mountains in Svanetia 

result: 0 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Cecil 04:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Short description 

result: 21 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Cecil 04:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Neon

With all do respect to the below discussion, I would point to the fact that the image is obviously misleading: it supposed to associate the name of gas neon with its emission, but it does not - neon emission is never white, but is orange-red. Materialscientist (talk) 10:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] 

result: 14 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Cecil 04:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Short description 

result: 8 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Cecil 04:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

 result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured (rule of the 5th day). Cecil 04:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]
[edit]

Sunflower (Helianthus L) 

result: 7 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Cecil 04:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Sunflower (Edit by Yzmo)

Noise (mainly in sky) wait for fixed too. --Beyond silence 19:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] 

result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (rule of the 5th day) Cecil 04:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

A morning stroll in the harbor. 

result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 3 neutral => not featured (not enough supporting votes). Cecil 04:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Perisphinctes sp.3 - Jurasico.JPG, not featured

[edit]

Perisphinctes sp. fossil in a laboratory of practices of the Faculty of Sciences of the University of Corunna

Sorry, you should try Commons:Quality images candidates first!--Beyond silence 12:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] 

result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Cecil 04:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:BaldEagleCircles.jpg

[edit]

Wild Bald Eagle

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: too grainy. 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.

And I'm afraid it is beyond fixing. Lycaon 22:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

(Old Version) Schematic Diagram of a Bicycle (New Version) Schematic Diagram of a Bicycle

Please start a new vote for the green bike. If that one get featured too, this one get delistet. But the votes here don't get devolved to the green bike, since the people who voted have just seen the blue one. So if you really want to delete the blue bike, be aware that you ask for the deletion of a featured picture and that the FP state can't just be transferred to a picture of your choice. -- Cecil 06:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the rules and will propose the image on the right, which is different only because of the image title. As I can see in the votes, voters did not support or oppose because of the color of the bicycle. The image artifact is the same, only color changes because old color could interfere with readability as I explained in one comment above. --Al2 15:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 8 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Cecil 06:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/Log/October_2007&oldid=123169224"